Search

Background Among individuals with vitamin D deficiency, daily vitamin D supplementation appears to lower risk of acute respiratory infection. However, recent trials, in different populations and using different regimens, have yielded null results. We investigated the effect of daily vitamin D supplementation (vs placebo) on risk of upper respiratory infection (URI) in older adults. Methods The VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of supplemental vitamin D and/or omega-3 fatty acids in generally healthy men (age ≥50 years) and women (age ≥55 years). This prespecified analysis focuses on vitamin D3 (2000 IU/day) versus placebo in the 15 804 (61%) participants with baseline serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. The primary outcome was self-report of a recent URI at 1-year follow-up. Results Participants had a mean age of 68 years and 51% were women; 76% were non-Hispanic White, 16% Black, and 8% other race/ethnicity. The mean 25-hydroxyvitamin D level at baseline was 31 (standard deviation, 10) ng/mL, with <12 ng/mL in 2.4%. The overall effect of vitamin D supplementation on recent URI was nonsignificant (odds ratio [OR], 0.96 [95% confidence interval {CI},.86–1.06]). In the prespecified subgroup of primary interest (<12 ng/mL and denied taking concurrent vitamin D), which had only 255 participants, vitamin D supplementation was nonsignificant (OR, 0.60 [95% CI,.28–1.30]). Statistical power to assess effect modification in other subgroups was limited. Conclusions In older adults not selected for vitamin D deficiency, supplemental vitamin D did not lower URI risk overall. Whether effects differ in subgroups requires further study. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01169259. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) occurs frequently, and concomitant antibiotic (CA) during the initial episode for treatment of non-CDI is a major risk factor. We sought to address the comparative efficacy of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in the setting of CA during the initial CDI episode. Methods We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial at 2 hospitals in Ann Arbor, Michigan. We consecutively consented and enrolled hospitalized patients ≥18 years old with diarrhea, a positive test for C. difficile , and ≥1 qualifying CA. Complicated CDI, CDI treatment for >24 hours prior to enrollment, and planned long-term (>12 weeks) CA use were notable exclusions. Clinical cure was defined as resolution of diarrhea for 2 consecutive days maintained until 2 days after therapy, and rCDI as recurrent diarrhea with positive testing ≤30 days after initial treatment. Patients were randomized to fidaxomicin or vancomycin. Results Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups of 144 patients. Rates of clinical cure (73% vs 62.9%, P =.195) and rCDI (3.3% vs 4.0%; P >.99) were similar for fidaxomicin and vancomycin in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts, respectively. Only 4 patients developed rCDI. Conclusions In this study of patients with CDI receiving CA, a numerically higher proportion were cured with fidaxomicin versus vancomycin, but this result did not reach statistical significance. Overall recurrence was lower than anticipated in both arms compared with previous studies that did not extend duration of CDI treatment during CA. Clinical Trials Registration www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02692651). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Background No effective treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) exist. We aimed to determine whether early treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would be efficacious for outpatients with COVID-19. Methods Multicenter open-label, randomized, controlled trial conducted in Catalonia, Spain, between 17 March and 26 May 2020. Patients recently diagnosed with <5-day of symptom onset were assigned to receive HCQ (800 mg on day 1 followed by 400 mg once daily for 6 days) or usual care. Outcomes were reduction of viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs up to 7 days after treatment start, disease progression up to 28 days, and time to complete resolution of symptoms. Adverse events were assessed up to 28 days. Results A total of 293 patients were eligible for intention-to-treat analysis: 157 in the control arm and 136 in the intervention arm. The mean age was 41.6 years (SD, 12.6), mean viral load at baseline was 7.90 log10 copies/mL (SD, 1.82), and median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3 days. No differences were found in the mean reduction of viral load at day 3 (−1.41 vs −1.41 log10 copies/mL in the control and intervention arm, respectively) or at day 7 (−3.37 vs −3.44). Treatment did not reduce risk of hospitalization (7.1% control vs 5.9% intervention) nor shorten the time to complete resolution of symptoms (12 days, control vs 10 days, intervention). No relevant adverse events were reported. Conclusions In patients with mild COVID-19, no benefit was observed with HCQ beyond the usual care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Antibiotic overprescribing in long-term care settings is driven by prescriber preferences and is associated with preventable harms for residents. We aimed to determine whether peer comparison audit and feedback reporting for physicians reduces antibiotic overprescribing among residents. Methods We employed a province wide, difference-in-differences