Longitudinal effects of SafeTalk, a motivational interviewing-based program to improve safer sex practices among people living with HIV/AIDS

Programs to help people living with HIV/AIDS practice safer sex are needed to prevent transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. We sought to assess the impact of SafeTalk, a multicomponent motivational interviewing-based safer sex program, on HIV-infected patients' risky sexual behavior. We enrolled sexually active adult HIV-infected patients from one of three clinical sites in North Carolina and randomized them to receive the 4-session SafeTalk intervention versus a hearthealthy attention-control. There was no significant difference in the proportion of people having unprotected sex between the two arms at enrollment. SafeTalk significantly reduced the number of unprotected sex acts with at-risk partners from baseline, while in controls the number of unprotected sex acts increased. Motivational interviewing can provide an effective, flexible prevention intervention for a heterogeneous group of people living with HIV.

Primary progressive aphasia: a tale of two syndromes and the rest

OBJECTIVE

Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) has been proposed to comprise 3 discrete clinical subtypes: semantic, agrammatic/nonfluent, and logopenic. Recent consensus recommendations suggest a diagnostic framework based primarily on clinical and neuropsychological findings to classify these variants. Our objective was to evaluate the extent to which patients with PPA would conform to the proposed tripartite system and whether the clustering pattern of elements of the linguistic profile suggests discrete clinical syndromes.

METHODS

A total of 46 patients with PPA were prospectively recruited to the Cambridge Longitudinal Study of PPA. Sufficient data were collected to assess all consensus-proposed diagnostic domains. By comparing patients' performances against those of 30 age- and education-matched healthy volunteers, z scores were calculated, and values of 1.5 SDs outside control participants' means were considered abnormal. Raw test scores were used to undertake a principal factor analysis to identify the clustering pattern of individual measures.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 28.3%, 26.1%, and 4.3% fitted semantic, nonfluent/agrammatic, and logopenic categories respectively, and 41.3% did not fulfill the diagnostic recommendations for any of the 3 proposed variants. There was no significant between-group difference in age, education, or disease duration. Furthermore, the outcome of the factor analysis was in keeping with discrete semantic and nonfluent/agrammatic syndromes but did not support a logopenic variant.

CONCLUSION

Taken together, the results of this prospective data-driven study suggest that although a substantial proportion of patients with PPA have neither the semantic nor the nonfluent variants, they do not necessarily conform to a discrete logopenic variant.

Effects of the H2-receptor antagonist famotidine on the pharmacokinetics of atazanavir-ritonavir with or without tenofovir in HIV-infected patients

Significant pharmacokinetic interactions can result between acid-suppressing agents and some protease inhibitors (PIs) in the management of HIV infection. In healthy subjects, famotidine, an H(2)-receptor antagonist, reduces exposures of atazanavir by 4-28% at doses of 20-40 mg twice daily. This study evaluated the effect of famotidine 20-40 mg twice daily on the pharmacokinetics of atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily with and without tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) 300 mg in HIV-infected patients (n=40; 87.5% male; mean age 42, range 26-63 years; 55% white). Coadministration of famotidine 40 mg and atazanavir/ritonavir to HIV-infected patients reduced exposures of atazanavir by approximately 20%. This is comparable to reductions seen in HIV-uninfected subjects. Coadministration of famotidine 20 mg had less impact on atazanavir exposures, with no reduction of atazanavir geometric mean plasma concentration at 24 h postdose (C(min)). In the presence of TDF, administration of famotidine 20-40 mg twice daily 2 h after and 10 h before atazanavir/ritonavir reduced exposures of atazanavir by 19-25%. However, all individual atazanavir C(min) values remained at least five-fold above the population mean protein-binding adjusted 90% maximum effect (EC(90)) against wild-type HIV (14 ng/mL). No viral load rebound was observed at end of study. The results confirmed that coadministration of an H(2)-receptor antagonist with atazanavir/ritonavir in HIV-infected patients resulted in similar magnitude of reductions in atazanavir exposures as in healthy subjects. This supports the current dose recommendations for coadministration of an H(2)-receptor antagonist with atazanavir/ritonavir.

Atazanavir plus ritonavir or efavirenz as part of a 3-drug regimen for initial treatment of HIV-1

BACKGROUND

Limited data compare once-daily options for initial therapy for HIV-1.

OBJECTIVE

To compare time to virologic failure; first grade-3 or -4 sign, symptom, or laboratory abnormality (safety); and change or discontinuation of regimen (tolerability) for atazanavir plus ritonavir with efavirenz-containing initial therapy for HIV-1.

DESIGN

A randomized equivalence trial accrued from September 2005 to November 2007, with median follow-up of 138 weeks. Regimens were assigned by using a central computer, stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA level less than 100 000 copies/mL or 100 000 copies/mL or greater; blinding was known only to the site pharmacist. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00118898)

SETTING

59 AIDS Clinical Trials Group sites in the United States and Puerto Rico.

PATIENTS

Antiretroviral-naive patients.

