Impact of abstinence and of reducing illicit drug use without abstinence on human immunodeficiency virus viral load

Background. Substance use is common among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) and a barrier to achieving viral suppression. Among PLWH who report illicit drug use, we evaluated associations between HIV viral load (VL) and reduced use of illicit opioids, methamphetamine/crystal, cocaine/crack, and marijuana, regardless of whether or not abstinence was achieved. Methods. This was a longitudinal cohort study of PLWH from 7 HIV clinics or 4 clinical studies. We used joint longitudinal and survival models to examine the impact of decreasing drug use and of abstinence for each drug on viral suppression. We repeated analyses using linear mixed models to examine associations between change in frequency of drug use and VL. Results. The number of PLWH who were using each drug at baseline ranged from n = 568 (illicit opioids) to n = 4272 (marijuana). Abstinence was associated with higher odds of viral suppression (odds ratio [OR], 1.4-2.2) and lower relative VL (ranging from 21% to 42% by drug) for all 4 drug categories. Reducing frequency of illicit opioid or methamphetamine/crystal use without abstinence was associated with VL suppression (OR, 2.2, 1.6, respectively). Reducing frequency of illicit opioid or methamphetamine/crystal use without abstinence was associated with lower relative VL (47%, 38%, respectively). Conclusions. Abstinence was associated with viral suppression. In addition, reducing use of illicit opioids or methamphetamine/crystal, even without abstinence, was also associated with viral suppression. Our findings highlight the impact of reducing substance use, even when abstinence is not achieved, and the potential benefits of medications, behavioral interventions, and harm-reduction interventions

Recommendations for analytical antiretroviral treatment interruptions in HIV research trials: report of a consensus meeting

Analytical antiretroviral treatment interruption (ATI) is an important feature of HIV research, seeking to achieve sustained viral suppression in the absence of antiretroviral therapy (ART) when the goal is to measure effects of novel therapeutic interventions on time to viral load rebound or altered viral setpoint. Trials with ATIs also intend to determine host, virological, and immunological markers that are predictive of sustained viral control off ART. Although ATI is increasingly incorporated into proof-of-concept trials, no consensus has been reached on strategies to maximise its utility and minimise its risks. In addition, differences in ATI trial designs hinder the ability to compare efficacy and safety of interventions across trials. Therefore, we held a meeting of stakeholders from many interest groups, including scientists, clinicians, ethicists, social scientists, regulators, people living with HIV, and advocacy groups, to discuss the main challenges concerning ATI studies and to formulate recommendations with an emphasis on strategies for risk mitigation and monitoring, ART resumption criteria, and ethical considerations. In this Review, we present the major points of discussion and consensus views achieved with the goal of informing the conduct of ATIs to maximise the knowledge gained and minimise the risk to participants in clinical HIV research

Recommendations for analytical antiretroviral treatment interruptions in HIV research trials-report of a consensus meeting.

Analytical antiretroviral treatment interruption (ATI) is an important feature of HIV research, seeking to achieve sustained viral suppression in the absence of antiretroviral therapy (ART) when the goal is to measure effects of novel therapeutic interventions on time to viral load rebound or altered viral setpoint. Trials with ATIs also intend to determine host, virological, and immunological markers that are predictive of sustained viral control off ART. Although ATI is increasingly incorporated into proof-of-concept trials, no consensus has been reached on strategies to maximise its utility and minimise its risks. In addition, differences in ATI trial designs hinder the ability to compare efficacy and safety of interventions across trials. Therefore, we held a meeting of stakeholders from many interest groups, including scientists, clinicians, ethicists, social scientists, regulators, people living with HIV, and advocacy groups, to discuss the main challenges concerning ATI studies and to formulate recommendations with an emphasis on strategies for risk mitigation and monitoring, ART resumption criteria, and ethical considerations. In this Review, we present the major points of discussion and consensus views achieved with the goal of informing the conduct of ATIs to maximise the knowledge gained and minimise the risk to participants in clinical HIV research

Moxifloxacin Safety

BACKGROUND: Moxifloxacin, a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, is used for the treatment of respiratory tract, pelvic inflammatory disease, skin, and intra-abdominal infections. Its safety profile is considered favorable in most reviews but has been challenged with respect to rare but potentially fatal toxicities (e.g. hepatic, cardiac, or skin reactions). OBJECTIVE: To analyze and compare the safety profile of moxifloxacin versus comparators in the entire clinical database of the manufacturer. SETTING: Data on the valid-for-safety population from phase II–IV actively controlled studies (performed between 1996 and 2010) were analyzed. Studies were either double blind (n = 22 369) or open label (n = 7635) and included patients with indications that have been approved in at least one country [acute bacterial sinusitis, acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis, community-acquired pneumonia, uncomplicated pelvic inflammatory disease, complicated and uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections, and complicated intra-abdominal infections] (n = 27 824) and patients with other indications (n = 2180), using the recommended daily dose (400 mg) and route of administration (oral, intravenous/oral, intravenous only). The analysis included patients at risk (age ≥65 years, diabetes mellitus, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, cardiac disorders, or body mass index <18 kg/m(2)). Patients with known contraindications were excluded from enrollment by study protocol design, but any patient having entered a study, even if inappropriately, was included in the analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Crude incidences and relative risk estimates (Mantel-Haenszel analysis) of patients with any adverse event (AE), adverse drug reaction (ADR), serious AE (SAE), serious ADR (SADR), treatment discontinuation due to an AE or ADR, and fatal outcomes related to an AE or ADR. RESULTS: Overall incidence rates of AEs were globally similar in the moxifloxacin and comparator groups. By filtering the data for differences in disfavor of moxifloxacin (i) at ≥2.5% for events with an incidence ≥2.5% or at ≥2-fold for events with an incidence <2.5% in one or both groups and (ii) affecting ≥10 patients in either group, we observed slightly more (i) AEs in double-blind intravenous-only and open-label oral studies, (ii) SAEs in double-blind intravenous-only studies, (iii) ADRs and SADRs in open-label oral studies, (iv) SADRs in open-label intravenous/oral studies, and (v) premature discontinuation due to AEs in open-label intravenous-only studies. The actual numbers of SADRs (in all studies) were small, with clinically relevant differences noted only in intravenous/oral studies and mainly driven by ‘gastrointestinal disorders’ (15 versus 7 patients) and ‘changes observed during investigations’ (23 versus 7 patients [asymptomatic QT prolongation: 11 versus 4 patients in double-blind studies]). Analysis by comparator (including another fluoroquinolone) did not reveal medically relevant differences, even in patients at risk. Incidence rates of hepatic disorders, tendon disorders, clinical surrogates of QT prolongation, serious cutaneous reactions, and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea were similar with moxifloxacin and comparators. CONCLUSION: The safety of moxifloxacin is essentially comparable to that of standard therapies for patients receiving the currently registered dosage and for whom contraindications and precautions of use (as in the product label) are taken into account