Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in people living with HIV: a review.

Pneumocystis jirovecii is a ubiquitous opportunistic fungus that can cause life-threatening pneumonia. People with HIV (PWH) who have low CD4 counts are one of the populations at the greatest risk of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP). While guidelines have approached the diagnosis, prophylaxis, and management of PCP, the numerous studies of PCP in PWH are dominated by the 1980s and 1990s. As such, most studies have included younger male populations, despite PCP affecting both sexes and a broad age range. Many studies have been small and observational in nature, with an overall lack of randomized controlled trials. In many jurisdictions, and especially in low- and middle-income countries, the diagnosis can be challenging due to lack of access to advanced and/or invasive diagnostics. Worldwide, most patients will be treated with 21 days of high-dose trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole, although both the dose and the duration are primarily based on historical practice. Whether treatment with a lower dose is as effective and less toxic is gaining interest based on observational studies. Similarly, a 21-day tapering regimen of prednisone is used for patients with more severe disease, yet other doses, other steroids, or shorter durations of treatment with corticosteroids have not been evaluated. Now with the widespread availability of antiretroviral therapy, improved and less invasive PCP diagnostic techniques, and interest in novel treatment strategies, this review consolidates the scientific body of literature on the diagnosis and management of PCP in PWH, as well as identifies areas in need of more study and thoughtfully designed clinical trials.

Revisiting the Evidence Base Informing the Use of Adjunctive Therapy for Enterococcus faecalis Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend adjunctive gentamicin for the treatment of Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis (EFIE) despite a risk of toxicity. We sought to revisit the evidence for adjunctive therapy in EFIE and to synthesize the comparative safety and effectiveness of adjunctive use of the aminoglycosides versus ceftriaxone by systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: For historical context, we reviewed the seminal case series and in vitro studies informing the evolution from penicillin monotherapy to modern-day regimens for EFIE. Next, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to January 16, 2024 for studies of EFIE comparing 1) adjunctive aminoglycosides versus ceftriaxone or 2) adjunctive therapy versus monotherapy. Where possible, clinical outcomes were compared between regimens by random-effects meta-analysis. Otherwise, data were narratively summarized. RESULTS: Results for the systematic review and meta-analysis were limited to 10 observational studies totaling 911 patients. All studies were at high risk of bias. Relative to adjunctive ceftriaxone, gentamicin had similar all-cause mortality (Risk Difference [RD]=-0.8%, 95% Confidence interval [95%CI]=-5.0, 3.5), relapse (RD=-0.1%, 95%CI=-2.4, 2.3), and treatment failure (RD=1.1%, 95%CI=-1.6, 3.7), but higher discontinuation due to toxicity (RD=26.3%, 95%CI=19.8, 32.7). The 3 studies comparing adjunctive therapy to monotherapy included only 30 monotherapy patients and heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive therapy with ceftriaxone appeared to be equally effective and less toxic than gentamicin for the treatment of EFIE. The existing evidence does not clearly establish the superiority of either adjunctive therapy or monotherapy. Pending randomized evidence, if adjunctive therapy is to be used, ceftriaxone appears to be a reasonable option.

Comparative efficacy and safety of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia prophylaxis regimens for people living with HIV: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) is a common opportunistic infection among people living with HIV (PWH), particularly among new and untreated cases. Several regimens are available for the prophylaxis of PCP, including trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), dapsone-based regimens (DBRs), aerosolized pentamidine (AP), and atovaquone. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of PCP prophylaxis regimens in PWH by network meta-analysis. METHODS: DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL from inception to June 21, 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Comparative randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PARTICIPANTS: PWH. INTERVENTIONS: Regimens for PCP prophylaxis either compared head-to-head or versus no treatment/placebo. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs 2. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Title or abstract and full-text screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate by two independent reviewers. Data on PCP incidence, all-cause mortality, and discontinuation due to toxicity were pooled and ranked by network meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses of primary versus secondary prophylaxis, by year, and by dosage were performed. RESULTS: A total of 26 RCTs, comprising 55 treatment arms involving 7516 PWH were included. For the prevention of PCP, TMP-SMX was ranked the most favourable agent and was superior to DBRs (risk ratio [RR] = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.83) and AP (RR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36-0.77). TMP-SMX was also the only agent with a mortality benefit compared with no treatment/placebo (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98). However, TMP-SMX was also ranked as the most toxic agent with a greater risk of discontinuation than DBRs (RR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.54) and AP (7.20; 95% CI, 5.37-9.66). No significant differences in PCP prevention or mortality were detected among the other regimens. The findings remained consistent within subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: TMP-SMX is the most effective agent for PCP prophylaxis in PWH and the only agent to confer a mortality benefit; consequently, it should continue to be recommended as the first-line agent. Further studies are necessary to determine the optimal dosing of TMP-SMX to maximize efficacy and minimize toxicity.

