Factors associated with non-persistence to oral and inhaled antiviral therapies for seasonal influenza: a secondary analysis of a double-blind, multicentre, randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate and compare non-adherence to oral and inhaled antiviral therapies prescribed of a randomised clinical trial in outpatients with influenza A infection. DESIGN: A parallel, three-arm, double-blinded trial randomly allocated antiviral therapies twice daily for 5 days: (1) oral oseltamivir plus inhaled zanamivir (arm OZ); (2) oseltamivir plus inhaled placebo (arm Opz); or (3) oral placebo plus inhaled zanamivir (arm poZ). Analysis of non-adherence was a secondary objective of the trial. SETTINGS: Outpatients were enrolled by 145 general practitioners throughout France during the 2008-2009 seasonal influenza epidemics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 541 adults presenting with influenza-like illness for less than 36 hours. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Non-persistence, the time between inclusion and the last dose treated as a failure time, was used as the primary endpoint. RESULTS: The proportions of patients who persisted on treatment until the end of prescription were estimated at 85.73% (±3.28%) for the oral route and 82.73% (±3.44%) for the inhaled route. Based on multivariable models, non-persistence was associated with a PCR confirmation of influenza for both the oral (HR=0.54, p=0.010) and inhaled (HR=0.59, p=0.018) drugs and antibiotic coprescriptions (HR=2.07, p=0.007; and HR=1.88, p=0.017, respectively) and active combination treatment (HR=1.71, p=0.035; and HR=1.58, p=0.035, respectively). The hazard of non-persistence of the inhaled therapy was increased compared with that of the oral therapy (HR=1.23, p=0.043). CONCLUSION: In addition to the clinical and virological profiles of influenza infection, non-persistence may have been influenced by an active combination and the route of administration. RCT REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00799760. This is a post-result analysis.

Effectiveness of hepatitis B rapid tests toward linkage-to-care: results of a randomized, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: Worldwide, many infected individuals are unaware of their hepatitis B virus (HBV) status. We evaluated the effectiveness of HBV rapid testing in promoting linkage-to-care. METHODS: In 2012, volunteers were recruited from five Parisian centers. Participants were randomized 1 : 1 to receive standard serology (S) or rapid testing (VIKIA-HBsAg/Quick Profile anti-HBsAb) with confirmatory serology (R+S). The primary endpoint was percentage of individuals with appropriate linkage-to-care (nonimmunized individuals starting vaccination or HBsAg-positive individuals receiving medical evaluation). The secondary outcomes were percentage receiving HBV-test results and performance of HBV rapid tests. RESULTS: In total, 995 individuals were screened. Among the HBV-infection groups included in the primary endpoint (n=409), 20 (4.9%) received appropriate linkage-to-care, with no difference between S and R+S groups (5.7 vs. 4.1%, P=0.5). Two of eight HBsAg-positive participants had a medical visit (1/6 and 1/2 in the S and R+S groups, respectively) and 18/401 (4.5%) nonimmunized participants initiated HBV-vaccination (11/205 and 7/196). Factors that tended to be associated with linkage-to-care were female sex, birth country of high HBV prevalence, and extended medical stay. Test results were not obtained in 4.7% of participants, which was significantly higher in the S arm (P=0.02). Both sensitivity and specificity were 100% for the VIKIA-HBsAg rapid test and 94.4 and 80.8%, respectively, for the anti-HBsAb Quick Profile rapid test. CONCLUSION: Despite a higher proportion of participants obtaining their results in the R+S arm and better performance of anti-HBsAb rapid tests than described previously, we found no evidence that HBV screening based initially on rapid tests leads to increased HBV-vaccination rates or medical evaluation. This strategy should be evaluated in more hard-to-reach populations.

