98 research outputs found

    Factors associated with weight gain in people treated with dolutegravir

    Get PDF
    Background. An unexpected excess in weight gain has recently been reported in the course of dolutegravir (DTG) treatment. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether weight gain differs among different DTG-containing regimens. Methods. Adult naïve and experienced people with HIV (PWH) initiating DTG-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) between July 2014 and December 2019 in the Surveillance Cohort Long-Term Toxicity Antiretrovirals (SCOLTA) prospective cohort were included. We used an adjusted general linear model to compare weight change among backbone groups and a Cox proportional hazard regression model to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for weight increases >10% from baseline. Results. A total of 713 participants, 25.3% women and 91% Caucasian, were included. Of these, 195 (27.4%) started DTG as their first ART regimen, whereas 518 (72.6%) were ART-experienced. DTG was associated with abacavir/lamivudine in 326 participants, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) in 148, boosted protease inhibitors in 60, rilpivirine in 45, lamivudine in 75, and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/FTC in 59. At 6 and 12 months, weight gain was highest among PWH on TDF/FTC+DTG and TAF/FTC+DTG. Baseline CD4 <200 cells/mm3 (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.96), being ART-naïve (HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.24 to 4.18), and treatment with TDF/FTC+DTG (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.98) or TAF/FTC+DTG (HR, 3.80; 95% CI, 1.75 to 8.23) were associated with weight gain >10% from baseline. Higher weight (HR, 0.97 by 1 kg; 95% CI, 0.96 to 0.99) and female gender (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.88) were protective against weight gain. Conclusions. Naïve PWH with lower CD4 counts and those on TAF/FTC or TDF/FTC backbones were at higher risk of weight increase in the course of DTG-based ART

    Lack of SARS-CoV-2 RNA environmental contamination in a tertiary referral hospital for infectious diseases in Northern Italy