Medication Deprescribing in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis: A Prospective Controlled Quality Improvement Study.

Rationale & Objective: Patients treated with dialysis are commonly prescribed multiple medications (polypharmacy), including some potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). PIMs are associated with an increased risk of medication harm (eg, falls, fractures, hospitalization). Deprescribing is a solution that proposes to stop, reduce, or switch medications to a safer alternative. Although deprescribing pairs well with routine medication reviews, it can be complex and time-consuming. Whether clinical decision support improves the process and increases deprescribing for patients treated with dialysis is unknown. This study aimed to test the efficacy of the clinical decision support software MedSafer at increasing deprescribing for patients treated with dialysis. Study Design: Prospective controlled quality improvement study with a contemporaneous control. Setting & Participants: Patients prescribed ≥5 medications in 2 outpatient dialysis units in Montréal, Canada. Exposures: Patient health data from the electronic medical record were input into the MedSafer web-based portal to generate reports listing candidate PIMs for deprescribing. At the time of a planned biannual medication review (usual care), treating nephrologists in the intervention unit additionally received deprescribing reports, and patients received EMPOWER brochures containing safety information on PIMs they were prescribed. In the control unit, patients received usual care alone. Analytical Approach: The proportion of patients with ≥1 PIMs deprescribed was compared between the intervention and control units following a planned medication review to determine the effect of using MedSafer. The absolute risk difference with 95% CI and number needed to treat were calculated. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed. Secondary outcomes include the reduction in the mean number of prescribed drugs and PIMs from baseline. Results: In total, 195 patients were included (127, control unit; 68, intervention unit); the mean age was 64.8 ± 15.9 (SD), and 36.9% were women. The proportion of patients with ≥1 PIMs deprescribed in the control unit was 3.1% (4/127) vs 39.7% (27/68) in the intervention unit (absolute risk difference, 36.6%; 95% CI, 24.5%-48.6%; P < 0.0001; number needed to treat = 3). Limitations: This was a single-center nonrandomized study with a type 1 error risk. Deprescribing durability was not assessed, and the study was not powered to reduce adverse drug events. Conclusions: Deprescribing clinical decision support and patient EMPOWER brochures provided during medication reviews could be an effective and scalable intervention to address PIMs in the dialysis population. A confirmatory randomized controlled trial is needed.

Patients treated with dialysis are commonly prescribed multiple medications, some of which are potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). PIMs can increase a patient's pill burden and are associated with an increased risk of harm (some examples include falls, fractures, and hospitalization). Deprescribing is a proposed solution that aims to highlight medications that can be stopped, reduced, or switched to a safer option, under supervision of a health care provider. We aimed to determine if a quality improvement intervention in the dialysis unit could increase deprescribing compared to usual care. The study took place in 2 outpatient hemodialysis units where usual care involves nurses and nephrologists performing medication reviews twice a year. The intervention was a deprescribing report that was generated with the help of a software tool called MedSafer, along with brochures for patients with information on PIMs they were taking. In the intervention unit, we increased the number of patients who had a medication safely deprescribed by 36.6% more than on the control unit. Although the study was small, a future larger study in dialysis patients might show that a computer software such as MedSafer can prevent harmful complications from taking too many medications.

Risk of infectious adverse events of venetoclax therapy for hematologic malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.

