In a setting in which the rate of mother-to-child HBV transmission was low with the administration of hepatitis B immune globulin and hepatitis B vaccine in infants born to HBeAg-positive mothers, the additional maternal use of TDF did not result in a significantly lower rate of transmission. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01745822 .).

Aims To assess the possible role of virus infection in patients with unexplained anterior uveitis (AU). Methods Intraocular fluid and plasma samples of 30 HIV-negative AU patients who were unresponsive or poorly responsive to topical steroid therapy were analyzed for nucleic acid of cytomegalovirus (CMV), herpes simplex virus (HSV), and varicella zoster virus (VZV) by realtime polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and for intraocular antibodies against these viruses by Goldmann-Witmer coefficient (GWC) analysis. Of these 30 cases, 21 were tested for rubella virus by GWC analysis, 16 of which also had PCR assessment of aqueous for rubella virus. Results Viral uveitis determined by either real-time PCR and/or GWC was documented in 20 out of 30 patients (67%). Of 30 paired samples tested by both methods for HSV, CMV, and VZV, 15 showed positive results (CMV (10), HSV (4), and VZV (1)). Real-time PCR was positive in 8/15 (53%), whereas GWC was positive in 10/15 (67%). Out of 10 CMV-positive patients, four had endotheliitis, two had Posner-Schlossman syndrome, and one Fuchs heterochromic uveitis syndrome (FHUS). Five out of 21 (24%) samples tested by GWC for Rubella virus were positive, three of which exhibited clinical features of FHUS. Conclusions Our results indicate that CMV is a major cause of AU in Thailand and show that FHUS can be caused by both CMV and Rubella virus.

The spectrum of uveitis in northern Thailand included 27% of HIV-infected patients with cytomegalovirus retinitis. Causes of non-HIV uveitis were similar to those often observed in the Far East, but the specific prevalences of these disorders were distinct from that found in India and Japan.

Using a randomized controlled trial, Marc Lallemant and colleagues ask if a CD4-based monitoring and treatment switching strategy provides a similar clinical outcome compared to the standard viral load-based strategy for adults with HIV in Thailand. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Introduction Frequent HIV testing of at‐risk individuals is crucial to detect and treat infections early and prevent transmissions. We assessed the effect of reminders on HIV retesting uptake. Methods The study was conducted within a programme involving four facilities providing free‐of‐charge HIV, syphilis and hepatitis B and C testing and counselling in northern Thailand. Individuals found HIV negative and identified at risk by counsellors were invited to participate in a three‐arm, open‐label, randomized, controlled trial comparing: (a) “No Appointment & No Reminder” (control arm); (b) “No Appointment but Reminder”: short message service (SMS) sent 24 weeks after the enrolment visit to remind booking an appointment, and sent again one week later if no appointment was booked; and (c) “Appointment & Reminder”: appointment scheduled during the enrolment visit and SMS sent one week before appointment to ask for confirmation; if no response: single call made within one business day. The primary endpoint was a HIV retest within seven months after the enrolment visit. The cost of each reminder strategy was calculated as the sum of the following costs in United States dollars (USD): time spent by participants, counsellors and hotline staff; phone calls made; and SMS sent. The target sample size was 217 participants per arm (651 overall). Results Between April and November 2017, 651 participants were randomized. The proportion presenting for HIV retesting within seven months was 11.2% (24/215) in the control arm, versus 19.3% (42/218) in “No Appointment but Reminder” (p = 0.023) and 36.7% (80/218) in “Appointment & Reminder” (p < 0.001). Differences in proportions compared to the control arm were respectively +8.1% (95% CI: +1.4% to +14.8%) and +25.5% (+17.9% to +33.2%). The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios of “No Appointment but Reminder” and “Appointment & Reminder” compared to the control arm were respectively USD 0.05 and USD 0.14 per participant for each 5% increase in HIV retesting uptake within seven months. Conclusions Scheduling an appointment and sending a reminder one week before was a simple, easy‐to‐implement and affordable intervention that significantly increased HIV retesting uptake in these at‐risk individuals. The personal phone call to clients probably contributed, and also improved service efficiency.