Clinicians caring for patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and diagnosed with psychiatric comorbidities must be aware of potential drug-drug interactions, particularly with protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy. Although possible interactions can be predicted based on a drug's pharmacokinetic parameters, the clinical significance is often unknown. We describe two patients who experienced serious quetiapine adverse effects potentially mediated through an interaction with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir. The first patient was a 57-year-old man with HIV and bipolar disease who developed rapid and severe weight gain when quetiapine was added to a stable atazanavir-ritonavir-based antiretroviral regimen. After the patient discontinued both quetiapine and ritonavir, his weight returned to its baseline value. The second patient was a 32-year-old woman with HIV, anxiety disorder, and a history of intravenous drug abuse who developed increased sedation and mental confusion when an atazanavir-ritonavir-based antiretroviral regimen was added to her stable antianxiety drug regimen, which included quetiapine. Her symptoms resolved promptly after discontinuation of the quetiapine. Use of the Naranjo adverse drug reaction probability scale indicated that the adverse effects experienced by the two patients were possibly related and probably related, respectively, to an interaction between quetiapine and atazanavir-ritonavir. Quetiapine is primarily metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, and ritonavir is a potent inhibitor of CYP3A4. Thus, it is reasonable to theorize that quetiapine concentrations will increase when these drugs are used concurrently, which would be the likely cause of the toxicities in these two patients. To our knowledge, these are the first published reports of a clinically significant interaction between atazanavir-ritonavir and quetiapine. Clinicians should be aware of the potential for this interaction, and extreme caution should be used when prescribing quetiapine and other atypical antipsychotic agents in HIV-positive patients who are receiving antiretroviral therapy.

A brief curricular intervention improved resident knowledge and attitudes regarding intranasal naloxone for opioid overdose reversal and significantly increased prescribing rates.

Background This study assesses differences in faculty rank between female and male infectious diseases (ID) faculty with academic appointments at US medical schools. Methods We analyzed a complete database of US physicians with medical school faculty appointments in 2014. This database consists of a linkage between the American Association of Medical Colleges faculty roster and a physician database from Doximity, and includes physician age, sex, years since residency completion, publications, National Institutes of Health grants, and registered clinical trials for all academic physicians by specialty. We used multivariable logistic regression models with medical school–specific fixed effects to assess sex differences in full professorship by specialty and the relationship between these factors and achieving the rank of full professor within ID. We compared this adjusted difference in ID to that of peer subspecialties. Results Among a total of 2016 academic ID physicians, there were 742 (37%) women who together accounted for 48.1% of assistant professors, 39.7% of associate professors, and 19.2% of full professors. Women faculty had fewer total (16.3 vs 28.3, P < .001) and first/last author publications (9.8 vs 20.4, P < .001). In adjusted models, the rate of full professorship (vs assistant or associate) among female compared to male ID physicians was large and significant (absolute adjusted difference, –8.0% [95% confidence interval, –11.9% to –4.1%]). This difference was greater in ID than in cardiology. Conclusions Significant sex differences in achieving the rank of full professor exist in academic ID, after adjustment for multiple factors known to influence these outcomes. Greater efforts should be made to address equity in academic ID.

Background The drivers of the gap in advancement between men and women faculty in academic Infectious Diseases (ID) remain poorly understood. This study sought to identify key barriers to academic advancement among faculty in ID and offer policy suggestions to narrow this gap. Methods During the 2019 IDWeek, we conducted focus groups with women faculty members at all ranks and men Full Professors, then we administered a brief survey regarding work-related barriers to advancement to the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) membership. We report themes from the 4 focus group discussions that are most closely linked to policy changes and descriptive analyses of the complementary survey domains. Results Policy change suggestions fell into 3 major categories: (1) Policy changes for IDSA to implement; (2) Future IDWeek Program Recommendations; and (3) Policy Changes for IDSA to Endorse as Best Practices for ID Divisions. Among 790 faculty respondents, fewer women reported that their institutional promotion process was transparent and women Full Professors were significantly more likely to have been sponsored. Conclusions Sponsorship and informed advising about institutional promotions tracks may help to narrow the advancement gap. The Infectious Disease Society of America should consider ambitious policy changes within the society and setting expectations for best practices among ID divisions across the United States.