ABSTRACT: Venetoclax is a small molecule inhibitor of BCL-2 used in the treatment of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Recent postmarketing studies of ibrutinib, another small molecule inhibitor, suggested that these agents may predispose to opportunistic infections. We sought to systematically review the randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence of venetoclax to assess whether it predisposes patients to infectious adverse events (IAEs) and neutropenia. We systematically reviewed RCTs comparing venetoclax therapy with active or placebo controls for patients with hematologic malignancies. Data on IAEs and neutropenia were pooled by Bayesian meta-analysis, and we computed the probability of any increased risk (P[risk ratio (RR) > 1]) of IAEs or neutropenic complications. Seven RCTs were included, comprising 2067 patients. In CLL (n = 1032), there was a low probability of increased risk of high-grade (P[RR > 1] = 71.2%) and fatal IAEs (P[RR > 1] = 64.5%) and high-grade neutropenia (P[RR > 1] = 63.4%). There were insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis of IAEs in AML; however, 1 trial suggested an increased risk of IAEs with venetoclax. Furthermore, in AML (n = 642), venetoclax was associated with a high probability of increased risk of high-grade neutropenia (P[RR > 1] = 94.6%) and febrile neutropenia (P[RR > 1] = 90.6%). Our results suggest that venetoclax has a low probability of increased risk of IAEs or neutropenia in CLL. By contrast, there is likely increased risk of high-grade neutropenia and febrile neutropenia in AML. Importantly, our analyses did not identify any specific IAEs that would benefit from routine antimicrobial prophylaxis or pre-emptive testing.

Measuring Quality of Life in Deprescribing Trials: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) is an important outcome to capture in clinical trials evaluating deprescribing interventions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct a scoping review to examine how QoL has been measured in deprescribing trials among older people and identify potentially relevant QoL scales, to better inform QoL measurement in future deprescribing trials. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Epistemonikos, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of eligible studies (from inception to October 2023). We included randomized and non-randomized comparative studies with a control group that evaluated deprescribing and polypharmacy reduction interventions in people ≥ 65 years of age and measured QoL as an outcome. We also included studies describing the development and validation of QoL scales related to deprescribing, polypharmacy, or medication burden in adults ≥ 18 years of age. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, then full texts. Two independent reviewers extracted data from 25% of eligible studies in order to verify agreement, then a single reviewer extracted data from the remaining studies, which a second reviewer cross-checked. We critically appraised scales based on the COSMIN checklist. RESULTS: We retrieved 7290 articles, of which 52 were eligible for inclusion, including 44 deprescribing trials and eight scale development studies. From these studies, we found 21 scales that have been used in the context of deprescribing/polypharmacy (12 generic scales used in clinical trials and nine medication-specific scales). Variations of the generic EQ-5D were the most used scales. The measurement properties of scales for capturing changes in QoL from deprescribing were uncertain. Medication-specific QoL scales have not been employed in deprescribing clinical trials and thus, their performance in this context is also not clear. CONCLUSIONS: Several existing QoL scales have been applied to the context of deprescribing/polypharmacy clinical trials, and new scales specific to the problem have been proposed. If deprescribing does impact QoL, our findings suggest it is uncertain whether existing QoL scales can practically and reliably capture such a change or whether any scale is best. However, this review compares various aspects of the scales that researchers and clinicians can consider in decisions about measuring QoL in deprescribing trials, and in planning future research. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: osf.io/aez6w.

Reducing potentially inappropriate polypharmacy at a national and international level: the impact of deprescribing networks.

INTRODUCTION: Over the past decade, polypharmacy has increased dramatically. Measurable harms include falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and death. The associated costs are massive and contribute substantially to low-value health care. Deprescribing is a promising solution, but there are barriers. Establishing a network to address polypharmacy can help overcome barriers by connecting individuals with an interest and expertise in deprescribing and can act as an important source of motivation and resources. AREAS COVERED: Over the past decade, several deprescribing networks were launched to help tackle polypharmacy, with evidence of individual and collective impact. A network approach has several advantages; it can spark interest, ideas and enthusiasm through information sharing, meetings and conversations with the public, providers, and other key stakeholders. In this special report, the details of how four deprescribing networks were established across the globe are detailed. EXPERT OPINION: Networks create links between people who lead existing and/or budding deprescribing practices and policy initiatives, can influence people with a shared passion for deprescribing, and facilitate sharing of intellectual capital and tools to take initiatives further and strengthen impact.This report should inspire others to establish their own deprescribing networks, a critical step in accelerating a global deprescribing movement.