Search

Background Amphotericin B is the gold standard treatment for severe mycoses. A new orally delivered, less-toxic formulation of amphotericin has been developed. Methods In our randomized clinical trial, we tested oral lipid nanocrystal (LNC) amphotericin B (MAT2203, Matinas Biopharma) vs intravenous (IV) amphotericin for human immunodeficiency virus–associated cryptococcal meningitis in 4 sequential cohorts. Two pilot cohorts assessed safety and tolerability (n = 10 each), and 2 cohorts assessed efficacy with/without 2 IV loading doses (n = 40 each). The experimental arm received 1.8 g/d oral LNC amphotericin through 2 weeks with 100 mg/kg/d flucytosine, then 1.2 g/d LNC amphotericin through 6 weeks. The randomized control arm (n = 41) received 7 days of IV amphotericin with flucytosine, then 7 days of fluconazole 1200 mg/d. The primary end point was cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) early fungicidal activity (EFA). Results We randomized 80 participants to oral LNC amphotericin + flucytosine with (n = 40) and without (n = 40) 2 IV loading doses and 41 control participants to IV amphotericin + flucytosine. Mean EFA was 0.40 log10 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL/d for all-oral LNC amphotericin, 0.42 log10   Cryptococcus CFU/mL/d for oral LNC amphotericin with IV loading doses, and 0.46 log10 CFU/mL/d for IV amphotericin controls. LNC amphotericin groups achieved 2-week CSF sterility in 63% (44 of 70) vs 68% (23 of 34) of controls. The 18-week survival was 85% (34 of 40) with all-oral LNC amphotericin, 90% (36 of 40) with oral LNC amphotericin given IV loading doses, and 85% (35 of 41) with IV amphotericin. Grade 3–4 laboratory adverse events occurred less frequently in LNC amphotericin groups (41%) than the IV amphotericin group (61%, P =.05), particularly for anemia (21% vs 44%; P =.01) and potassium (5% vs 17%; P =.04). Conclusions This new oral amphotericin B LNC formulation appears promising for cryptococcal meningitis with antifungal activity, similar survival, and less toxicity than IV amphotericin. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04031833. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Point-of-care (POC) viral load (VL) tests provide results within hours, enabling same-day treatment interventions. We assessed treatment outcomes with POC vs standard-of-care (SOC) VL monitoring. Methods We implemented a randomized controlled trial at an urban and rural hospital in Nigeria. Participants initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) were randomized 1:1 for monitoring via the POC Cepheid Xpert or SOC Roche COBAS (v2.0) HIV-1 VL assays. Viral suppression (VS) and retention in care at 12 months were compared via intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. Post-trial surveys for POC patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) evaluated acceptability. Results During April 2018–October 2019, 268 SOC and 273 POC patients enrolled in the trial. Viral suppression at <1000 copies/mL at 12 months was 59.3% (162/273) for POC and 52.2% (140/268) for SOC (P =.096) in ITT analysis and 77.1% (158/205) for POC and 65.9% (137/208) for SOC (P =.012) in PP analysis. Retention was not significantly different in ITT analysis but was 85.9% for POC and 76.9% for SOC (P =.02) in PP analysis. The increased VS in the POC arm was attributable to improved retention and documentation of VL results. POC monitoring was preferred over SOC by 90.2% (147/163) of patients and 100% (15/15) of HCWs thought it facilitated patient care. Conclusions POC VL monitoring did not improve 12-month VS among those with results but did improve retention and VS documentation and was preferred by most patients and HCWs. Further research can inform best POC implementation conditions and approaches to optimize patient care. Clinical Trials Registration NCT03533868. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]