Chloroquine Administration in Breastfeeding Mothers Associates with Increased HIV-1 Plasma Viral Loads

2Abstract Chloroquine (CQ) and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been proposed to be effective at treating COVID-19 patients. We, and others, have previously reported on the capacity of CQ to reduce HIV-1 replication in vitro. We tested CQ administration in post-partum mothers on influencing HIV-1 viral loads in human milk as a means of lowering mother to child transmission. A Phase I/II, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate chloroquine administration to reduce HIV-1 RNA levels in human milk: the CHARGE study. Thirty HIV-1 positive pregnant Rwandese women (CQ n = 20; placebo n = 10) were enrolled in a 16-week study, with the treatment group receiving a 200 mg oral dose of CQ daily. Base-line plasma viral load (pVL) measurements and CD4 counts were determined prior to delivery, and pVL, breast milk VL (bmVL) and CQ levels measured during treatment. For women receiving treatment, CQ concentration was higher in breast milk compared to plasma (over 2.5-fold), with a positive correlation between the levels in the two compartments (P < 0.003). A link between high CQ concentrations in plasma and high CD4 counts (P < 0.001) was observed. Surprisingly, we found a significant increase in pVL after CQ treatment in over half of the mothers (n=11; P < 0.001) and with no alteration to bmVL measurements. No specific amino acid alterations in the gp120 envelope sequences could be associated with CQ administration. CQ usage is associated with a significant increase to pVL in early breastfeeding mothers from Rwanda which cautions against the use of CQ in such individuals. Our results highlight a discrepancy between CQ effects on modulating HIV-1 replication in vitro versus in vivo and indicate caution when prescribing CQ to post-partum HIV-1 untreated mothers. This discrepancy should be taken into consideration when testing CQ or HCQ treatment in COVID-19 clinical trials, especially relating to the post-partum setting

Development of a national quality framework for palliative care in a mixed generalist and specialist care model: A whole-sector approach and a modified Delphi technique

In a predominantly biomedical healthcare model focused on cure, providing optimal, person-centred palliative care is challenging. The general public, patients, and healthcare professionals are often unaware of palliative care’s benefits. Poor interdisciplinary teamwork and limited communication combined with a lack of early identification of patients with palliative care needs contribute to sub-optimal palliative care provision. We aimed to develop a national quality framework to improve availability and access to high-quality palliative care in a mixed generalist-specialist palliative care model. We hypothesised that a whole-sector approach and a modified Delphi technique would be suitable to reach this aim. Analogous to the international AGREE guideline criteria and employing a whole-sector approach, an expert panel comprising mandated representatives for patients and their families, various healthcare associations, and health insurers answered the main question: ‘What are the elements defining high-quality palliative care in the Netherlands?’. For constructing the quality framework, a bottleneck analysis of palliative care provision and a literature review were conducted. Six core documents were used in a modified Delphi technique to build the framework with the expert panel, while stakeholder organisations were involved and informed in round-table discussions. In the entire process, preparing and building relationships took one year and surveying, convening, discussing content, consulting peers, and obtaining final consent from all stakeholders took 18 months. A quality framework, including a glossary of terms, endorsed by organisations representing patients and their families, general practitioners, elderly care physicians, medical specialists, nurses, social workers, psychologists, spiritual caregivers, and health insurers was developed and annexed with a summary for patients and families. We successfully developed a national consensus-based patient-centred quality framework for high-quality palliative care in a mixed generalist-specialist palliative care model. A whole-sector approach and a modified Delphi technique are feasible structures to achieve this aim. The process we reported may guide other countries in their initiatives to enhance palliative care

Sequential versus combination chemotherapy with capecitabine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin in advanced colorectal cancer (CAIRO): a phase III randomised controlled trial

The optimum use of cytotoxic drugs for advanced colorectal cancer has not been defined. Our aim was to investigate whether combination treatment is better than sequential administration of the same drugs in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. We randomly assigned 820 patients with advanced colorectal cancer to receive either first-line treatment with capecitabine, second-line irinotecan, and third-line capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (sequential treatment; n=410) or first-line treatment capecitabine plus irinotecan and second-line capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (combination treatment; n=410). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov with the number NCT00312000. 17 patients (nine in the sequential treatment group, eight in the combination group) were found to be ineligible and were excluded from the analysis. 675 (84%) patients died during the study: 336 in the sequential group and 339 in the combination group. Median overall survival was 16.3 (95% CI 14.3-18.1) months for sequential treatment and 17.4 (15.2-19.2) months for combination treatment (p=0.3281). The hazard ratio for combination versus sequential treatment was 0.92 (95% CI 0.79-1.08; p=0.3281). The frequency of grade 3-4 toxicity over all lines of treatment did not differ significantly between the two groups, except for grade 3 hand-foot syndrome, which occurred more often with sequential treatment than with combination treatment (13%vs 7%; p=0.004). Combination treatment does not significantly improve overall survival compared with the sequential use of cytotoxic drugs in advanced colorectal cancer. Thus sequential treatment remains a valid option for patients with advanced colorectal cance