INTERVENTION

Open-label atazanavir plus ritonavir or efavirenz, each given with with placebo-controlled abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF)-emtricitabine.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcomes were time to virologic failure, safety, and tolerability events. Secondary end points included proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA level less than 50 copies/mL, emergence of drug resistance, changes in CD4 cell counts, calculated creatinine clearance, and lipid levels.

RESULTS

463 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive atazanavir plus ritonavir and 465 were assigned to receive efavirenz, both with abacavir-lamivudine; 322 (70%) and 324 (70%), respectively, completed follow-up. The respective numbers of participants in each group who received tenofovir DF-emtricitabine were 465 and 464; 342 (74%) and 343 (74%) completed follow-up. Primary efficacy was similar in the group that received atazanavir plus ritonavir and and the group that received efavirenz and did not differ according to whether abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir DF-emtricitabine was also given. Hazard ratios for time to virologic failure were 1.13 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.56) and 1.01 (CI, 0.70 to 1.46), respectively, although CIs did not meet prespecified criteria for equivalence. The time to safety (P = 0.048) and tolerability (P < 0.001) events was longer in persons given atazanavir plus ritonavir than in those given efavirenz with abacavir-lamivudine but not with tenofovir DF-emtricitabine.

LIMITATIONS

Neither HLA-B*5701 nor resistance testing was the standard of care when A5202 enrolled patients. The third drugs, atazanavir plus ritonavir and efavirenz, were open-label; the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors were prematurely unblinded in the high viral load stratum; and 32% of patients modified or discontinued treatment with their third drug.

CONCLUSION

Atazanavir plus ritonavir and efavirenz have similar antiviral activity when used with abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir DF-emtricitabine.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

Atazanavir plus ritonavir or efavirenz as part of a 3-drug regimen for initial treatment of HIV-1

BACKGROUND

Limited data compare once-daily options for initial therapy for HIV-1.

OBJECTIVE

To compare time to virologic failure; first grade-3 or -4 sign, symptom, or laboratory abnormality (safety); and change or discontinuation of regimen (tolerability) for atazanavir plus ritonavir with efavirenz-containing initial therapy for HIV-1.

DESIGN

A randomized equivalence trial accrued from September 2005 to November 2007, with median follow-up of 138 weeks. Regimens were assigned by using a central computer, stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA level less than 100 000 copies/mL or 100 000 copies/mL or greater; blinding was known only to the site pharmacist. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00118898)

SETTING

59 AIDS Clinical Trials Group sites in the United States and Puerto Rico.

PATIENTS

Antiretroviral-naive patients.

INTERVENTION

Open-label atazanavir plus ritonavir or efavirenz, each given with with placebo-controlled abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF)-emtricitabine.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcomes were time to virologic failure, safety, and tolerability events. Secondary end points included proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA level less than 50 copies/mL, emergence of drug resistance, changes in CD4 cell counts, calculated creatinine clearance, and lipid levels.

RESULTS

463 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive atazanavir plus ritonavir and 465 were assigned to receive efavirenz, both with abacavir-lamivudine; 322 (70%) and 324 (70%), respectively, completed follow-up. The respective numbers of participants in each group who received tenofovir DF-emtricitabine were 465 and 464; 342 (74%) and 343 (74%) completed follow-up. Primary efficacy was similar in the group that received atazanavir plus ritonavir and and the group that received efavirenz and did not differ according to whether abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir DF-emtricitabine was also given. Hazard ratios for time to virologic failure were 1.13 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.56) and 1.01 (CI, 0.70 to 1.46), respectively, although CIs did not meet prespecified criteria for equivalence. The time to safety (P = 0.048) and tolerability (P < 0.001) events was longer in persons given atazanavir plus ritonavir than in those given efavirenz with abacavir-lamivudine but not with tenofovir DF-emtricitabine.

LIMITATIONS

Neither HLA-B*5701 nor resistance testing was the standard of care when A5202 enrolled patients. The third drugs, atazanavir plus ritonavir and efavirenz, were open-label; the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors were prematurely unblinded in the high viral load stratum; and 32% of patients modified or discontinued treatment with their third drug.

CONCLUSION

Atazanavir plus ritonavir and efavirenz have similar antiviral activity when used with abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir DF-emtricitabine.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

Classification of primary progressive aphasia and its variants

This article provides a classification of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and its 3 main variants to improve the uniformity of case reporting and the reliability of research results. Criteria for the 3 variants of PPA--nonfluent/agrammatic, semantic, and logopenic--were developed by an international group of PPA investigators who convened on 3 occasions to operationalize earlier published clinical descriptions for PPA subtypes. Patients are first diagnosed with PPA and are then divided into clinical variants based on specific speech and language features characteristic of each subtype. Classification can then be further specified as "imaging-supported" if the expected pattern of atrophy is found and "with definite pathology" if pathologic or genetic data are available. The working recommendations are presented in lists of features, and suggested assessment tasks are also provided. These recommendations have been widely agreed upon by a large group of experts and should be used to ensure consistency of PPA classification in future studies. Future collaborations will collect prospective data to identify relationships between each of these syndromes and specific biomarkers for a more detailed understanding of clinicopathologic correlations.

