Rationale and design of an independent randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of aripiprazole or haloperidol in combination with clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>One third to two thirds of people with schizophrenia have persistent psychotic symptoms despite clozapine treatment. Under real-world circumstances, the need to provide effective therapeutic interventions to patients who do not have an optimal response to clozapine has been cited as the most common reason for simultaneously prescribing a second antipsychotic drug in combination treatment strategies. In a clinical area where the pressing need of providing therapeutic answers has progressively increased the occurrence of antipsychotic polypharmacy, despite the lack of robust evidence of its efficacy, we sought to implement a pre-planned protocol where two alternative therapeutic answers are systematically provided and evaluated within the context of a pragmatic, multicentre, independent randomised study.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The principal clinical question to be answered by the present project is the relative efficacy and tolerability of combination treatment with clozapine plus aripiprazole compared with combination treatment with clozapine plus haloperidol in patients with an incomplete response to treatment with clozapine over an appropriate period of time. This project is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial that follow patients over a period of 12 months. Withdrawal from allocated treatment within 3 months is the primary outcome.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The implementation of the protocol presented here shows that it is possible to create a network of community psychiatric services that accept the idea of using their everyday clinical practice to produce randomised knowledge. The employed pragmatic attitude allowed to randomly allocate more than 100 individuals, which means that this study is the largest antipsychotic combination trial conducted so far in Western countries. We expect that the current project, by generating evidence on whether it is clinically useful to combine clozapine with aripiprazole rather than with haloperidol, provides physicians with a solid evidence base to be directly applied in the routine care of patients with schizophrenia.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p><b>Clincaltrials.gov Identifier</b>: NCT00395915</p

Impact on health-related quality of life and symptoms of anxiety and depression after 32 weeks of Dupilumab treatment for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis

Dupilumab is the first biological agent approved for treatment of moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Evidence of Dupilumab effectiveness on psychological outcomes beyond 16 weeks of treatment from real‐life settings is lacking. To evaluate the effectiveness of Dupilumab treatment up to 32 weeks, focusing health‐related quality of life and psychological outcome of patients with moderate‐to‐severe AD. An observational prospective cohort study was conducted in a real‐life setting at an Italian tertiary centre. Assessment of outcome measures was carried out at baseline, after 16 and 32 weeks of treatment. A total of 171 patients were included. EASI‐75 and EASI‐90 were achieved in 85% and 60% of the participants, respectively, after 16 weeks, and in 89.6% and 69.8% after 32 weeks of treatment. Significant improvements (p < 0.001; r = 0.57–0.95) were found after 16 weeks for each outcome considered, including clinician and patient‐reported measures of AD severity and scales of health‐related quality of life and psychological morbidity, and maintained up to 32 weeks. Further analysis revealed that patients' quality of life was more associated with the subjective perception of disease severity rather than objective measures and suggested a possible different response to treatment based on the age of AD onset. Dupilumab was confirmed to be rapid, effective and safe in patients with moderate‐to‐severe AD. Its positive impact on psychological outcomes up to 32 weeks was ascertained here, adding new evidence on the need to consider subjective factors affecting patients' perception of disease severity in evaluating the response to treatment

48 week outcomes of maraviroc-containing regimens following the genotypic or Trofile assay in HIV-1 failing subjects: the OSCAR Study

This study assessed the 48-week efficacy of an antiretroviral therapy including maraviroc following the assessment of co-receptor tropism by use of Geno2Pheno algorithm or the Trofile phenotypic assay in failing treatment-experienced HIV-1 patients. This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Treatment-experienced subjects with HIV-RNA ≥500 copies/mL were randomized (1:1) to undergo co-receptor tropism testing by the Geno- 2Pheno algorithm (with a false positive rate &gt;10%) or the Trofile assay before starting a new antiretroviral treatment which included maraviroc. The primary endpoint was the 48 week proportion of patients with treatment success (TS). Intention-to-treat analyses are also reported. One hundred and fifty-five experienced patients were analysed: 77 patients in the Trofile arm and 78 in the Genotype arm. The 48-week proportion of TS was 87% in the Trofile arm and 89% in the Genotype arm (difference: 1.5%, 95%CI: -8.9% to 11.8%) suggesting non-inferiority. In the Trofile arm, 10 patients had treatment failure: 5 viral rebound, 5 discontinuations. In the Genotype arm, 9 patients had treatment failure: 7 viral rebound, 2 lost to follow-up. CD4+ significantly increased from baseline to week 48 in both arms. 48-week treatment success was similar for maraviroc-including therapy prescribed following the Trofile phenotypic assay or Geno2Pheno algorithm

Performance of commonly used genotypic assays and comparison with phenotypic assays of HIV-1 coreceptor tropism in acutely HIV-1-infected patients.

