Antimicrobial for 7 or 14 Days for Febrile Urinary Tract Infection in Men: A Multicenter Noninferiority Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy for urinary tract infections (UTIs) in men remains controversial. METHODS: To compare 7 days to 14 days of total antibiotic treatment for febrile UTIs in men, this multicenter randomized, double-blind. placebo-controlled noninferiority trial enrolled 282 men from 27 centers in France. Men were eligible if they had a febrile UTI and urine culture showing a single uropathogen. Participants were treated with ofloxacin or a third-generation cephalosporin at day 1, then randomized at day 3-4 to either continue ofloxacin for 14 days total treatment, or for 7 days followed by placebo until day 14. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as a negative urine culture and the absence of fever and of subsequent antibiotic treatment between the end of treatment and 6 weeks after day 1. Secondary endpoints included recurrent UTI within weeks 6 and 12 after day 1, rectal carriage of antimicrobial-resistant Enterobacterales, and drug-related events. RESULTS: Two hundred forty participants were randomly assigned to receive antibiotic therapy for 7 days (115 participants) or 14 days (125 participants). In the intention-to-treat analysis, treatment success occurred in 64 participants (55.7%) in the 7-day group and in 97 participants (77.6%) in the 14-day group (risk difference, -21.9 [95% confidence interval, -33.3 to -10.1]), demonstrating inferiority. Adverse events during antibiotic therapy were reported in 4 participants in the 7-day arm and 7 in the 14-day arm. Rectal carriage of resistant Enterobacterales did not differ between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: A treatment with ofloxacin for 7 days was inferior to 14 days for febrile UTI in men and should therefore not be recommended. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02424461; Eudra-CT: 2013-001647-32.

Prone position versus usual care in hypoxemic COVID-19 patients in medical wards: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Benefit of early awake prone positioning for COVID-19 patients hospitalised in medical wards and who need oxygen therapy remains to be demonstrated. The question was considered at the time of COVID-19 pandemic to avoid overloading the intensive care units. We aimed to determine whether prone position plus usual care could reduce the rate of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or intubation or death as compared to usual care alone. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised clinical trial, 268 patients were randomly assigned to awake prone position plus usual care (N = 135) or usual care alone (N = 132). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent NIV or intubation or died within 28 days. Main secondary outcomes included the rates of NIV, of intubation or death, within 28 days. RESULTS: Median time spent each day in the prone position within 72 h of randomisation was 90 min (IQR 30-133). The proportion of NIV or intubation or death within 28 days was 14.1% (19/135) in the prone position group and 12.9% (17/132) in the usual care group [odds ratio adjusted for stratification (aOR) 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-1.35]. The probability of intubation, or intubation or death (secondary outcomes) was lower in the prone position group than in the usual care group (aOR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.89 and aOR 0.09; 95% CI 0.01-0.76, respectively) in the whole study population and in the prespecified subgroup of patients with SpO2 ≥ 95% on inclusion (aOR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.90, and aOR 0.09; 95% CI 0.03-0.27, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Awake prone position plus usual care in COVID-19 patients in medical wards did not decrease the composite outcome of need for NIV or intubation or death. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04363463 . Registered 27 April 2020.

Impact of baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA and time to virological suppression on virological rebound according to first-line antiretroviral regimen.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the risk of virological rebound in HIV-1-infected patients achieving virological suppression on first-line combined ART (cART) according to baseline HIV-1 RNA, time to virological suppression and type of regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects were 10 836 adults who initiated first-line cART (two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors + efavirenz, a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor or an integrase inhibitor) from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2014. Cox proportional hazards models with multiple adjustment and propensity score matching were used to investigate the effect of baseline HIV-1 RNA and time to virological suppression on the occurrence of virological rebound. RESULTS: During 411 436 patient-months of follow-up, risk of virological rebound was higher in patients with baseline HIV-1 RNA ≥100 000 copies/mL versus <100 000 copies/mL, in those achieving virological suppression in > 6 months versus <6 months, and lower with efavirenz or integrase inhibitors than with ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors. Baseline HIV-1 RNA >100 000 copies/mL was associated with virological rebound for ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors but not for efavirenz or integrase inhibitors. Time to virological suppression >6 months was strongly associated with virological rebound for all regimens. CONCLUSIONS: In HIV-1-infected patients starting cART, risk of virological rebound was lower with efavirenz or integrase inhibitors than with ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors. These data, from a very large observational cohort, in addition to the more rapid initial virological suppression obtained with integrase inhibitors, reinforce the positioning of this class as the preferred one for first-line therapy.