study of antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback, with an embedded pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) across all long-term care facilities in Ontario, Canada, in 2019. The study year included 1238 physicians caring for 96 185 residents. In total, 895 (72%) physicians received no feedback; 343 (28%) were enrolled to receive audit and feedback and randomized 1:1 to static or dynamic reports. The primary outcomes were proportion of residents initiated on an antibiotic and proportion of antibiotics prolonged beyond 7 days per quarter. Results Among all residents, between the first quarter of 2018 and last quarter of 2019, there were temporal declines in antibiotic initiation (28.4% to 21.3%) and prolonged duration (34.4% to 29.0%). Difference-in-differences analysis confirmed that feedback was associated with a greater decline in prolonged antibiotics (adjusted difference −2.65%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −4.93 to −.28%, P =.026), but there was no significant difference in antibiotic initiation. The reduction in antibiotic durations was associated with 335 912 fewer days of treatment. The embedded RCT detected no differences in outcomes between the dynamic and static reports. Conclusions Peer comparison audit and feedback is a pragmatic intervention that can generate small relative reductions in the use of antibiotics for prolonged durations that translate to large reductions in antibiotic days of treatment across populations. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03807466. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Although adults with low vitamin D status are at increased risk of acute respiratory infection (ARI), randomized controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation have provided inconsistent results. Methods We performed a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 5110 adults aged 50–84 years. In 2011–2012, participants were randomized to an initial oral dose of 200 000 IU vitamin D3 followed by 100 000 IU monthly (n = 2558) or placebo (n = 2552) until late 2013 (median follow-up, 1.6 years). Participants reported upper and lower ARIs on monthly questionnaires. Cox models analyzed time to first ARI (upper or lower) by treatment group. Results Participants' mean age was 66 years and 58% were male; 83% were of European/other ethnicity, with the rest Maori, Polynesian, or South Asian. Mean (SD) baseline blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level was 63 (24) nmol/L; 25% were <50 nmol/L. In a random sample (n = 441), vitamin D supplementation increased mean 25(OH)D to 135 nmol/L at 3 years, while those on placebo remained at 63 nmol/L. During follow-up, 3737 participants reported ≥1 ARI: 74.1% in the vitamin D group versus 73.7% in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for vitamin D compared with placebo was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.94, 1.07). Similar results were seen in most subgroups, including those with baseline 25(OH)D <50 nmol/L and in analyses of the upper/lower components of the ARI outcome. Conclusions Monthly high-dose vitamin D supplementation does not prevent ARI in older adults with a low prevalence of profound vitamin D deficiency at baseline. Whether effects of daily or weekly dosing differ requires further study. Clinical Trials Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, identifier ACTRN12611000402943. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To achieve the World Health Organization hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination targets, it is essential to increase access to direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), especially among people who inject drugs (PWID). We aimed to determine the effectiveness of providing DAAs in primary care, compared with hospital-based specialist care. Methods We randomized PWID with HCV attending primary care sites in Australia or New Zealand to receive DAAs at their primary care site or local hospital (standard of care [SOC]). The primary outcome was to determine whether people treated in primary care had a noninferior rate of sustained virologic response at Week 12 (SVR12), compared to historical controls (consistent with DAA trials at the time of the study design); secondary outcomes included comparisons of treatment initiation, SVR12 rates, and the care cascade by study arm. Results We recruited 140 participants and randomized 136: 70 to the primary care arm and 66 to the SOC arm. The SVR12 rate (100%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 87.7–100) of people treated in primary care was noninferior when compared to historical controls (85% assumed). An intention-to-treat analysis revealed that the proportion of participants commencing treatment in the primary care arm (75%, 43/57) was significantly higher than in the SOC arm (34%, 18/53; P <.001; relative risk [RR] 2.48, 95% CI 1.54–3.95), and the proportion of participants with SVR12 was significantly higher in the primary care arm, compared to in the SOC arm (49% [28/57] and 30% [16/53], respectively; P =.043; RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.0–2.65). Conclusions Providing HCV treatment in primary care increases treatment uptake and cure rates. Approaches that increase treatment uptake among PWID will accelerate elimination strategies. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02555475. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]