15Objectives: Although founder viruses in primary HIV-1 infections (PHIs) typically use the CCR5 coreceptor (R5-tropic), 3%-19% of subjects also harbour CXCR4-using viruses (X4-tropic), making tropism determination before CCR5 antagonist usage mandatory. Genotypic methods can be used to accurately determine HIV-1 tropism in chronically infected patients. Methods:We compared the results of genotypic methods [geno2pheno10%, PSSMx4r5 including a novel nucleotideinput version (ntPSSM) and distant segments (ds)Kernel] to predict coreceptor usage in a cohort of 67 PHIs. Specimens with discrepant results were phenotypically tested after cloning the V3 gene region into proviral backbones. Recombinant viruses were used to infect U87 indicator cell lines bearing CD4 and either CCR5 or CXCR4. Results: Geno2pheno10%, PSSMx4r5 and (ds)Kernel gave identical predictions in 85% of cases. Geno2pheno10% predicted the presence of CXCR4 viruses in 18% of patients. Two patientswere predicted to carry X4-tropic viruses by all algorithms and X4-tropic viruses were detected in at least one of the recombinant AD8 or NL4-3 backbonebased assays. Ten samples resulted in discordant predictions with at least one algorithm. Full concordance between tropism prediction by using population sequencing and phenotypic assays was observed only with ntPSSM. Geno2pheno prediction and the phenotypic assay gave the same results in a minority of 'discordant' patients. Conclusions: Compared with both PSSMx4r5 versions, (ds)Kernel and our phenotypic assay, geno2pheno10% overestimated the frequency of X4-tropic viruses (18% versus 3%). ntPSSM was able to detect one additional X4 virus compared with (ds)Kernel that was confirmed with the phenotypic assay. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial ChemotherapynoneCeresola, E.R.; Nozza, S.; Sampaolo, M.; Pignataro, A.R.; Saita, D.; Ferrarese, R.; Ripa, M.; Deng, W.; Mullins, J.I.; Boeri, E.; Tambussi, G.; Toniolo, A.; Lazzarin, A.; Clementi, M.; Canducci, F.Ceresola, E. R.; Nozza, S.; Sampaolo, M.; Pignataro, A. R.; Saita, D.; Ferrarese, R.; Ripa, M.; Deng, W.; Mullins, J. I.; Boeri, E.; Tambussi, G.; Toniolo, Antonio; Lazzarin, A.; Clementi, M.; Canducci, Filipp

Efficacy and safety of switching from branded to generic antiretrovirals in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients

<div><p>Background</p><p>Aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of switching from branded to generic antiretrovirals in patients with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Matched-cohort study of patients followed at a single clinical center. Since September 2014, all patients with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL who were receiving branded lamivudine or zidovudine/lamivudine or efavirenz were switched to the generic compound (switchers) and matched, in a ratio 1:1, for age (±5 years), gender, anti-HCV antibodies, nadir and (±50 cells/μL) baseline CD4+ count (±100 cells/μL), duration of antiretroviral therapy (±1 year), with patients with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL, on treatment with unavailable generic compounds (non-switchers). Incidence rates (IR) of different outcomes were calculated and compared by Poisson regression model. A confirmed HIV-RNA ≥50 copies/mL defined virological failure; any change in the antiretroviral regimen was defined as treatment discontinuation.</p><p>Results</p><p>Four hundred forty patients were switched to generic compounds (268 [61%] on lamivudine, 65 [15%] on zidovudine/lamivudine, 87 [20%] on efavirenz and 20 [4%] on efavirenz and either lamivudine or zidovudine/lamivudine). Over a median follow-up of 15.0 (12.1–15.7) months, virological failure occurred in four switchers (IR: 0.07 [0.02–0.18]/100-person months of follow-up [PMFU]) and in ten non-switchers (IR: 0.20 [0.10–0.35]/100-PMFU) (p = 0.0003), while treatment discontinuation occurred in 118 switchers (IR: 2.05 [1.70–2.44]/100-PMFU) and in 128 non-switchers (IR: 2.37 [1.99–2.81]/100-PMFU) (p = 0.699).</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>After more than one year of follow-up, we found no evidence of increased risk of reduced efficacy or increased toxicity after switching from branded to generic lamivudine or zidovudine/lamivudine or efavirenz.</p></div

Incidence rates and relative risks of the main outcomes.

<p>Incidence rates and relative risks of the main outcomes.</p

Baseline characteristics.

<p>Baseline characteristics.</p