Does awake prone positioning prevent the use of mechanical respiratory support or death in COVID-19 patients on standard oxygen therapy hospitalised in general wards? A multicentre randomised controlled trial: the PROVID-19 protocol.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is responsible of severe hypoxaemia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Prone positioning improves oxygenation and survival in sedated mechanically patients with ARDS not related to COVID-19. Awake prone positioning is a simple and safe technique which improves oxygenation in non-intubated COVID-19 patients. We hypothesised that early prone positioning in COVID-19 patients breathing spontaneously in medical wards could decrease the rates of intubation or need for noninvasive ventilation or death. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PROVID-19 is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre randomised, controlled, superiority trial comparing awake prone positioning to standard of care in hypoxaemic COVID-19 patients in 20 medical wards in France and Monaco. Patients are randomised to receive either awake prone position plus usual care or usual care alone with stratification on centres, body mass index and severity of hypoxaemia.The study objective is to compare the rate of treatment failure defined as a composite endpoint comprising the need for non-invasive ventilation (at two pressure levels) or for intubation or death, between the intervention group (awake prone position plus usual care) and the usual care (usual care alone) group at 28 days. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol and amendments have been approved by the ethics committees (Comité de protection des personnes Ouest VI, France, no 1279 HPS2 and Comité Consultatif d'Ethique en matière de Recherche Biomédicale, Monaco, no 2020.8894 AP/jv), and patients are included after written informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04363463.

Optimizing the virological success of tenofovir DF/FTC/rilpivirine in HIV-infected naive and virologically suppressed patients through strict clinical and virological selection.

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir DF/FTC/rilpivirine (TDF/FTC/RPV) is a single tablet regimen considered as safe and efficacious in HIV population as long as food requirements, concomitant PPI administration, and compromised antiviral activity have been carefully reviewed. We evaluated TDF/FTC/RPV in a real-life setting with focus on clinical and virological outcomes. METHODS: OCEAN II is a prospective, two-centre observational study. From September 2012 to December 2013, antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV RNA <100,000 copies/mL or wishing to switch for simplification were considered for TDF/FTC/RPV. A systematic review of potential obstacles to TDF/FTC/RPV administration was undertaken during a multidisciplinary meeting, including DNA genotyping to detect archived RPV and/or NRTI-associated resistance mutations if historical RNA resistance testing was lacking. RESULTS: TDF/FTC/RPV was considered for 480 patients, however was not offered to 194 patients (40%), mainly because of risk of insufficient virological efficacy, issues on adherence, patient refusal, meal constraint, or PPI therapy. A total of 286 patients (269 in maintenance; 17 ART-naive) received TDF/FTC/RPV. After a median follow-up of 30 months, virological failure occurred in five patients (1.7%) without the emergence of resistance mutations. Discontinuation of TDF/FTC/RPV occurred in 98 patients, due to adverse events in 43 patients (44%) and non-safety reasons in 55 patients (56%). No grade three-fourth adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: In this real-life experience, cohort consisting primarily of virologically suppressed patients, TDF/FTC/RPV usually maintained virologic suppression. Discontinuation of therapy because of intolerability was due to mild adverse events. Strict clinical and virological screening probably explained the low rate of virological failure.