there are theoretical reasons why patients identified with hiv around the time they are first infected (primary acute infection) may benefit from the immediate initiation of potent antiviral therapy. preliminary evidence suggests that unique aspects of the body's immune response to the virus may be preserved by this strategy. it is thought that treatment during the primary infection may be an opportunity to help the body's natural defense system to work against hiv. thus patients may gain improved control of their infection while on therapy and perhaps even after therapy is stopped. at one time the hope was that if therapy was started very early in the course of the infection hiv could be eradicated. most evidence today however suggests that this is not the case. consequently early treatment is not likely to result in a cure although other benefits may still exist. the current recommendation is that patients with primary infection should be referred to clinical studies where the potential role of therapy can be discussed and further explored. if emotional or social situations make adherence to such treatment questionable however the patients are clearly better off delaying therapy.
should patients with the "flu-like" or "mono-like" illness of primary hiv infection be treated?