Contraceptive efficacy of oral and transdermal hormones when co-administered with protease inhibitors in HIV-1-infected women: pharmacokinetic results of ACTG trial A5188

BACKGROUND

Pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and transdermally delivered ethinyl estradiol (EE) and norelgestromin (NGMN) are unknown.

METHODS

Using a standard noncompartmental PK analysis, we compared EE area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) and NGMN AUC during transdermal contraceptive patch administration in HIV-1-infected women on stable LPV/r to a control group of women not on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). In addition, EE AUC after a single dose of a combination oral contraceptive pill including EE and norethindrone was measured before patch placement and was compared with patch EE AUC in both groups. Contraceptive effects on LPV/r PKs were estimated by measuring LPV/r AUC at baseline and during week 3 of patch administration.

RESULTS

Eight women on LPV/r, and 24 women in the control group were enrolled. Patch EE median AUC0-168 h was 45% lower at 6010.36 pg·h·mL in those on LPV/r versus 10911.42 pg·h·mL in those on no HAART (P = 0.064). Pill EE median AUC0-48 hours was similarly 55% lower at 344.67 pg·h·mL in those on LPV/r versus 765.38 pg·h·mL in those on no HAART (P = 0.003). Patch NGMN AUC0-168 h however, was 138.39 ng·h·mL, 83% higher in the LPV/r group compared with the control AUC of 75.63 ng·h·mL (P = 0.036). After 3 weeks on the patch, LPV AUC0-8 h decreased by 19%, (P = 0.156).

CONCLUSIONS

Although PKs of contraceptive EE and NGMN are significantly altered with LPV/r, the contraceptive efficacy of the patch is likely to be maintained. Larger studies are indicated to fully assess contraceptive efficacy versus risks of the transdermal contraceptive patch when co-administered with protease inhibitors.

Adjuvant therapy used in conjunction with combination therapy for chronic hepatitis C improves sustained virus response rates in genotype 1 patients

Combination treatment with pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) and ribavirin remains the gold standard in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. This therapy is limited by many side-effects including anaemia, neutropenia and reduced quality of life. The use of adjuvant agents to reduce the frequency of dose reductions because of haematological side-effects has been proven to be effective but there are few reports of what effect the use of these adjuvant therapies is having on sustained virological response (SVR). The aim of the study was to assess the clinical impact on sustained virological response of adjuvant therapies during combination therapy with Peg-IFN and ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C. A total of 132 patients, 96 males, were included in the study. The overall SVR was 66.7%, with 50% of genotype 1/4/6 (n = 27/54) patients achieving SVR and 78.2% of genotypes 2/3. The overall SVR of the treatment naïve patients (83/121) was 68.6%. Fifty-one of these patients were genotype 1 with 49.0% (25/51) of this group achieving SVR. The genotype 2/3 group of treatment naïve patients reached an SVR of 82.9% (58/70). Adjuvant therapy was used in 57 patients (43.8%). With the use of supportive adjuvant therapy, we achieved an overall SVR of 66.7% and in treatment naïve patients 68.6%. In genotype 1 patients, SVR rates of up to 46% have been reported in previous studies without the use of erythropoietin and granulocyte colony stimulating factor. We have demonstrated the SVR for genotype 1 can be improved to 50% overall.

Capecitabine and irinotecan (XELIRI) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): A systematic review of controlled clinical trials

e15100

Background: Irinotecan and 5-Fluorouracil based combination is an effective regimen for mCRC. Capecitabine, an oral fluoropyrimidine, is a convenient alternative to intravenous 5- Fluorouracil. This study aims to systematically review all published and unpublished controlled phase II and III trials of XELIRI combination, used in first line treatment of mCRC, reported from 2000–2008, to describe its efficacy and safety. Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and proceedings from ASCO, ESMO and WGIC was conducted. The primary end point was response rate (RR), secondary endpoints include: time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Results: Thirty non-randomised phase II trials (n = 1380) along with 6 randomised phase II and 3 phase III trials, were included (pooled n = 1478). The daily dose of capecitabine ranged from 1,800 mg/m2 to 2,500 mg/m2 for 7 to 14 days per cycle and the dose of irinotecan varied from 180mg/m2 to 350 mg/m2, over a 3 week period per cycle. Amongst the non-randomised studies, the median patient age was 61 years (53–72).The median RR was 46.75% (25–78%). The median reported TTP was 7.9 months (mo) (5- 9.9 mo) and the median OS was 15.6 months (7–24.8 mo). Grade 3–4 toxicity incidence was: diarrhoea (21.5%), neutropenia (12%), vomiting (12.5%), fatigue (6%) and Hand-foot syndrome (6%). The pooled incidence of febrile neutropenia was 2.5%. Amongst the randomised trials, the comparator regimens were XELOX or FOLFIRI. Median age was 65 years (61–74). RR for XELIRI was 39% (34–56%) compared to 47% (27–61.8%) for the non XELIRI comparator arms. Median reported TTP was 8.2 mo (5.7–12.5 mo) for the XELIRI arms and 9.2 mo for the comparator arms. Conclusions: XELIRI is an effective and feasible regime in the first line management of mCRC. However the optimal role of this combination remains to be established.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.