March 11th, 2018

Really Rapid Review — CROI 2018, Boston

The 25th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) just wrapped up in warm, sunny Boston.

Everyone in attendance took advantage of the fine March weather to get some much-needed sun, to feel the sand between their toes, to sip a tropical drink, and to hear the latest in HIV research.

Well, the last part was true — CROI clearly remains our best meeting, the only one that brings together so much high quality research from so many disciplines. Clinical, basic, and behavioral researchers all have a place here.

And though the meeting was bookended by a pair of Nor’easters — the one at the start was a whopper, I thought my dog Louie would blow away in the wind — the weather during most of the conference was actually not bad at all.

On to some highlights, a Really Rapid Review®, with apologies ahead of time for the poor organization. As always, feel free to write in the comments section any important studies I might have missed.

The dates of CROI are no longer a tightly kept secret (hooray!), so we already know that next year’s meeting will be in Seattle, March 4-7, 2019.

As for here in Boston, we’re getting ready for our next big storm.

So what did I miss?

5 Responses to “Really Rapid Review — CROI 2018, Boston”

  1. Cost of Rifapentine remains an issue but BRIEF-TB/A5279 is an exciting study.

  2. Nicolás Merchante says:

    Thanks for (as always) wonderful review. In spite of my conflict of interest (I’m the 1st author), let me suggest abstract 644. US Surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma often fails and did not translate into earlier diagnosis in HIV+ patients from the @GEHEP_ 002 cohort. Other options needed!

  3. Santiago says:

    There was a big controversy about a cellular marker for HIV reservoir. It started with a Nature paper by Descours B et al in 2017 showing CD32+ cells harbored replication-competent virus (the group had shown their results at CROI previously). However in the last session of CROI 2018 there were 4 abstracts showing quite the opposite. A group (abstract 391 by Louise Hogan et al from San Francisco) showed that CD30 could be a better marker. They even tried an anti-CD30 (brentuximab) showing a remarkable effect ex-vivo. They discussed that CD32 seems more a marker of activation related to virus replication that a marker of reservoir.

    I think the reservoir is sometimes sneering at us…

  4. Gary Spinner says:

    Hi Paul,
    Love seeing your highlights and as an attendee of CROI, always fascinating to see the take-aways from others and how some differ from my own.

    I thought the Borducchi study on PG 121 and GS 9620 as a potential cure in monkeys was really exciting. I did not see the part in either the abstract or during the presentation where the adoptive transfer of lymph node cells were transferred to other macaques, and wonder where that part was presented. Thanks so much.

  5. Les Linares-Hengen says:

    Thanks for the update! Always appreciated!

Leave a Reply

Note: This is a moderated forum. By clicking on the "Submit Comment" button below, you agree to abide by the NEJM Journal Watch Terms of Use.

Our physician bloggers cannot respond to requests for personal medical advice, and recommend patients discuss health issues with their individual physicians.

HIV Information: Author Paul Sax, M.D.

Paul E. Sax, MD

Contributing Editor

NEJM Journal Watch
Infectious Diseases

Biography | Disclosures | Summaries

Learn more about HIV and ID Observations.