Efavirenz versus boosted atazanavir-containing regimens and immunologic, virologic, and clinical outcomes: A prospective study of HIV-positive individuals

Abstract Objective: To compare regimens consisting of either ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or efavirenz and a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone with respect to clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes. Design: Prospective studies of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals in Europe and the United States included in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration. Methods: HIV-positive, antiretroviral therapy-naive, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)-free individuals were followed from the time they started an atazanavir or efavirenz regimen. We estimated an analog of the “intention-to-treat” effect for efavirenz versus atazanavir regimens on clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes with adjustment via inverse probability weighting for time-varying covariates. Results: A total of 4301 individuals started an atazanavir regimen (83 deaths, 157 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths) and 18,786 individuals started an efavirenz regimen (389 deaths, 825 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths). During a median follow-up of 31 months, the hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 0.98 (0.77, 1.24) for death and 1.09 (0.91, 1.30) for AIDS-defining illness or death comparing efavirenz with atazanavir regimens. The 5-year survival difference was 0.1% (95% confidence interval: −0.7%, 0.8%) and the AIDS-free survival difference was −0.3% (−1.2%, 0.6%). After 12 months, the mean change in CD4 cell count was 20.8 (95% confidence interval: 13.9, 27.8) cells/mm3 lower and the risk of virologic failure was 20% (14%, 26%) lower in the efavirenz regimens. Conclusion: Our estimates are consistent with a smaller 12-month increase in CD4 cell count, and a smaller risk of virologic failure at 12 months for efavirenz compared with atazanavir regimens. No overall differences could be detected with respect to 5-year survival or AIDS-free survival

Expert recommendation from the Swiss Amyloidosis Network (SAN) for systemic AL-amyloidosis

Systemic amyloidosis is a heterogeneous group of diseases associated with protein misfolding into insoluble beta-sheet rich structures that deposit extracellularly in different organs, eventually compromising their function. There are more than 30 different proteins, known to be amyloidogenic with “light chain” (AL)-amyloidosis being the most common type, followed by transthyretin (ATTR)-, and amyloid protein A (AA)-amyloidosis. Systemic amyloidosis is a rare disease with an incidence of around 10 patients in 1 million inhabitants. Recently several new therapeutic options have been developed for subgroups of amyloidosis patients, and the introduction of novel therapies for plasma cell myeloma has led to an increase in the therapeutic armamentarium for plasma cell disorders, including AL amyloidosis. Among them, proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents (-imids), and monoclonal antibodies have been successfully introduced into clinical practice. Still, high-quality data from randomised controlled trials regarding the benefit of these cost-intensive drugs in AL amyloidosis are widely lacking, and due to the rarity of the disease many physicians will not gain routine experience in the management of these frail patients. The diagnosis of AL amyloidosis relies on a close collaboration between clinicians, pathologists, imaging experts, and sometimes geneticists. Diagnosis and treatment options in this complex disorder should be discussed in dedicated multidisciplinary boards. In January 2020, the first meeting of the Swiss Amyloidosis Network took place in Zurich, Switzerland. One aim of this meeting was to establish a consensus guideline regarding the diagnostic work-up and the treatment recommendations for systemic amyloidosis tailored to the Swiss health care system. Forty-five participants from different fields in medicine discussed many aspects of amyloidosis. These are the Swiss Amyloidosis Network recommendations which focus on diagnostic work-up and treatment of AL-amyloidosis

Sarcoma of the uterus. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/074, April 2021)

Purpose This is an official guideline, published and coordinated by the Germany Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, DGGG). Because of their rarity and heterogeneous histopathology, uterine sarcomas are challenging in terms of their clinical management and therefore require a multidisciplinary approach. To our knowledge, there are currently no binding evidence-based recommendations for the appropriate management of this heterogeneous group of tumors. Methods This S2k guideline was first published in 2015. The update published here is once again the result of the consensus of a representative interdisciplinary committee of experts who were commissioned by the Guidelines Committee of the DGGG to carry out a systematic search of the literature on uterine sarcomas. Members of the participating professional societies achieved a formal consensus after a structured consensus process. Recommendations 1.1 Epidemiology, classification, staging of uterine sarcomas. 1.2 Symptoms, general diagnostic workup, general pathology or genetic predisposition to uterine sarcomas. 2. Management of leiomyosarcomas. 3. Management of low-grade endometrial stromal sarcomas. 4. Management of high-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma and undifferentiated uterine sarcomas. 5. Management of adenosarcomas. 6. Rhabdomyosarcomas of the uterus in children and adolescents. 7. Follow-up of uterine sarcomas. 8. Management of morcellated uterine sarcomas. 9. Information provided to patients

Boosted lopinavir- versus boosted atazanavir-containing regimens and immunologic, virologic, and clinical outcomes:a prospective study of HIV-infected individuals in high-income countries

BACKGROUND: Current clinical guidelines consider regimens consisting of either ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone among their recommended and alternative first-line antiretroviral regimens. However, these guidelines are based on limited evidence from randomized clinical trials and clinical experience. METHODS: We compared these regimens with respect to clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes using data from prospective studies of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals in Europe and the United States in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration, 2004-2013. Antiretroviral therapy-naive and AIDS-free individuals were followed from the time they started a lopinavir or an atazanavir regimen. We estimated the 'intention-to-treat' effect for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens on each of the outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 6668 individuals started a lopinavir regimen (213 deaths, 457 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths), and 4301 individuals started an atazanavir regimen (83 deaths, 157 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths). The adjusted intention-to-treat hazard ratios for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens were 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], .53-.91) for death, 0.67 (95% CI, .55-.82) for AIDS-defining illness or death, and 0.91 (95% CI, .84-.99) for virologic failure at 12 months. The mean 12-month increase in CD4 count was 8.15 (95% CI, -.13 to 16.43) cells/µL higher in the atazanavir group. Estimates differed by NRTI backbone. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates are consistent with a lower mortality, a lower incidence of AIDS-defining illness, a greater 12-month increase in CD4 cell count, and a smaller risk of virologic failure at 12 months for atazanavir compared with lopinavir regimens