Forgiveness of Dolutegravir-Based Triple Therapy Compared With Older Antiretroviral Regimens: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort of Adherence Patterns and HIV-RNA Replication.

For many people with HIV (PWH), taking antiretroviral therapy (ARV) every day is difficult. Average adherence (Av-Adh) and log-transformed treatment interruption (TI) to ARV were prospectively measured over 6 months using electronic drug monitoring (EDM) in several cohorts of PWH. Multivariate linear regression models including baseline confounders explored the influence of EDM-defined adherence (R <sup>2</sup> ) on 6-month log <sub>10</sub> HIV-RNA. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to compare the risk of HIV-RNA detection (VR) within subgroups stratified by lower (≤95%) and higher (>95%) Av-Adh. Three hundred ninety-nine PWH were analyzed with different ARVs: dolutegravir (n = 102), raltegravir (n = 90), boosted PI (bPI; n = 107), and NNRTI (n = 100). In the dolutegravir group, the influence of adherence pattern measures on R <sup>2</sup> for HIV-RNA levels was marginal (+2%). Av-Adh, TI, and Av-Adh × TI increased the R <sup>2</sup> for HIV-RNA levels by 54% and 40% in the raltegravir and bPI treatment groups, respectively. TI increased the R <sup>2</sup> for HIV-RNA levels by 36% in the NNRTI treatment group. Compared with the dolutegravir-based regimen, the risk of VR was significantly increased for raltegravir (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 45.6; 95% CI, 4.5-462.1; P = .001), NNRTIs (aOR, 24.8; 95% CI, 2.7-228.4; P = .005), and bPIs (aOR, 28.3; 95% CI, 3.4-239.4; P = .002) in PWH with Av-Adh ≤95%. Among PWH with >95% Av-Adh, there were no significant differences in the risk of VR among the different ARVs. These findings support the concept that dolutegravir in combination with 2 other active ARVs achieves greater virological suppression than older ARVs, including raltegravir, NNRTI, and bPI, among PWH with lower adherence

Effect of single-unit transfusion in patients treated for haematological disease including acute leukemia: A multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial

International audienceBackground: Retrospective studies in hematological unit have suggested that single red blood cell (1-RBC) unit transfusion policy may reduce the number of RBC used without negative clinical impact.Method: Acute leukemia patients requiring intensive chemotherapy or patients receiving autologous or allogeneic transplantation were randomly assigned to receive either single RBC (1-RBC arm) or double RBC (2-RBC arm) per transfusion with a hemoglobin trigger of 8 g/dL. The primary composite endpoint was the percentage of patients experiencing serious complications, such as a non-hematological adverse event grade ≥ 3 or intensive care admission or death.Findings: A total of 981 and 592 RBC transfusions were required in the 1-RBC arm (n = 125) and the 2-RBC arm (n = 120), respectively. The mean pre-transfusion hemoglobin levels were 7.49 ± 0.83 g/dL in the 1-RBC arm and 7.46 ± 0.67 g/dL in the 2-RBC arm (p = 0.275). The predefined non-inferiority criteria was achieved with 28/125 patients reaching the primary endpoint in the 1-RBC arm (22.4 %) and 28/120 patients in the 2-RBC arm (23.3 %) (Risk difference 0.009; 95 %, Confidence interval [-0.0791 to 0.0978], p = 0.021). The median (IQR) of RBC units transfused per patient was 7 (4-12) in the 1-RBC arm and 8 (4-12) in 2-RBC arm. Hemoglobin levels at discharge were also comparable in both arms.Interpretation: The results of this trial indicate that a single RBC transfusion policy is not inferior to a double RBC transfusion policy for patients receiving a bone marrow transplant or intensive chemotherapy in a hematological intensive care unit. However, the single RBC transfusion policy did not reduce the number of RBC units transfused per stay