Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific CVD risk calculation for the population of HIV-positive adults in UK. The Framingham CVD risk calculator works reasonably well in HIV-positive populations, although it is worth noting that it was not developed for use in non-white groups. Other algorithms may be better suited to these populations. A CVD risk Pifithrin-�� chemical structure calculator has been developed for use in HIV-positive populations (http://www.chip.dk/TOOLS) [12], although it should be noted that this provides 5-year risk estimates rather than the usual 10-year estimates. Alternatively,

the QRISK calculator (http://www.qrisk.org) or the QIntervention tool (http://qintervention.org), which also provides an estimate of selleck chemicals the risk of developing type II diabetes, can be used. There are insufficient data to inform whether CVD risk should affect the decision to start ART. The SMART trial provides the only randomized data about the effect of ART on CVD risk, but was not powered for a CVD endpoint. Fewer major CVD events were observed in the viral suppression arm but the difference was not statistically significant [13]. In a post hoc analysis, HIV VL <400 copies/mL was associated with

fewer CVD events suggesting that suppression of viraemia may have been protective; CD4 cell count was not significantly associated with CVD events [14, 15]. Several cohort studies have examined changes in rate of cardiovascular events in HIV-positive populations over time since the introduction of ART but no clear protective effect was found [16-19]. In the HIV Outpatients Study cohort, baseline CD4 cell count <350 cells/μL was associated with increased CVD risk, but 350–500 cells/μL and use of ART were not; in a parallel case–control study, triclocarban cases were more likely to have a current (but not baseline or nadir) CD4 cell count of 350–500 cells/μL [20]. The Data Collection on Adverse events of Anti-HIV Drugs

(D:A:D) study found that untreated patients had a lower incidence of MI than those on ART [21] and risk increased with longer exposure to combination therapy [22]. While there is uncertainty as to whether treating HIV infection reduces CVD risk, there is good evidence from RCTs that interventions targeted at modifiable CVD risk factors are of benefit. For this reason, all HIV-positive adults should be assessed for CVD risk annually and interventions targeted at improving modifiable risk factors. We suggest avoiding ABC (2C), FPV/r (2C) and LPV/r (2C) in patients with a high CVD risk, if acceptable alternative ARV drugs are available. Number of patients with high CVD risk on either ABC or FPV/r or LPV/r and record of rationale.