Benefits of enhanced infection prophylaxis at antiretroviral therapy initiation by cryptococcal antigen status.

OBJECTIVES: To assess baseline prevalence of cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) positivity; and its contribution to reductions in all-cause mortality, deaths from cryptococcus and unknown causes, and new cryptococcal disease in the REALITY trial. DESIGN: Retrospective CrAg testing of baseline and week-4 plasma samples in all 1805 African adults/children with CD4+ cell count less than 100 cells/µl starting antiretroviral therapy who were randomized to receive 12-week enhanced-prophylaxis (fluconazole 100 mg/day, azithromycin, isoniazid, cotrimoxazole) vs. standard-prophylaxis (cotrimoxazole). METHODS: Proportional hazards models were used to estimate the relative impact of enhanced-prophylaxis vs. standard-cotrimoxazole on all, cryptococcal and unknown deaths, and new cryptococcal disease, through 24 weeks, by baseline CrAg positivity. RESULTS: Excluding 24 (1.4%) participants with active/prior cryptococcal disease at enrolment (all treated for cryptococcal disease), 133/1781 (7.5%) participants were CrAg-positive. By 24 weeks, 105 standard-cotrimoxazole vs. 78 enhanced-prophylaxis participants died. Of nine standard-cotrimoxazole and three enhanced-prophylaxis cryptococcal deaths, seven and two, respectively, were CrAg-positive at baseline. Among deaths of unknown cause, only 1/46 standard-cotrimoxazole and 1/28 enhanced-prophylaxis were CrAg-positive at baseline. There was no evidence that relative reductions in new cryptococcal disease associated with enhanced-prophylaxis varied between baseline CrAg-positives [hazard-ratio = 0.36 (95% confidence interval 0.13-0.98), incidence 19.5 vs. 56.5/100 person-years] and CrAg-negatives [hazard-ratio = 0.33 (0.03-3.14), incidence 0.3 vs. 0.9/100 person-years; Pheterogeneity = 0.95]; nor for all deaths, cryptococcal deaths or unknown deaths (Pheterogeneity > 0.3). CONCLUSION: Relative reductions in cryptococcal disease/death did not depend on CrAg status. Deaths of unknown cause were unlikely to be cryptococcus-related; plausibly azithromycin contributed to their reduction. Findings support including 100 mg fluconazole in an enhanced-prophylaxis package at antiretroviral therapy initiation where CrAg screening is unavailable/impractical.

