The Working Party was instituted to investigate the rationale of prophylactic and therapeutic antibiotic use in penetrating craniocerebral injuries (PCCI), and to make recommendations for current practice. A systematic review of papers on civilian and military PCCI over the past 25 and 50 years, respectively, was done via electronic databases and secondary sources, and data were evaluated. Guidelines on the removal of indriven bone or metal fragments only if further neural damage can be avoided were supported. However, no publications were identified where the data on infection or its treatment and prevention were complete or satisfactorily derived, and no controlled trials have been published. All studies were retrospective or anecdotal. Working Party recommendations are based on the data available and the professional experience and knowledge of the members. Broad-spectrum antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for both military and civilian PCCI, Including those due to sports or recreational injuries.

Compared with those in industrialised countries, people in developing countries have little access to treatment for HIV infection, or for many other diseases including cancer, tuberculosis, and malaria. Although attention has been paid to areas such as provision of essential drugs, strengthening of infrastructures and service delivery, human rights, and appropriate health technologies, great inequalities remain. The HIV epidemic has highlighted these differences, because technological advances and the response of people infected with HIV have enabled the sharing of experiences across regions and brought the contrast into focus.

When the British HIV-1 Association (BHIVA) guidelines on the treatment of HIV-seropositive individuals with antiretrovirals were published in The Lancet in April 1997, it was clear that they would require updating on a frequent basis. The guidelines have been useful in ensuring that viral-load testing and combination therapy is widely available in the UK. However, standards of treatment are rapidly changing as new evidence becomes available. Since formulation of the guidelines, data from two large clinical endpoint studies have been presented that show superior clinical benefit for the use of triple therapy compared with dual therapy in treatment of both naive individuals and patients who have been given zidovudine. Here we update the BHIVA guidelines with a consensus drawn from a wide range of UK medical opinion. The guidelines include input from groups representing individuals living with HIV-1. A more detailed reflection of these views may be found in publications such as the National AIDS Manual and the AIDS Treatment Project's Doctor fax.

Only incomplete data are available to guide decision on anti-HIV treatment. A British HIV Association consensus is that guidance must draw on other evidence besides the randomised trial. Marker studies, work on disease pathogenesis and viral dynamics, and expanding knowledge of resistance patterns mean that the approach to therapy is constantly evolving. There is a need for well-informed dialogue between HIV-infected patient and physician to achieve rational, individualized treatment. However, the following broad principles have a wide consensus amongst HIV-treating physicians in the UK: (1) treatment should be offered before substantial immunodeficiency ensues; (2) initial treatment should include combinations of at least two drugs; (3) switches in therapy should involve substitution or addition of at least two new agents; (4) viral load and CD4 measurements are essential; (5) reduction in viral load to below the detection level of a sensitive assay represents the optimal treatment response and failure to achieve or sustain this control should prompt consideration of therapy modification. This response seems to be achieved most reliably with combinations of two nucleoside analogues plus a third agent (a protease inhibitor, a non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor, or a third nucleoside analogue) or of two protease inhibitors.