Search

Objective:This clinical trial aims to evaluate if natural mixed carotenoids supplementation can improve the health and survival of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients.Design:A placebo-controlled, prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial.Setting:Community, tertiary care human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinics of the Canadian HIV Trials Network (CTN).Participants:Three hundred and thirty-one adults with advanced AIDS on conventional management were recruited during routine clinic visits.Interventions:All participants, including 166 controls, received daily oral specially formulated multivitamins including vitamin A and trace elements; 165 treatment group participants received additional daily oral natural mixed carotenoids, equivalent to 120 000 IU (72 mg) of β-carotene daily. Follow-up was quarterly at routine clinic visits.Results:Mean (s.d.) follow-up was for 13 (6) months. Thirty-six participants died by 18 months. Serum carotene concentration <1.0 μmol/l was present in 16% participants at baseline. Despite variation in carotene content of the treatment medication, serum carotene concentrations increased significantly to twice the baseline levels to 18 months follow-up in participants who received carotenoids treatment compared with controls (P<0.0001). Although not statistically significant, mortality was increased in participants who did not receive carotenoids treatment compared with those who did (HR time to death 1.76, 95% CI 0.89, 3.47, P=0.11). In multivariate analysis, survival was significantly and independently improved in those with higher baseline serum carotene concentrations (P=0.04) or higher baseline CD4 T-lymphocyte counts (P=0.005). Adjusted mortality was also significantly and independently increased in those who did not receive carotenoids treatment compared with those who did (HR time to death 3.15, 95% CI 1.10, 8.98, P=0.03).Conclusions:Low serum carotene concentration is common in AIDS patients and predicts death. Supplementation with micronutrients and natural mixed carotenoids may improve survival by correction of a micronutrient deficiency. Further studies are needed to corroborate findings and elucidate mechanism of action.Sponsorship:CTN and Community Research Initiative of Toronto (CRIT).European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2006) 60, 1266–1276. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602447; published online 24 May 2006 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A randomized trial was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of fluconazole versus that of amphotericin B in the treatment of candidemia in non-neutropenic adults. Enrollment was stratified by disease severity (APACHE II score). Patients were randomized (1∶:1) to receive amphotericin B 0.6 mg/kg/day (cumulative dose 8 mg/kg) or fluconazole 800 mg intravenous loading dose, then 400 mg daily for four weeks (intravenous for at least 10 days). Patients were monitored for six months. A total of 106 patients were enrolled. A protocol amendment implemented midway through the trial required patients to be removed from the study and treated with amphotericin B if species identification indicated candidemia due to Candida glabrata or Candida krusei. Baseline characteristics were similar for the two groups; 103 patients (fluconazole, 50; amphotericin B, 53) met the major enrollment criteria. The intention-to-treat analysis indicated successful therapy in 50% of fluconazole recipients compared to 58% of the amphotericin B group (p=0.39; one-sided 95% Cl, −8 to 24%). The efficacy analysis included 84 patients (fluconazole, 42; amphotericin B, 42); successful outcomes were observed in 57% and 62% of cases in the fluconazole and amphotericin B groups, respectively (p=0.66: one-sided 95% Cl, −12 to 22%). The mortality at day 14 for the fluconazole group was 26% and for the amphotericin B group 21% (p=0.52; chi-square test) and remained similar throughout the course of follow-up. Drug-related adverse events were more frequent with amphotericin B than with fluconazole and prompted switching of therapy for two (4%) and zero cases, respectively. Fluconazole and amphotericin B were associated with similar clinical response rates and survival in the treatment of candidemia among non-neutropenic patients; however, drug-related adverse events were more frequent with amphotericin B. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fluconazole (FLU) is an alternative to amphotericin B (AMB) for the treatment of candidemia in non-neutropenic patients. This agent has similar clinical efficacy but significantly reduced adverse effects compared with AMB. Using the database from a Canadian randomised multicentre comparative trial of FLU versus AMB in the treatment of non-neutropenic patients with candidemia, an economic analysis of antifungal therapy was conducted from a Canadian hospital perspective. Patient records were examined for information containing hospital resource consumption. This included the costs for primary intravenous therapy with either AMB or FLU, laboratory tests, patient clinical monitoring and adverse effects management. The robustness of the baseline results were then tested by a comprehensive sensitivity analysis. The mean duration of therapy in the AMB and FLU arms was 17.1 and 23.7 days, respectively (p < 0.001). Assuming that all of the FLU was administered intravenously, the outcomes of the baseline economic analysis revealed that the treatment cost for patients randomized to receive FLU was approximately 50% higher than that for patients treated with AMB [AMB: $Can2370 vs FLU: $Can3578; p = 0.001 ($Can = Canadian dollars)]. In the sensitivity analysis, substitution to oral FLU after 7 days of intravenous therapy produced economic differences that were no longer statistically significant (AMB: $Can2370 vs FLU: $Can2705; p = 0.10). These results suggest that the FLU administration regimen used in the Canadian randomized trial for the treatment of candidemia in non-neutropenic patients may result in increased hospital costs compared with AMB. However, comparable expenditures could be realized if FLU is administered intravenously for the first 7 days and then orally in patients whose condition allows for reliable oral therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fluconazole (FLU) is an alternative to amphotericin B (AMB) for the treatment of candidemia in non-neutropenic patients. This agent has similar clinical efficacy but significantly reduced adverse effects compared with AMB. Using the database from a Canadian randomised multicentre comparative trial of FLU versus AMB in the treatment of non-neutropenic patients with candidemia, an economic analysis of antifungal therapy was conducted from a Canadian hospital perspective. Patient records were examined for information containing hospital resource consumption. This included the costs for primary intravenous therapy with either AMB or FLU, laboratory tests, patient clinical monitoring and adverse effects management. The robustness of the baseline results were then tested by a comprehensive sensitivity analysis. The mean duration of therapy in the AMB and FLU arms was 17.1 and 23.7 days, respectively (p < 0.001). Assuming that all of the FLU was administered intravenously, the outcomes of the baseline economic analysis revealed that the treatment cost for patients randomised to receive FLU was approximately 50% higher than that for patients treated with AMB [AMB: $Can2370 vs FLU: $Can3578; p = 0.001 ($Can = Canadian dollars)]. In the sensitivity analysis, substitution to oral FLU after 7 days of intravenous therapy produced economic differences that were no longer statistically significant (AMB: $Can2370 vs FLU: $Can2705; p = 0.10). These results suggest that the FLU administration regimen used in the Canadian randomised trial for the treatment of candidemia in non-neutropenic patients may result in increased hospital costs compared with AMB. However, comparable expenditures could be realised if FLU is administered intravenously for the first 7 days and then orally in patients whose condition allows for reliable oral therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine whether persons living with HIV find a disease-specific advance directive more acceptable than a generic directive.Design: Randomized clinical trial.Setting: HIV consumer organization and hospital-based HIV clinic.Participants: Volunteer sample of persons with HIV.Interventions: The disease-specific HIV Living Will, the generic Centre for Bioethics Living Will, or both.Measurements and Main Results: Of 101 participants who received both advance directives, 78 (77.2%) preferred the disease-specific HIV Living Will and 23 (22.8%) preferred the generic Centre for Bioethics Living Will (p < .001). Most participants who preferred the HIV Living Will did so because it was more specific or relevant to their situation.Conclusions: Persons living with HIV prefer a disease-specific to a generic advance directive. They should be offered a disease-specific advance directive. Our findings should also encourage investigators to develop and evaluate disease-specific advance directives in other clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]