    Get PDF
    none140noNAnoneColaneri M.; Seminari E.; Piralla A.; Zuccaro V.; Di Filippo A.; Baldanti F.; Bruno R.; Mondelli M.U.; Brunetti E.; Di Matteo A.; Maiocchi L.; Pagnucco L.; Mariani B.; Ludovisi S.; Lissandrin R.; Parisi A.; Sacchi P.; Patruno S.F.A.; Michelone G.; Gulminetti R.; Zanaboni D.; Novati S.; Maserati R.; Orsolini P.; Vecchia M.; Sciarra M.; Asperges E.; Sambo M.; Biscarini S.; Lupi M.; Roda S.; Chiara Pieri T.; Gallazzi I.; Sachs M.; Valsecchi P.; Perlini S.; Alfano C.; Bonzano M.; Briganti F.; Crescenzi G.; Giulia Falchi A.; Guarnone R.; Guglielmana B.; Maggi E.; Martino I.; Pettenazza P.; Pioli di Marco S.; Quaglia F.; Sabena A.; Salinaro F.; Speciale F.; Zunino I.; De Lorenzo M.; Secco G.; Dimitry L.; Cappa G.; Maisak I.; Chiodi B.; Sciarrini M.; Barcella B.; Resta F.; Moroni L.; Vezzoni G.; Scattaglia L.; Boscolo E.; Zattera C.; Michele Fidel T.; Vincenzo C.; Vignaroli D.; Bazzini M.; Iotti G.; Mojoli F.; Belliato M.; Perotti L.; Mongodi S.; Tavazzi G.; Marseglia G.; Licari A.; Brambilla I.; Daniela B.; Antonella B.; Patrizia C.; Giulia C.; Giuditta C.; Marta C.; Rossana D.; Milena F.; Bianca M.; Roberta M.; Enza M.; Stefania P.; Maurizio P.; Elena P.; Antonio P.; Francesca R.; Antonella S.; Maurizio Z.; Guy A.; Laura B.; Ermanna C.; Giuliana C.; Luca D.; Gabriella F.; Gabriella G.; Alessia G.; Viviana L.; Claudia L.; Valentina M.; Simona P.; Marta P.; Alice B.; Giacomo C.; Irene C.; Alfonso C.; Di Martino R.; Di Napoli A.; Alessandro F.; Guglielmo F.; Loretta F.; Federica G.; Alessandra M.; Federica N.; Giacomo R.; Beatrice R.; Maria S.I.; Monica T.; Nepita Edoardo V.; Calvi M.; Tizzoni M.; Nicora C.; Triarico A.; Petronella V.; Marena C.; Muzzi A.; Lago P.; Comandatore F.; Bissignandi G.; Gaiarsa S.; Rettani M.; Bandi C.Colaneri, M.; Seminari, E.; Piralla, A.; Zuccaro, V.; Di Filippo, A.; Baldanti, F.; Bruno, R.; Mondelli, M. U.; Brunetti, E.; Di Matteo, A.; Maiocchi, L.; Pagnucco, L.; Mariani, B.; Ludovisi, S.; Lissandrin, R.; Parisi, A.; Sacchi, P.; Patruno, S. F. A.; Michelone, G.; Gulminetti, R.; Zanaboni, D.; Novati, S.; Maserati, R.; Orsolini, P.; Vecchia, M.; Sciarra, M.; Asperges, E.; Sambo, M.; Biscarini, S.; Lupi, M.; Roda, S.; Chiara Pieri, T.; Gallazzi, I.; Sachs, M.; Valsecchi, P.; Perlini, S.; Alfano, C.; Bonzano, M.; Briganti, F.; Crescenzi, G.; Giulia Falchi, A.; Guarnone, R.; Guglielmana, B.; Maggi, E.; Martino, I.; Pettenazza, P.; Pioli di Marco, S.; Quaglia, F.; Sabena, A.; Salinaro, F.; Speciale, F.; Zunino, I.; De Lorenzo, M.; Secco, G.; Dimitry, L.; Cappa, G.; Maisak, I.; Chiodi, B.; Sciarrini, M.; Barcella, B.; Resta, F.; Moroni, L.; Vezzoni, G.; Scattaglia, L.; Boscolo, E.; Zattera, C.; Michele Fidel, T.; Vincenzo, C.; Vignaroli, D.; Bazzini, M.; Iotti, G.; Mojoli, F.; Belliato, M.; Perotti, L.; Mongodi, S.; Tavazzi, G.; Marseglia, G.; Licari, A.; Brambilla, I.; Daniela, B.; Antonella, B.; Patrizia, C.; Giulia, C.; Giuditta, C.; Marta, C.; D'Alterio, Rossana; Milena, F.; Bianca, M.; Roberta, M.; Enza, M.; Stefania, P.; Maurizio, P.; Elena, P.; Antonio, P.; Francesca, R.; Antonella, S.; Maurizio, Z.; Guy, A.; Laura, B.; Ermanna, C.; Giuliana, C.; Luca, D.; Gabriella, F.; Gabriella, G.; Alessia, G.; Viviana, L.; Meisina, Claudia; Valentina, M.; Simona, P.; Marta, P.; Alice, B.; Giacomo, C.; Irene, C.; Alfonso, C.; Di Martino, R.; Di Napoli, A.; Alessandro, F.; Guglielmo, F.; Loretta, F.; Federica, G.; Albertini, Alessandra; Federica, N.; Giacomo, R.; Beatrice, R.; Maria, S. I.; Monica, T.; Nepita Edoardo, V.; Calvi, M.; Tizzoni, M.; Nicora, C.; Triarico, A.; Petronella, V.; Marena, C.; Muzzi, A.; Lago, P.; Comandatore, F.; Bissignandi, G.; Gaiarsa, S.; Rettani, M.; Bandi, C

    Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) early findings from a teaching hospital in Pavia, North Italy, 21 to 28 February 2020

    Get PDF
    We describe clinical characteristics, treatments and outcomes of 44 Caucasian patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) at a single hospital in Pavia, Italy, from 21\u201328 February 2020, at the beginning of the outbreak in Europe. Seventeen patients developed severe disease, two died. After a median of 6 days, 14 patients were discharged from hospital. Predictors of lower odds of discharge were age>65 years, antiviral treatment and for severe disease, lactate dehydrogenase >300 mg/dL

    Clinical features and comorbidity pattern of HCV infected migrants compared to native patients in care in Italy: A real-life evaluation of the PITER cohort

    Get PDF
    Background: Direct-acting antivirals are highly effective for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, regardless race/ethnicity. We aimed to evaluate demographic, virological and clinical data of HCV-infected migrants vs. natives consecutively enrolled in the PITER cohort. Methods: Migrants were defined by country of birth and nationality that was different from Italy. Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-squared test and multiple logistic regression were used. Results: Of 10,669 enrolled patients, 301 (2.8%) were migrants: median age 47 vs. 62 years, (p < 0.001), females 56.5% vs. 45.3%, (p < 0.001), HBsAg positivity 3.8% vs. 1.4%, (p < 0.05). Genotype 1b was prevalent in both groups, whereas genotype 4 was more prevalent in migrants (p < 0.05). Liver disease severity and sustained virologic response (SVR) were similar. A higher prevalence of comorbidities was reported for natives compared to migrants (p < 0.05). Liver disease progression cofactors (HBsAg, HIV coinfection, alcohol abuse, potential metabolic syndrome) were present in 39.1% and 47.1% (p > 0.05) of migrants and natives who eradicated HCV, respectively. Conclusion: Compared to natives, HCV-infected migrants in care have different demographics, HCV genotypes, viral coinfections and comorbidities and similar disease severity, SVR and cofactors for disease progression after HCV eradication. A periodic clinical assessment after HCV eradication in Italians and migrants with cofactors for disease progression is warranted

