Plasma Microbial Cell-Free DNA Sequencing in Immunocompromised Patients With Pneumonia: A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is a common cause of morbidity and mortality, yet a causative pathogen is identified in a minority of cases. Plasma microbial cell-free DNA sequencing may improve diagnostic yield in immunocompromised patients with pneumonia. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, observational study of immunocompromised adults undergoing bronchoscopy to establish a pneumonia etiology, plasma microbial cell-free DNA sequencing was compared to standardized usual care testing. Pneumonia etiology was adjudicated by a blinded independent committee. The primary outcome, additive diagnostic value, was assessed in the Per Protocol population (patients with complete testing results and no major protocol deviations) and defined as the percent of patients with an etiology of pneumonia exclusively identified by plasma microbial cell-free DNA sequencing. Clinical additive diagnostic value was assessed in the Per Protocol subgroup with negative usual care testing. RESULTS: Of 257 patients, 173 met Per Protocol criteria. A pneumonia etiology was identified by usual care in 52/173 (30.1%), plasma microbial cell-free DNA sequencing in 49/173 (28.3%) and the combination of both in 73/173 (42.2%) patients. Plasma microbial cell-free DNA sequencing exclusively identified an etiology of pneumonia in 21/173 patients (additive diagnostic value 12.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.7% to 18.0%, P < .001). In the Per Protocol subgroup with negative usual care testing, plasma microbial cell-free DNA sequencing identified a pneumonia etiology in 21/121 patients (clinical additive diagnostic value 17.4%, 95% CI, 11.1% to 25.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Non-invasive plasma microbial cell-free DNA sequencing significantly increased diagnostic yield in immunocompromised patients with pneumonia undergoing bronchoscopy and extensive microbiologic and molecular testing. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04047719.

HLA-B*57:01 allele prevalence in HIV-infected North American subjects and the impact of allele testing on the incidence of abacavir-associated hypersensitivity reaction in HLA-B*57:01-negative subjects.

BACKGROUND: The presence of the HLA-B*57:01 allele in HIV-infected subjects is associated with a higher risk of abacavir-associated hypersensitivity reaction (ABC HSR). HLA-B*57:01 allele prevalence varies in different populations, but HLA-B*57:01 testing with immunological confirmation has had a negative predictive value for ABC HSR between 97 and 100%. METHODS: In the ASSURE study (EPZ113734), the HLA-B*57:01 prevalence in virologically suppressed, antiretroviral treatment-experienced, HIV-infected subjects from the United States, including Puerto Rico, was assessed. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-five subjects were screened; 13 were HLA-B*57:01 positive and 372 were negative. Only HLA-B*57:01-negative, abacavir-naive subjects were eligible to enroll into the ASSURE trial. Eleven of the 13 subjects who possessed the HLA-B*57:01 allele were white, the other 2 were African-American. There was no geographic clustering of HLA-B*57:01-positive subjects, and the incidence correlated roughly with those states with the greatest numbers of subjects screened. Similarly, there was no statistically significant correlation between subjects who possessed or lacked the allele and age, gender, ethnicity or CD4+ T-cell numbers. The incidence of ABC HSR following abacavir initiation was also evaluated. Only 1 of 199 HLA-B*57:01-negative subjects (an African-American male) randomized to receive abacavir-containing treatment developed symptoms consistent with suspected ABC HSR; ABC HSR was not immunologically confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the utility of HLA-B*57:01 allele testing to reduce the frequency of ABC HSR. The prevalence of HLA-B*57:01 positivity was higher in white than in African-American subjects. In HLA-B*57:01-negative subjects, suspected ABC HSR is very rare, but should lead to discontinuation of abacavir when ABC HSR cannot be definitively excluded from the differential diagnosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ASSURE (EPZ113734) study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov registration on April 8th 2010 and the registration number is NCT01102972.

Evaluation of cardiovascular biomarkers in a randomized trial of fosamprenavir/ritonavir vs. efavirenz with abacavir/lamivudine in underrepresented, antiretroviral-naïve, HIV-infected patients (SUPPORT): 96-week results.