Efficacy of oseltamivir-zanamivir combination compared to each monotherapy for seasonal influenza: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors are thought to be efficacious in reducing the time to alleviation of symptoms in outpatients with seasonal influenza. The objective of this study was to compare the short-term virological efficacy of oseltamivir-zanamivir combination versus each monotherapy plus placebo. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial with 145 general practitioners throughout France during the 2008-2009 seasonal influenza epidemic. Patients, general practitioners, and outcome assessors were all blinded to treatment assignment. Adult outpatients presenting influenza-like illness for less than 36 hours and a positive influenza A rapid test diagnosis were randomized to oseltamivir 75 mg orally twice daily plus zanamivir 10 mg by inhalation twice daily (OZ), oseltamivir plus inhaled placebo (O), or zanamivir plus oral placebo (Z). Treatment efficacy was assessed virologically according to the proportion of patients with nasal influenza reverse transcription (RT)-PCR below 200 copies genome equivalent (cgeq)/µl at day 2 (primary outcome), and clinically to the time to alleviation of symptoms until day 14. Overall 541 patients (of the 900 planned) were included (OZ,  =192; O, n=176; Z, n=173), 49% male, mean age 39 years. In the intention-to-treat analysis conducted in the 447 patients with RT-PCR-confirmed influenza A, 46%, 59%, and 34% in OZ (n=157), O (n=141), and Z (n=149) arms had RT-PCR<200 cgeq/µl (-13.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -23.1 to -2.9, p=0.025; +12.3%, 95% CI 2.39-22.2, p=0.028 for OZ/O and OZ/Z comparisons). Mean day 0 to day 2 viral load decrease was 2.14, 2.49, and 1.68 log(10) cgeq/µl (p=0.060, p=0.016 for OZ/O and OZ/Z). Median time to alleviation of symptoms was 4.0, 3.0, and 4.0 days (+1.0, 95% CI 0.0-4.0, p=0.018; +0.0, 95% CI -3.0 to 3.0, p=0.960 for OZ/O and OZ/Z). Four severe adverse events were observed. Nausea and/or vomiting tended to be more frequent in the combination arm (OZ, n=13; O, n=4; and Z, n=5 patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with seasonal influenza A mainly H3N2 virus infection, the oseltamivir-zanamivir combination appeared less effective than oseltamivir monotherapy, and not significantly more effective than zanamivir monotherapy. Despite the theoretical potential for the reduction of the emergence of antiviral resistance, the lower effectiveness of this combination calls for caution in its use in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.govNCT00799760.

Routine HIV screening in France: clinical impact and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: In France, roughly 40,000 HIV-infected persons are unaware of their HIV infection. Although previous studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of routine HIV screening in the United States, differences in both the epidemiology of infection and HIV testing behaviors warrant a setting-specific analysis for France. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We estimated the life expectancy (LE), cost and cost-effectiveness of alternative HIV screening strategies in the French general population and high-risk sub-populations using a computer model of HIV detection and treatment, coupled with French national clinical and economic data. We compared risk-factor-based HIV testing ("current practice") to universal routine, voluntary HIV screening in adults aged 18-69. Screening frequencies ranged from once to annually. Input data included mean age (42 years), undiagnosed HIV prevalence (0.10%), annual HIV incidence (0.01%), test acceptance (79%), linkage to care (75%) and cost/test (€43). We performed sensitivity analyses on HIV prevalence and incidence, cost estimates, and the transmission benefits of ART. "Current practice" produced LEs of 242.82 quality-adjusted life months (QALM) among HIV-infected persons and 268.77 QALM in the general population. Adding a one-time HIV screen increased LE by 0.01 QALM in the general population and increased costs by €50/person, for a cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of €57,400 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). More frequent screening in the general population increased survival, costs and CERs. Among injection drug users (prevalence 6.17%; incidence 0.17%/year) and in French Guyana (prevalence 0.41%; incidence 0.35%/year), annual screening compared to every five years produced CERs of €51,200 and €46,500/QALY. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: One-time routine HIV screening in France improves survival compared to "current practice" and compares favorably to other screening interventions recommended in Western Europe. In higher-risk groups, more frequent screening is economically justifiable.