Search

Background In people with human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] presenting with advanced disease, rates of virologic success may be lower than expected. The Reflate TB2 trial did not show non-inferiority of raltegravir versus efavirenz in people with HIV (PWH) treated for tuberculosis. We aimed to identify factors associated with virologic success and higher adherence in the trial. Methods In this analysis, we included participants enrolled in the Reflate TB2 trial with adherence data available. The primary outcome was virologic success (HIV-1 ribonucleic acid [RNA] <50 copies/mL) at week 48, and the secondary outcome was adherence as assessed by the pill count adherence ratio. We used logistic regression to study determinants of virologic success and optimal adherence in 2 separate analyses. Results Four hundred forty-four participants were included in the present analysis. Over the 48-week follow-up period, 290 of 444 (65%) participants had a pill count adherence ratio ≥95%. At week 48, 288 of 444 (65%) participants were in virologic success. In the multivariate analysis, female sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–2.72; P =.0084), lower baseline HIV-1 RNA levels (<100 000; aOR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.33–3.96; P =.0087), and pill count adherence ratio ≥95% (aOR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.56–3.62; P <.0001) were independently associated with virologic success. Antiretroviral pill burden was the only factor associated with pill count adherence ratio ≥95% (OR, 0.81; 95% CI,.71–.92; P =.0018). Conclusions In PWH with tuberculosis receiving raltegravir or efavirenz-based regimens, female sex, optimal adherence, and baseline HIV-1 RNA <100 000 copies/mL were associated with virologic success, and the number of antiretroviral tablets taken daily was a strong predictor of adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The early use of broad-spectrum antibiotics remains the cornerstone for the treatment of neonatal late onset sepsis (LOS). However, which antibiotics should be used is still debatable, as relevant studies were conducted more than 20 years ago, recruited in single centres or countries, evaluated antibiotics not in clinical use anymore and had variable inclusion/exclusion criteria and outcome measures. Moreover, antibiotic-resistant bacteria have become a major problem in many countries worldwide. We hypothesized that efficacy of meropenem as a broad-spectrum antibiotic is superior to standard of care regimens (SOC) in empiric treatment of LOS and aimed to compare meropenem to SOC in infants aged <90 days with LOS. Methods and findings: NeoMero-1 was a randomized, open-label, phase III superiority trial conducted in 18 neonatal units in 6 countries. Infants with post-menstrual age (PMA) of ≤44 weeks with positive blood culture and one, or those with negative culture and at least with two predefined clinical and laboratory signs suggestive of LOS, or those with PMA >44 weeks meeting the Goldstein criteria of sepsis, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive meropenem or one of the two SOC regimens (ampicillin+gentamicin or cefotaxime+gentamicin) chosen by each site prior to the start of the study for 8–14 days. The primary outcome was treatment success (survival, no modification of allocated therapy, resolution/improvement of clinical and laboratory markers, no need of additional antibiotics and presumed/confirmed eradication of pathogens) at test-of-cure visit (TOC) in full analysis set. Stool samples were tested at baseline and Day 28 for meropenem-resistant Gram-negative organisms (CRGNO). The primary analysis was performed in all randomised patients and in patients with culture confirmed LOS. Proportions of participants with successful outcome were compared by using a logistic regression model adjusted for the stratification factors. From September 3, 2012 to November 30th 2014, total of 136 patients (instead of planned 275) in each arm were randomized; 140 (52%) were culture positive. Successful outcome at TOC was achieved in 44/136 (32%) in the meropenem arm vs. 31/135 (23%) in the SOC arm (p = 0.087). The respective numbers in patients with positive cultures were 17/63 (27%) vs. 10/77 (13%) (p = 0.022). The main reason of failure was modification of allocated therapy. Treatment emergent adverse events occurred in 72% and serious adverse events in 17% of patients, the Day 28 mortality was 6%. Cumulative acquisition of CRGNO by Day 28 occurred in 4% of patients in the meropenem and 12% in the SOC arm (p = 0.052). Conclusions: Within this study population, we found no evidence that meropenem was superior to SOC in terms of success at TOC, short term hearing disturbances, safety or mortality were similar in both treatment arms but the study was underpowered to detect the planned effect. Meropenem treatment did not select for colonization with CRGNOs. We suggest that meropenem as broad-spectrum antibiotic should be reserved for neonates who are more likely to have Gram-negative LOS, especially in NICUs where microorganisms producing extended spectrum- and AmpC type beta-lactamases are circulating. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients co-infected with HIV and tuberculosis, antiretroviral therapy options are limited due to drug-drug interactions with rifampicin. A previous phase 2 trial indicated that raltegravir 400 mg twice a day or efavirenz 600 mg once a day might have similar virological efficacy in patients given rifampicin. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed the non-inferiority of raltegravir to efavirenz.Methods: We did a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial at six sites in Côte d'Ivoire, Brazil, France, Mozambique, and Vietnam. We included antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive adults (aged ≥18 years) with confirmed HIV-1 infection and bacteriologically confirmed or clinically diagnosed tuberculosis who had initiated rifampicin-containing tuberculosis treatment within the past 8 weeks. Using computerised random numbers, we randomly assigned participants (1:1; stratified by country) to receive raltegravir 400 mg twice daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily, both in combination with tenofovir and lamivudine. