An ongoing dialogue on HIV/AIDS, infectious diseases,
July 1st, 2012
“HAART Era” Now Longer Than “Pre-HAART Era” — Can We Officially Retire “HAART”?
As I’ve shared before, I’m no fan of the term “HAART” and do everything I can to stop people from using it.
(I’m a fun guy to have at parties.)
I’m returning to this pet peeve of mine because I realized recently that we’ve passed a milestone of sorts:
- Period of no effective HIV treatment, 15 years (1981-1996)
- Period of effective HIV treatment, 16 years (1996-2012)
I came to this realization while reviewing a manuscript on an HIV-related complication. The author repeatedly (and at great length) described how this complication had changed with the “advent of HAART” (cringe) –incidence down, prognosis better, management altered. There were many comparisons between the “pre-HAART era” and the “post-HAART era”, even a separate table on the differences.
Of historical interest, yes, but hardly earth-shattering news at this point , and not of much practical use to the reader –pretty much everything changed with effective HIV treatment.
The bottom line is that HIV-related complications should be considered now only in the context of patients who are receiving, or who are about to receive, antiretroviral therapy. In other words, describing how to manage HIV-related complications without HIV treatment would be like an endocrinologist describing management of Type 1 diabetes complications without insulin.
So since HIV treatment is now the new normal — becoming more so with each passing year — let’s just call it antiretroviral therapy, and assume that it’s standard of care to give the highly active kind.
And if you want to abbreviate it, “ART” will do just fine.
Categories: Health Care, HIV, Patient Care
Tags: antiretroviral therapy, complications, HIV
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
6 Responses to ““HAART Era” Now Longer Than “Pre-HAART Era” — Can We Officially Retire “HAART”?”
Paul E. Sax, MD
Contributing Editor
NEJM Journal Watch
Infectious Diseases
Biography | Disclosures | Summaries
Learn more about HIV and ID Observations.
Follow HIV and ID Observations Posts via Email
- Dr. Thomas O’Brien — Expert in Antimicrobial Resistance and Giant in His Field (Literally)
- Who’s Going to Get Lenacapavir for HIV Prevention?
- Some ID Things to Be Grateful for This Holiday Season — 2024 Edition
- Marking a Social Media Mass Migration — Until the Next One
- Brave New Name — How PCP Became PJP and Why It Matters
- ID Cartoon Caption Contest (125)
- ID Cartoon Caption Contest #2 Winner — and a New Contest for the Holidays (92)
- Dear Nation — A Series of Apologies on COVID-19 (80)
- How to Induce Rage in a Doctor (77)
- IDSA’s COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Highlight Difficulty of “Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There” (74)
-
NEJM Journal Watch — Recent Infectious Disease Articles
- When it Comes to Antimicrobial Stewardship, Is a Boost Better Than a Nudge?
- HIV Prevention and Treatment: Updated Recommendations from the International AIDS Society–USA
- Observations from ID and Beyond: Dr. Thomas O'Brien — Expert in Antimicrobial Resistance and Giant in His Field (Literally)
- How Serious Is Artemisinin Partial Resistance in African Malaria Parasites?
- Observations from ID and Beyond: Who's Going to Get Lenacapavir for HIV Prevention?
-
Tag Cloud
- Abacavir AIDS antibiotics antiretroviral therapy ART atazanavir baseball Brush with Greatness CDC C diff COVID-19 CROI darunavir dolutegravir elvitegravir etravirine FDA HCV hepatitis C HIV HIV cure HIV testing ID fellowship ID Learning Unit Infectious Diseases influenza Link-o-Rama lyme disease MRSA PEP Policy PrEP prevention primary care raltegravir Really Rapid Review resistance Retrovirus Conference rilpivirine sofosbuvir TDF/FTC tenofovir Thanksgiving vaccines zoster
I think the abbreviation ‘cART’ works very well, too.
Dr. Sax,
I have been using the abbreviated version, “ART” for several years now when speaking with fellow HIV patients and my own physicians. Mainly because I have never heard of a low-active antiretroviral therapy (LAART or LOL)! Thanks for providing a rationale for this.
Peace,
Ken
Sir, Starting early HAART, HAART for people above CD4 count 500, HAART for all antenatal mothers when their CD4 is above 500, treatment for ccute infection, PrEP—- Are we going in right direction? Or are we making their system including bone marrow,liver, kidney, nervous system, alimentary system, bones, metabolism of the body get spoiled earlier. It is the time to reconsider. I think everything went alright even before when the HAART started after CD4 less than 350. We are making the people to suffer with problems other than AIDS. We are also spoiling very good drugs earlier with the development of mutations. Are we not?
HAART has been used to differentiate more efficacious triple or quadruple drug therapy from monotherapy, which was used in the early treatment days.
Since multi-drug therapy has been the standard of care for well over a decade and monotherapy is no longer used, “HAART” is a passe term. I too believe it can reasonably be retired.
I’ll never say or write HAART again and ask that newspaper writers immediately retire the melodramatic “full-blown AIDS” and the “cocktail” too.
Excellent words of wisdom, Dr. Sax. Time to retire the “HAART” usage.. Any news on the revision of PEP guidelines?? Was topic of previous blog, but haven’t heard any more about it..