International consensus on (ICON) anaphylaxis

ICON: Anaphylaxis provides a unique perspective on the principal evidence-based anaphylaxis guidelines developed and published independently from 2010 through 2014 by four allergy/immunology organizations. These guidelines concur with regard to the clinical features that indicate a likely diagnosis of anaphylaxis -- a life-threatening generalized or systemic allergic or hypersensitivity reaction. They also concur about prompt initial treatment with intramuscular injection of epinephrine (adrenaline) in the mid-outer thigh, positioning the patient supine (semi-reclining if dyspneic or vomiting), calling for help, and when indicated, providing supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid resuscitation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, along with concomitant monitoring of vital signs and oxygenation. Additionally, they concur that H1-antihistamines, H2-antihistamines, and glucocorticoids are not initial medications of choice. For self-management of patients at risk of anaphylaxis in community settings, they recommend carrying epinephrine auto-injectors and personalized emergency action plans, as well as follow-up with a physician (ideally an allergy/immunology specialist) to help prevent anaphylaxis recurrences. ICON: Anaphylaxis describes unmet needs in anaphylaxis, noting that although epinephrine in 1 mg/mL ampules is available worldwide, other essentials, including supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid resuscitation, and epinephrine auto-injectors are not universally available. ICON: Anaphylaxis proposes a comprehensive international research agenda that calls for additional prospective studies of anaphylaxis epidemiology, patient risk factors and co-factors, triggers, clinical criteria for diagnosis, randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions, and measures to prevent anaphylaxis recurrences. It also calls for facilitation of global collaborations in anaphylaxis research. In addition to confirming the alignment of major anaphylaxis guidelines, ICON: Anaphylaxis adds value by including summary tables and citing 130 key references. It is published as an information resource about anaphylaxis for worldwide use by healthcare professionals, academics, policy-makers, patients, caregivers, and the public

Influence of body weight on achieving indinavir concentrations within its therapeutic window in HIV-infected Thai patients receiving indinavir boosted with ritonavir

Indinavir boosted with ritonavir (IDV/r) dosing with 400/100 mg, twice daily, is preferred in Thai adults, but this dose can lead to concentrations close to the boundaries of its therapeutic window. The objectives of this analysis were to validate a population pharmacokinetic model to describe IDV/r concentrations in HIV-infected Thai patients and to investigate the impact of patient characteristics on achieving adequate IDV concentrations. IDV/r concentration data from 513 plasma samples were available. Population means and variances of pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using a nonlinear mixed effects regression model (NONMEM Version VI). Monte Carlo simulations were performed to estimate the probability of achieving IDV concentrations within its therapeutic window. IDV/r pharmacokinetics were best described by a one-compartment model coupled with a single transit compartment absorption model. Body weight influenced indinavir apparent oral clearance and volume of distribution and allometric scaling significantly reduced the interindividual variability. Final population estimates (interindividual variability in percentage) of indinavir apparent oral clearance and volume of distribution were 21.3 L/h/70 kg (30%) and 90.7 L/70 kg (22%), respectively. Based on model simulations, the probability of achieving an IDV trough concentration greater than 0.1 mg/L was greater than 99% for 600/100 mg and greater than 98% for 400/100 mg, twice daily, in patients weighing 40 to 80 kg. However, the probability of achieving IDV concentrations associated with an increased risk of drug toxicity (greater than 10.0 mg/L) increased from 1% to 10% with 600/100 mg compared with less than 1% with 400/100 mg when body weight decreased from 80 to 40 kg. The validated model developed predicts that 400/100 mg of IDV/r, twice daily, provides indinavir concentrations within the recommended therapeutic window for the majority of patients. The risk of toxic drug concentrations increases rapidly with IDV/r dose of 600/100 mg for patients less than 50 kg and therapeutic drug monitoring of IDV concentrations would help to reduce the risk of IDV-induced nephrotoxicity

Low-dose versus standard-dose ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in virologically suppressed Thai adults with HIV (LASA): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial

Thai patients with HIV have higher exposure to HIV protease inhibitors than do white people and dose reduction might be possible. We compared the efficacy of low-dose with standard-dose ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in virologically suppressed Thai patients with HIV. In this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older who were receiving ritonavir-boosted protease-inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) with HIV plasma viral loads of less than 50 copies per mL, an alanine aminotransferase concentration of less than 200 IU/L, and a creatinine clearance of at least 60 mL/min from 14 hospitals in Thailand. We excluded patients who had active AIDS-defining disease or opportunistic infections, had a history of an HIV viral load of 1000 copies per mL or more after 24 weeks of any ritonavir-boosted protease-inhibitor-based ART, used concomitant medications that could interact with the study drugs, were pregnant or lactating, had illnesses that might change the effect of the study drugs, or had a history of sensitivity to the study drugs. A biostatistician at the study coordinating centre randomly allocated patients (1:1) to switch the protease inhibitor for oral atazanavir 200 mg and ritonavir 100 mg or for atazanavir 300 mg and ritonavir 100 mg once daily, both with two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors at recommended doses. Randomisation was done with a minimisation schedule, stratified by recruiting centre, use of tenofovir, and use of indinavir as a component of the preswitch regimen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with viral loads of less than 200 copies per mL at week 48, and we followed up patients every 12 weeks. Treatments were open label, the non-inferiority margin was -10%, and all patients who received at least one dose of study medication were analysed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01159223. Between July 6, 2011, and Dec 23, 2013, we randomly assigned 559 patients: 279 to receive atazanavir 200 mg and ritonavir 100 mg (low dose) and 280 to atazanavir 300 mg and ritonavir 100 mg (standard dose). At week 48, 265 (97·1%) of 273 in the low-dose group and 267 (96·4%) of 277 in the standard-dose group had viral loads of less than 200 copies per mL (difference 0·68; 95% CI -2·29 to 3·65). Seven (3%) of 273 in the low-dose group and 21 (8%) of 277 in the standard-dose group discontinued their assigned treatment (p=0·01). 46 (17%) of 273 participants in the low-dose group and 97 (35%) of 277 in the standard-dose group had total bilirubin grade 3 or higher toxicity (≥3·12 mg/dL; p <0·0001). A switch to low-dose atazanavir should be recommended for Thai patients with well controlled HIV viraemia while on regimens based on boosted protease inhibitors. The National Health Security Office and Kirby Institute for Infection and Immunity in Societ

