A 4-days-on and 3-days-off maintenance treatment strategy for adults with HIV-1 (ANRS 170 QUATUOR): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, parallel, non-inferiority trial

International audienc

Rilpivirine in HIV-1-positive women initiating pregnancy: to switch or not to switch?

International audienceBackgroundSafety data about rilpivirine use during pregnancy remain scarce, and rilpivirine plasma concentrations are reduced during second/third trimesters, with a potential risk of viral breakthroughs. Thus, French guidelines recommend switching to rilpivirine-free combinations (RFCs) during pregnancy.ObjectivesTo describe the characteristics of women initiating pregnancy while on rilpivirine and to compare the outcomes for virologically suppressed subjects continuing rilpivirine until delivery versus switching to an RFC.MethodsIn the ANRS-EPF French Perinatal cohort, we included women on rilpivirine at conception in 2010–18. Pregnancy outcomes were compared between patients continuing versus interrupting rilpivirine. In women with documented viral suppression (<50 copies/mL) before 14 weeks of gestation (WG) while on rilpivirine, we compared the probability of viral rebound (≥50 copies/mL) during pregnancy between subjects continuing rilpivirine versus those switching to RFC.ResultsAmong 247 women included, 88.7% had viral suppression at the beginning of pregnancy. Overall, 184 women (74.5%) switched to an RFC (mostly PI/ritonavir-based regimens) at a median gestational age of 8.0 WG. Plasma HIV-1 RNA nearest delivery was <50 copies/mL in 95.6% of women. Among 69 women with documented viral suppression before 14 WG, the risk of viral rebound was higher when switching to RFCs than when continuing rilpivirine (20.0% versus 0.0%, P = 0.046). Delivery outcomes were similar between groups (overall birth defects, 3.8/100 live births; pregnancy losses, 2.0%; preterm deliveries, 10.6%). No HIV transmission occurred.ConclusionsIn virologically suppressed women initiating pregnancy, continuing rilpivirine was associated with better virological outcome than changing regimen. We did not observe a higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes

Time for a paradigm shift in shared decision-making in trauma and emergency surgery? Results from an international survey

Background Shared decision-making (SDM) between clinicians and patients is one of the pillars of the modern patient-centric philosophy of care. This study aims to explore SDM in the discipline of trauma and emergency surgery, investigating its interpretation as well as the barriers and facilitators for its implementation among surgeons. Methods Grounding on the literature on the topics of the understanding, barriers, and facilitators of SDM in trauma and emergency surgery, a survey was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was sent to all 917 WSES members, advertised through the society’s website, and shared on the society’s Twitter profile. Results A total of 650 trauma and emergency surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the initiative. Less than half of the surgeons understood SDM, and 30% still saw the value in exclusively engaging multidisciplinary provider teams without involving the patient. Several barriers to effectively partnering with the patient in the decision-making process were identified, such as the lack of time and the need to concentrate on making medical teams work smoothly. Discussion Our investigation underlines how only a minority of trauma and emergency surgeons understand SDM, and perhaps, the value of SDM is not fully accepted in trauma and emergency situations. The inclusion of SDM practices in clinical guidelines may represent the most feasible and advocated solutions

Surgeons' perspectives on artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making in trauma and emergency contexts: results from an international survey

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining traction in medicine and surgery. AI-based applications can offer tools to examine high-volume data to inform predictive analytics that supports complex decision-making processes. Time-sensitive trauma and emergency contexts are often challenging. The study aims to investigate trauma and emergency surgeons' knowledge and perception of using AI-based tools in clinical decision-making processes. Methods: An online survey grounded on literature regarding AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was advertised to 917 WSES members through the society's website and Twitter profile. Results: 650 surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the survey. Results depict the presence of technology enthusiasts and skeptics and surgeons' preference toward more classical decision-making aids like clinical guidelines, traditional training, and the support of their multidisciplinary colleagues. A lack of knowledge about several AI-related aspects emerges and is associated with mistrust. Discussion: The trauma and emergency surgical community is divided into those who firmly believe in the potential of AI and those who do not understand or trust AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids. Academic societies and surgical training programs should promote a foundational, working knowledge of clinical AI