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with virological suppression at week 48 (defined as plasma HIV RNA concentration <50 copies per mL). The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 12%. The primary outcome was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients (excluding two patients with HIV-2 infection and one patient with HIV-1 RNA concentration of <50 copies per mL at inclusion), and the on-treatment population, which included all patients in the intention-to-treat population who initiated treatment and were continuing allocated treatment at week 48, and patients who had discontinued allocated treatment due to death or virological failure. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment regimen. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02273765.Findings: Between Sept 28, 2015, and Jan 5, 2018, 460 participants were randomly assigned to raltegravir (n=230) or efavirenz (n=230), of whom 457 patients (230 patients in the raltegravir group; 227 patients in the efavirenz group) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis and 410 (206 patients in the raltegravir group; 204 patients in the efavirenz group) in the on-treatment analysis. At baseline, the median CD4 count was 103 cells per μL and median plasma HIV RNA concentration was 5·5 log10 copies per mL (IQR 5·0-5·8). 310 (68%) of 457 participants had bacteriologically-confirmed tuberculosis. In the intention-to-treat population, at week 48, 140 (61%) of 230 participants in the raltegravir group and 150 (66%) of 227 patients in the efavirenz had achieved virological suppression (between-group difference -5·2% [95% CI -14·0 to 3·6]), thus raltegravir did not meet the predefined criterion for non-inferiority. The most frequent adverse events were HIV-associated non-AIDS illnesses (eight [3%] of 229 patients in the raltegravir group; 21 [9%] of 230 patients in the efavirenz group) and AIDS-defining illnesses (ten [4%] patients in the raltegravir group; 13 [6%] patients in the efavirenz group). 58 (25%) of 229 patients in raltegravir group and 66 (29%) of 230 patients in the efavirenz group had grade 3 or 4 adverse events. 26 (6%) of 457 patients died during follow-up: 14 in the efavirenz group and 12 in the raltegravir group.Interpretation: In patients with HIV given tuberculosis treatment, non-inferiority of raltegravir compared with efavirenz was not shown. Raltegravir was well tolerated and could be considered as an option, but only in selected patients.Funding: National French Agency for AIDS Research, Ministry of Health in Brazil, Merck.Translations: For the Portuguese and French translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In people with human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] presenting with advanced disease, rates of virologic success may be lower than expected. The Reflate TB2 trial did not show non-inferiority of raltegravir versus efavirenz in people with HIV (PWH) treated for tuberculosis. We aimed to identify factors associated with virologic success and higher adherence in the trial., Methods: In this analysis, we included participants enrolled in the Reflate TB2 trial with adherence data available. The primary outcome was virologic success (HIV-1 ribonucleic acid [RNA] <50 copies/mL) at week 48, and the secondary outcome was adherence as assessed by the pill count adherence ratio. We used logistic regression to study determinants of virologic success and optimal adherence in 2 separate analyses., Results: Four hundred forty-four participants were included in the present analysis. Over the 48-week follow-up period, 290 of 444 (65%) participants had a pill count adherence ratio ≥95%. At week 48, 288 of 444 (65%) participants were in virologic success. In the multivariate analysis, female sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.72; P = .0084), lower baseline HIV-1 RNA levels (<100 000; aOR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.33-3.96; P = .0087), and pill count adherence ratio ≥95% (aOR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.56-3.62; P < .0001) were independently associated with virologic success. Antiretroviral pill burden was the only factor associated with pill count adherence ratio ≥95% (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, .71-.92; P = .0018)., Conclusions: In PWH with tuberculosis receiving raltegravir or efavirenz-based regimens, female sex, optimal adherence, and baseline HIV-1 RNA <100 000 copies/mL were associated with virologic success, and the number of antiretroviral tablets taken daily was a strong predictor of adherence., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Sepsis and bacterial meningitis are major causes of mortality and morbidity in neonates and infants. Meropenem, a broad-spectrum antibiotic, is not licensed for use in neonates and infants below 3 months of age and sufficient information on its plasma and CSF disposition and dosing in neonates and infants is lacking., Objectives: To determine plasma and CSF pharmacokinetics of meropenem in neonates and young infants and the link between pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes in babies with late-onset sepsis (LOS)., Methods: Data were collected in two recently conducted studies, i.e. NeoMero-1 (neonatal LOS) and NeoMero-2 (neonatal meningitis). Optimally timed plasma samples (n = 401) from 167 patients and opportunistic CSF samples (n = 78) from 56 patients were analysed., Results: A one-compartment model with allometric scaling and fixed maturation gave adequate fit to both plasma and CSF data; the CL and volume (standardized to 70 kg) were 16.7 (95% CI 14.7, 18.9) L/h and 38.6 (95% CI 34.9, 43.4) L, respectively. CSF penetration was low (8%), but rose with increasing CSF protein, with 40% penetration predicted at a protein concentration of 6 g/L. Increased infusion time improved plasma target attainment, but lowered CSF concentrations. For 24 patients with culture-proven Gram-negative LOS, pharmacodynamic target attainment was similar regardless of the test-of-cure visit outcome., Conclusions: Simulations showed that longer infusions increase plasma PTA but decrease CSF PTA. CSF penetration is worsened with long infusions so increasing dose frequency to achieve therapeutic targets should be considered.