Low-dose versus standard-dose ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in virologically suppressed Thai adults with HIV (LASA): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial

Background Thai patients with HIV have higher exposure to HIV protease inhibitors than do white people and dose reduction might be possible. We compared the efficacy of low-dose with standard-dose ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in virologically suppressed Thai patients with HIV. Methods In this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older who were receiving ritonavir-boosted protease-inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) with HIV plasma viral loads of less than 50 copies per mL, an alanine aminotransferase concentration of less than 200 IU/L, and a creatinine clearance of at least 60 mL/min from 14 hospitals in Thailand. We excluded patients who had active AIDS-defining disease or opportunistic infections, had a history of an HIV viral load of 1000 copies per mL or more after 24 weeks of any ritonavir-boosted protease-inhibitor-based ART, used concomitant medications that could interact with the study drugs, were pregnant or lactating, had illnesses that might change the effect of the study drugs, or had a history of sensitivity to the study drugs. A biostatistician at the study coordinating centre randomly allocated patients (1:1) to switch the protease inhibitor for oral atazanavir 200 mg and ritonavir 100 mg or for atazanavir 300 mg and ritonavir 100 mg once daily, both with two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors at recommended doses. Randomisation was done with a minimisation schedule, stratified by recruiting centre, use of tenofovir, and use of indinavir as a component of the preswitch regimen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with viral loads of less than 200 copies per mL at week 48, and we followed up patients every 12 weeks. Treatments were open label, the non-inferiority margin was −10%, and all patients who received at least one dose of study medication were analysed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01159223. Findings Between July 6, 2011, and Dec 23, 2013, we randomly assigned 559 patients: 279 to receive atazanavir 200 mg and ritonavir 100 mg (low dose) and 280 to atazanavir 300 mg and ritonavir 100 mg (standard dose). At week 48, 265 (97·1%) of 273 in the low-dose group and 267 (96·4%) of 277 in the standard-dose group had viral loads of less than 200 copies per mL (difference 0·68; 95% CI −2·29 to 3·65). Seven (3%) of 273 in the low-dose group and 21 (8%) of 277 in the standard-dose group discontinued their assigned treatment (p=0·01). 46 (17%) of 273 participants in the low-dose group and 97 (35%) of 277 in the standard-dose group had total bilirubin grade 3 or higher toxicity (≥3·12 mg/dL;

New-Onset Diabetes and Antiretroviral Treatments in HIV-Infected Adults in Thailand

BACKGROUND: Use of several antiretrovirals (ARVs) has been shown to be associated with a higher risk of diabetes in HIV-infected adults. We estimated the incidence of new-onset diabetes and assessed the association between individual ARVs and ARV combinations, and diabetes in a large cohort in Thailand. METHODS: We selected all HIV-1-infected, nondiabetic, antiretroviral-naive adults enrolled in the Program for HIV Prevention and Treatment cohort (NCT00433030) between January 2000 and December 2011. Diabetes was defined as confirmed fasting plasma glucose >/= 126 mg/dL or random plasma glucose >/= 2 00 mg/dL. Incidence was the number of cases divided by the total number of person-years of follow-up. Association between ARVs and ARV combinations, and new-onset diabetes was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Overall, 1594 HIV-infected patients (76% female) were included. Median age at antiretroviral therapy initiation was 32.5 years. The incidence rate of diabetes was 5.0 per 1000 person-years of follow-up (95% confidence interval: 3.8 to 6.6) (53 cases). In analyses adjusted for potential confounders, exposure to stavudine + didanosine [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 3.9; P = 0.001] and cumulative exposure >/= 1 year to zidovudine (aHR = 2.3 vs. no exposure; P = 0.009) were associated with a higher risk of diabetes. Conversely, cumulative exposure >/= 1 year to tenofovir (aHR = 0.4 vs. no exposure; P = 0.02) and emtricitabine (aHR = 0.4 vs. no exposure; P = 0.03) were associated with a lower risk. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of diabetes in this predominantly female, young, lean population was relatively low. Although stavudine and didanosine have now been phased out in most antiretroviral therapy programs, our analysis suggests a higher risk of diabetes with zidovudine, frequently prescribed today in resource-limited settings