BACKGROUND: Rates of cardiovascular disease are higher among HIV-infected patients as a result of the complex interplay between traditional risk factors, HIV-related inflammatory and immunologic changes, and effects of antiretroviral therapy (ART). This study prospectively evaluated changes in cardiovascular biomarkers in an underrepresented, racially diverse, HIV-1-infected population receiving abacavir/lamivudine as backbone therapy. METHODS: This 96-week, open-label, randomized, multicenter study compared once-daily fosamprenavir/ritonavir 1400/100 mg and efavirenz 600 mg, both with ABC/3TC 600 mg/300 mg, in antiretroviral-naïve, HLA-B*5701-negative adults without major resistance mutations to study drugs. We evaluated changes from baseline to weeks 4, 12, 24, 48, and 96 in interleukin-6 (IL-6), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), soluble vascular adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM-1), d-dimer, plasminogen, and fibrinogen. Biomarker data were log-transformed before analysis, and changes from baseline were described using geometric mean ratios. RESULTS: This study enrolled 101 patients (51 receiving fosamprenavir/ritonavir; 50 receiving efavirenz): 32% female, 60% African American, and 38% Hispanic/Latino; 66% (67/101) completed 96 weeks on study. At week 96, levels of IL-6, sVCAM-1, d-dimer, fibrinogen, and plasminogen were lower than baseline in both treatment groups, and the decrease was statistically significant for sVCAM-1 (fosamprenavir/ritonavir and efavirenz), d-dimer (fosamprenavir/ritonavir and efavirenz), fibrinogen (efavirenz), and plasminogen (efavirenz). Values of hs-CRP varied over time in both groups, with a significant increase over baseline at Weeks 4 and 24 in the efavirenz group. At week 96, there was no difference between the groups in the percentage of patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL (fosamprenavir/ritonavir 63%; efavirenz 66%) by ITT missing-equals-failure analysis. Treatment-related grade 2-4 adverse events were more common with efavirenz (32%) compared with fosamprenavir/ritonavir (20%), and median lipid concentrations increased in both groups over 96 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of underrepresented patients, treatment with abacavir/lamivudine combined with either fosamprenavir/ritonavir or efavirenz over 96 weeks, produced stable or declining biomarker levels except for hs-CRP, including significant and favorable decreases in thrombotic activity (reflected by d-dimer) and endothelial activation (reflected by sVCAM-1). Our study adds to the emerging data that some cardiovascular biomarkers are decreased with initiation of ART and control of HIV viremia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00727597.

Onset of symptomatic effect of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of nasal polyposis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of the intranasal corticosteroid mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) for treatment of nasal polyposis was demonstrated in 2 large clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the onset of MFNS symptomatic effect, data from the 2 trials were pooled and analyzed to determine the first day subjects experienced significant symptom relief. METHODS: Subjects with nasal polyposis randomized to MFNS 200 microg twice daily or placebo scored symptoms on a 3-point scale (0 = none; 3 = severe) and measured peak nasal inspiratory flow immediately before the morning dose. Onset of symptomatic effect was defined as the first day a statistically significant (P < .05) lasting response was observed for MFNS compared with placebo. RESULTS: A total of 447 subjects with bilateral nasal polyps and clinically significant nasal congestion/obstruction were analyzed. Compared with placebo, MFNS 200 microg twice daily demonstrated statistically significant (P < .05) relief of anterior rhinorrhea by day 2 (-10.9% vs +5.7%), nasal congestion by day 3 (-15.1% vs -7.6%), postnasal drip by day 5 (+1.1% vs +4.6%), and sense of smell by day 13 (-9.6% vs -5.6%). Significant improvement in peak nasal inspiratory flow was seen by day 2 (increase of 6.22 L/min vs 1.48 L/min for placebo; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Mometasone furoate nasal spray 200 microg twice daily rapidly improves the symptoms of nasal polyposis, leading to lasting relief of most major symptoms within 2 (24 hours after the first dose) to 5 days of initiating therapy.

Judicious antibiotic use and intranasal corticosteroids in acute rhinosinusitis.

Most patients with symptoms of acute rhinosinusitis are treated with antibiotics. However, many cases of rhinosinusitis are secondary to viral infections and unlikely to benefit from antibiotic therapy. Inappropriate use of antibiotics in patients with acute nonbacterial rhinosinusitis contributes to the increase in bacterial antibiotic resistance. Consequently, safe and effective alternatives to antibiotics are needed in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis caused by viral infections. Recent results from controlled trials have shown that intranasal corticosteroids, used in combination with antibiotics or as monotherapy in selected cases, provide significant symptom relief and resolution of acute rhinosinusitis. The use of intranasal corticosteroids in acute rhinosinusitis therefore might reduce the inappropriate use of antimicrobial therapy in acute rhinosinusitis.

Efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate nasal spray in nasal polyposis.

BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that topical corticosteroids are effective in the treatment of nasal polyps; however, this has yet to be confirmed in a large, robust clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) for nasal polyposis. METHODS: A total of 354 subjects with bilateral nasal polyps and clinically significant congestion/obstruction participated in this multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Subjects received MFNS 200 microg once or twice daily or placebo for 4 months. Coprimary endpoints were (1) change from baseline to last assessment in physician-evaluated bilateral polyp grade score and (2) change from baseline averaged over month 1 in subject-assessed nasal congestion/obstruction. ANOVA was used for all efficacy endpoints, except for change in bilateral polyp grade score, for which baseline polyp grade was added as a covariate. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, MFNS 200 microg administered once or twice daily produced significantly greater reductions in bilateral polyp grade score (P < .001, P = .010, respectively) and congestion/obstruction (P = .001, P < .001), as well as improvement in loss of smell (P < .001, P = .036), anterior rhinorrhea (P < .001 for both), and postnasal drip (P < .001, P = .001) over month 1. MFNS 200 microg twice daily was superior to MFNS 200 microg once daily in reducing congestion/obstruction (P = .039), and there were more improvers in the MFNS 200 microg twice daily group (P = .035). MFNS was well tolerated in both groups. CONCLUSION: MFNS 200 mug, once or twice daily, was safe and significantly superior to placebo in reducing polyp grade (size and extent) and improving congestion/obstruction and return of sense of smell. MFNS is an effective medical treatment for nasal polyposis and may reduce or delay the need for surgery.