Lessons Learned Developing a Diagnostic Tool for HIV-Associated Dementia Feasible to Implement in Resource-Limited Settings: Pilot Testing in Kenya

Objective: To conduct a preliminary evaluation of the utility and reliability of a diagnostic tool for HIV-associated dementia (HAD) for use by primary health care workers (HCW) which would be feasible to implement in resource-limited settings. Background: In resource-limited settings, HAD is an indication for anti-retroviral therapy regardless of CD4 T-cell count. Anti-retroviral therapy, the treatment for HAD, is now increasingly available in resource-limited settings. Nonetheless, HAD remains under-diagnosed likely because of limited clinical expertise and availability of diagnostic tests. Thus, a simple diagnostic tool which is practical to implement in resource-limited settings is an urgent need. Methods: A convenience sample of 30 HIV-infected outpatients was enrolled in Western Kenya. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic tool for HAD as administered by a primary HCW. This was compared to an expert clinical assessment which included examination by a physician, neuropsychological testing, and in selected cases, brain imaging. Agreement between HCW and an expert examiner on certain tool components was measured using Kappa statistic. Results: The sample was 57 % male, mean age was 38.6 years, mean CD4 T-cell count was 323 cells/mL, and 54 % had less than a secondary school education. Six (20%) of the subjects were diagnosed with HAD by expert clinical assessment. The diagnostic tool was 63 % sensitive and 67 % specific for HAD. Agreement between HCW and expert examiners was poor for many individual items of the diagnostic tool (K =.03–.65). This diagnostic tool had moderate sensitivity and specificity fo

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Designing and Evaluating a Programmed Library Instruction Text

published or submitted for publicatio

Improved neurocognitive test performance in both arms of the SMART study: Impact of practice effect

We evaluated factors associated with improvement in neurocognitive performance in 258 HIV-infected adults with baseline CD4 lymphocyte counts above 350 cells/mm randomized to intermittent, CD4-guided antiretroviral therapy (ART) (128 participants) versus continuous therapy (130) in the Neurology substudy of the Strategies for Management of Antiretroviral Therapy trial. Participants were enrolled in Australia, North America, Brazil, and Thailand, and neurocognitive performance was assessed by a five-test battery at baseline and month 6. The primary outcome was change in the quantitative neurocognitive performance z score (QNPZ-5), the average of the z scores of the five tests. Associations of the 6-month change in test scores with ART use, CD4 cell counts, HIV RNA levels, and other factors were determined using multiple regression models. At baseline, median age was 40 years, median CD4 cell count was 513 cells/mm, 88 % had plasma HIV RNA ≤400 copies/mL, and mean QNPZ-5 was -0.68. Neurocognitive performance improved in both treatment groups by 6 months; QNPZ-5 scores increased by 0.20 and 0.13 in the intermittent and continuous ART groups, respectively (both P < 0.001 for increase and P = 0.26 for difference). ART was used on average for 3.6 and 5.9 out of the 6 months in the intermittent and continuous ART groups, respectively, but the increase in neurocognitive test scores could not be explained by ART use, changes in CD4, or plasma HIV RNA, which suggests a practice effect. The impact of a practice effect after 6 months emphasizes the need for a control group in HIV studies that measure intervention effects using neurocognitive tests similar to ours

Therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin in critically ill patients with covid-19

Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society. BACKGROUND Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of −1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, −1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, −1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio \u3c1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis

Efficacy of anti-PD-1 and ipilimumab alone or in combination in acral melanoma

BACKGROUND: Acral melanoma is a rare melanoma subtype with poor prognosis. Importantly, these patients were not identified as a specific subgroup in the landmark melanoma trials involving ipilimumab and the anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) agents nivolumab and pembrolizumab. There is therefore an absence of prospective clinical trial evidence regarding the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in this population. Acral melanoma has lower tumor mutation burden (TMB) than other cutaneous sites, and primary site is associated with differences in TMB. However the impact of this on the effectiveness of immune CPIs is unknown. We examined the efficacy of CPIs in acral melanoma, including by primary site. METHODS: Patients with unresectable stage III/IV acral melanoma treated with CPI (anti-PD-1 and/or ipilimumab) were studied. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were conducted. Primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR); secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 325 patients were included: 234 (72%) plantar, 69 (21%) subungual and 22 (7%) palmar primary sites. First CPI included: 184 (57%) anti-PD-1, 59 (18%) anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination and 82 (25%) ipilimumab. ORR was significantly higher with initial anti-PD-1/ipilimumab compared with anti-PD-1 (43% vs 26%, HR 2.14, p=0.0004) and significantly lower with ipilimumab (15% vs 26%, HR 0.49, p=0.0016). Landmark PFS at 1 year was highest for anti-PD-1/ipilimumab at 34% (95% CI 24% to 49%), compared with 26% (95% CI 20% to 33%) with anti-PD-1 and 10% (95% CI 5% to 19%) with ipilimumab. Despite a trend for increased PFS, anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination did not significantly improve PFS (HR 0.85, p=0.35) or OS over anti-PD-1 (HR 1.30, p=0.16), potentially due to subsequent therapies and high rates of acquired resistance. No outcome differences were found between primary sites. CONCLUSION: While the ORR to anti-PD-1/ipilimumab was significantly higher than anti-PD-1 and PFS numerically higher, in this retrospective cohort this benefit did not translate to improved OS. Future trials should specifically include patients with acral melanoma, to help determine the optimal management of this important melanoma subtype