Severe abacavir hypersensitivity reaction in a patient with human immunodeficiency virus infection: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Abacavir is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor that is used as a component of the antiretroviral treatment regimen in the management of the human immunodeficiency virus for both adults and children. It is efficacious, but its use may be limited by a hypersensitivity reaction linked with the HLA-B*57:01 genotype. HLA-B*57:01 has been reported to be rare in African populations. Because of the nature of its presentation, abacavir hypersensitivity is prone to late diagnosis and treatment, especially in settings where HLA-B*57:01 genotyping is not routinely done. CASE REPORT: We report a case of a severe hypersensitivity reaction in a 44-year-old Kenyan female living with the human immunodeficiency virus and on abacavir-containing antiretroviral therapy. The patient presented to the hospital after recurrent treatment for a throat infection with complaints of fever, headache, throat ache, vomiting, and a generalized rash. Laboratory results evidenced raised aminotransferases, for which she was advised to stop the antiretrovirals that she had recently been started on. The regimen consisted of abacavir, lamivudine, and dolutegravir. She responded well to treatment but was readmitted a day after discharge with vomiting, severe abdominal pains, diarrhea, and hypotension. Her symptoms disappeared upon admission, but she was readmitted again a few hours after discharge in a hysterical state with burning chest pain and chills. Suspecting abacavir hypersensitivity, upon interrogation she reported that she had taken the abacavir-containing antiretrovirals shortly before she was taken ill. A sample for HLA-B*57:01 was taken and tested positive. Her antiretroviral regimen was substituted to tenofovir, lamivudine, and dolutegravir, and on subsequent follow-up she has been well. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should always be cognizant of this adverse reaction whenever they initiate an abacavir-containing therapy. We would recommend that studies be done in our setting to verify the prevalence of HLA-B*57:01.

Remdesivir for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care.

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard of care. METHODS: GS-US-540-5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540-5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard of care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. RESULTS: After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure, 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.03: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-3.08, P < .001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: .22-.68, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.

Development of sediment load estimation models by using artificial neural networking techniques.

This study aims at the development of an artificial neural network-based model for the estimation of weekly sediment load at a catchment located in northern part of Pakistan. The adopted methodology has been based upon antecedent sediment conditions, discharge, and temperature information. Model input and data length selection was carried out using a novel mathematical tool, Gamma test. Model training was carried out by using three popular algorithms namely Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (BFGS), back propagation (BP), and local linear regression (LLR) using forward selection of input variables. Evaluation of the best model was carried out on the basis of basic statistical parameters namely R-square, root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean biased error (MBE). Results indicated that BFGS-based ANN model outperformed all other models with significantly low values of RMSE and MBE. A strong correlation was also found between the observed and estimated sediment load values for the same model as the value of Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient (R-square) was found to be quite high as well.

Screening for diabetes and hypertension in a rural low income setting in western Kenya utilizing home-based and community-based strategies.

BACKGROUND: The burdens of hypertension and diabetes are increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). It is important to identify patients with these conditions early in the disease process. The goal of this study, therefore, is to compare community- versus home-based screening for hypertension and diabetes in Kenya. METHODS: This was a feasibility study conducted by the Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare (AMPATH) program in Webuye, a town in western Kenya. Home-based (door-to-door) screening occurred in March 2010 and community-based screening in November 2011. HIV counselors were trained to screen for diabetes and hypertension in the home-based screening with local district hospital based staff conducting the community-based screening. Participants >18 years old qualified for screening in both groups. Counselors referred all participants with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 160 mmHg and/or a random blood glucose ≥ 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) to a local clinic for follow-up. Differences in likelihood of screening positive between the two strategies were compared using Fischer's Exact Test. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with the likelihood of following-up after a positive screening. RESULTS: There were 236 participants in home-based screening: 13 (6%) had a SBP ≥ 160 mmHg, and 54 (23%) had a random glucose ≥ 7 mmol/L. There were 346 participants in community-based screening: 35 (10%) had a SBP ≥ 160 mmHg, and 27 (8%) had a random glucose ≥ 7 mmol/L. Participants in community-based screening were twice as likely to screen positive for hypertension compared to home-based screening (OR=1.93, P=0.06). In contrast, participants were 3.5 times more likely to screen positive for a random blood glucose ≥ 7 mmol/L with home-based screening (OR=3.51, P<0.01). Rates for following-up at the clinic after a positive screen were low for both groups with 31% of patients with an elevated SBP returning for confirmation in both the community-based and home-based group (P=1.0). Follow-up after a random glucose was also low with 23% returning in the home-based group and 22% in the community-based group (P=1.0). CONCLUSION: Community- or home-based screening for diabetes and hypertension in LMICs is feasible. Due to low rates of follow-up, screening efforts in rural settings should focus on linking cases to care.