    The Hemopoietic Stem Cell Niche Versus the Microenvironment of the Multiple Myeloma-Tumor Initiating Cell

    Get PDF
    Multiple myeloma cells are reminiscent of hemopoietic stem cells in their strict dependence upon the bone marrow microenvironment. However, from all other points of view, multiple myeloma cells differ markedly from stem cells. The cells possess a mature phenotype and secrete antibodies, and have thus made the whole journey to maturity, while maintaining a tumor phenotype. Not much credence was given to the possibility that the bulk of plasma-like multiple myeloma tumor cells is generated from tumor-initiating cells. Although interleukin-6 is a major contributor to the formation of the tumor’s microenvironment in multiple myeloma, it is not a major factor within hemopoietic stem cell niches. The bone marrow niche for myeloma cells includes the activity of inflammatory cytokines released through osteoclastogenesis. These permit maintenance of myeloma cells within the bone marrow. In contrast, osteoclastogenesis constitutes a signal that drives hemopoietic stem cells away from their bone marrow niches. The properties of the bone marrow microenvironment, which supports myeloma cell maintenance and proliferation, is therefore markedly different from the characteristics of the hemopoietic stem cell niche. Thus, multiple myeloma presents an example of a hemopoietic tumor microenvironment that does not resemble the corresponding stem cell renewal niche

    J.P. Delgrande

    Full text link
    Abstract. One of the standard principles of rationality guiding traditional accounts of belief change is the principle of minimal change: a reasoner’s belief corpus should be modified in a minimal fashion when assimilating new information. This rationality principle has stood belief change in good stead. However, it does not deal properly with all belief change scenarios. We introduce a novel account of belief change motivated by one of Grice’s maxims of conversational implicature: the reasoner’s belief corpus is modified in a minimal fashion to assimilate exactly the new information. In this form of belief change, when the reasoner revises by new information p ∨ q their belief corpus is modified so that p∨q is believed but stronger propositions like p∧q are not, no matter what beliefs are in the reasoner’s initial corpus. We term this conservative belief change since the revised belief corpus is a conservative extension of the original belief corpus given the new information

    Dynamic belief revision operators

    Get PDF
    The AGM approach to belief change is not geared to provide a decent account of iterated belief change. Darwiche and Pearl have sought to extend the AGM proposal in an interesting way to deal with this problem. We show that the original Darwiche–Pearl approach is, on the one hand excessively strong and, on the other rather limited in scope. The later Darwiche–Pearl approach, we argue, although it addresses the first problem, still remains rather permissive. We address both these issues by (1) assuming a dynamic revision operator that changes to a new revision operator after each instance of belief change, and (2) strengthening the Darwiche–Pearl proposal. Moreover, we provide constructions of this dynamic revision operator via entrenchment kinematics as well as a simple form of lexicographic revision, and prove representation results connecting these accounts.36 page(s

    Gricean belief change

    Full text link
    One of the standard principles of rationality guiding traditional accounts of belief change is the principle of minimal change: a reasoner’s belief corpus should be modified in a minimal fashion when assimilating new information. This rationality principle has stood belief change in good stead. However, it does not deal properly with all belief change scenarios. We introduce a novel account of belief change motivated by one of Grice’s maxims of conversational implicature: the reasoner’s belief corpus is modified in a minimal fashion to assimilate exactly the new information. In this form of belief change, when the reasoner revises by new information p∨q their belief corpus is modified so that p∨q is believed but stronger propositions like p∧q are not, no matter what beliefs are in the reasoner’s initial corpus. We term this conservative belief change since the revised belief corpus is a conservative extension of the original belief corpus given the new information.17 page(s

    Conservative belief revision

    Full text link
    A standard assumption underlying traditional accounts of belief change is the principle of minimal change, that an agent’s belief state should be modified minimally to incorporate new information. In this paper we introduce a novel account of belief change in which the agent’s belief state is modified minimally to incorporate exactly the new information. Thus a revision by p V q will result in a new belief state in which p v q is believed, but a stronger proposition (such as p & q) is not, regardless of the initial form of the belief state. This form of belief change is termed conservative belief change and corresponds to a Gricean interpretation of the input formula. We investigate belief revision in this framework, and provide a representation result between a set of postulates characterising this form of belief change and a construction in terms of systems of spheres. This approach is extended to that of belief revision with respect to a specified context. Last, we show how this approach resolves a longstanding problem in belief revision.6 page(s
    • …
    corecore