Imiquimod versus podophyllotoxin, with and without human papillomavirus vaccine, for anogenital warts: the HIPvac factorial RCT.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy, and cost-effectiveness, of imiquimod or podophyllotoxin cream, either alone or in combination with the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) in the treatment and prevention of recurrence of anogenital warts is not known. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the efficacy of imiquimod and podophyllotoxin creams to treat anogenital warts and to assess whether or not the addition of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine increases wart clearance or prevention of recurrence. DESIGN: A randomised, controlled, multicentre, partially blinded factorial trial. Participants were randomised equally to four groups, combining either topical treatment with quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by gender, a history of previous warts and human immunodeficiency virus status. There was an accompanying economic evaluation, conducted from the provider perspective over the trial duration. SETTING: The setting was 22 sexual health clinics in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were patients with a first or repeat episode of anogenital warts who had not been treated in the previous 3 months and had not previously received quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to 5% imiquimod cream (Aldara®; Meda Pharmaceuticals, Takeley, UK) for up to 16 weeks or 0.15% podophyllotoxin cream (Warticon®; GlaxoSmithKlein plc, Brentford, UK) for 4 weeks, which was extended to up to 16 weeks if warts persisted. Participants were simultaneously randomised to quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (Gardasil) or saline control at 0, 8 and 24 weeks. Cryotherapy was permitted after week 4 at the discretion of the investigator. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were a combined primary outcome of wart clearance at week 16 and remaining wart free at week 48. Efficacy analysis was by logistic regression with multiple imputation for missing follow-up values; economic evaluation considered the costs per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: A total of 503 participants were enrolled and attended at least one follow-up visit. The mean age was 31 years, 66% of participants were male (24% of males were men who have sex with men), 50% had a previous history of warts and 2% were living with human immunodeficiency virus. For the primary outcome, the adjusted odds ratio for imiquimod cream versus podophyllotoxin cream was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.23), and for quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine versus placebo, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.46 (95% confidence interval 0.97 to 2.20). For the components of the primary outcome, the adjusted odds ratio for wart free at week 16 for imiquimod versus podophyllotoxin was 0.77 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.14) and for quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine versus placebo was 1.30 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.91). The adjusted odds ratio for remaining wart free at 48 weeks (in those who were wart free at week 16) for imiquimod versus podophyllotoxin was 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.78) and for quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine versus placebo was 1.39 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 2.63). Podophyllotoxin plus quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine had inconclusive cost-effectiveness compared with podophyllotoxin alone. LIMITATIONS: Hepatitis A vaccine as control was replaced by a saline placebo in a non-identical syringe, administered by someone outside the research team, for logistical reasons. Sample size was reduced from 1000 to 500 because of slow recruitment and other delays. CONCLUSIONS: A benefit of the vaccine was not demonstrated in this trial. The odds of clearance at week 16 and remaining clear at week 48 were 46% higher with vaccine, and consistent effects were seen for both wart clearance and recurrence separately, but these differences were not statistically significant. Imiquimod and podophyllotoxin creams had similar efficacy for wart clearance, but with a wide confidence interval. The trial results do not support earlier evidence of a lower recurrence with use of imiquimod than with use of podophyllotoxin. Podophyllotoxin without quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine is the most cost-effective strategy at the current vaccine list price. A further larger trial is needed to definitively investigate the effect of the vaccine; studies of the immune response in vaccine recipients are needed to investigate the mechanism of action. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32729817 and EudraCT 2013-002951-14. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The HIPvac [Human papillomavirus infection: a randomised controlled trial of Imiquimod cream (5%) versus Podophyllotoxin cream (0.15%), in combination with quadrivalent human papillomavirus or control vaccination in the treatment and prevention of recurrence of anogenital warts] trial compared two commonly used creams to treat genital warts: 0.15% podophyllotoxin cream (Warticon^®; GlaxoSmithKlein plc, Brentford, UK) and 5% imiquimod cream (Aldara^®; Meda Pharmaceuticals, Takeley, UK). It also investigated whether or not a vaccine used to prevent human papillomavirus infection, quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (Gardasil^®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA), could help treat warts or prevent them from coming back in patients whose warts had been cleared. The HIPvac trial was a randomised controlled trial involving 503 patients with warts attending sexual health clinics in England and Wales. The creams and the vaccine were well tolerated; there was some soreness where the cream was applied, but no unexpected side effects. When deciding which treatment was better, we looked at whether or not the warts had cleared by 16 weeks after starting treatment and, if cleared, whether or not they returned by 48 weeks. We compared the creams against each other, and the addition of vaccine against no vaccine (a placebo injection). Patients were allowed to have cryotherapy (freezing treatment) as well, if the investigator advised this. We also calculated the value for money of each type of treatment. The two creams were very similar in how well they worked to clear the warts. One difference was that podophyllotoxin cream worked slightly quicker. The number of patients given cryotherapy was about the same for both types of cream. We had expected that recurrence of warts after treatment with imiquimod cream might be less than after treatment with podophyllotoxin cream, but, in fact, the two creams were similar. Quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine did not improve clearance of warts or reduce the chance of recurrence, but the result remains inconclusive. If we had been able to recuit 1000 participants as originally planned, we might have been able to be more certain about whether there was any benefit of vaccination. Further research would be needed to investigate any possible effect. The two creams offered similar value for money in treating warts. Giving patients the vaccine in addition to the cream is not good value for money at its current list price, given the uncertainty about the benefit it offers.

Human papillomavirus infection: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of imiquimod cream (5%) versus podophyllotoxin cream (0.15%), in combination with quadrivalent human papillomavirus or control vaccination in the treatment and prevention of recurrence of anogenital warts (HIPvac trial).

BACKGROUND: Anogenital warts are the second most common sexually transmitted infection diagnosed in sexual health services in England. About 90% of genital warts are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) types 6 or 11, and half of episodes diagnosed are recurrences. The best and most cost-effective treatment for patients with anogenital warts is unknown. The commonly used treatments are self-administered topical agents, podophyllotoxin (0.15% cream) or imiquimod (5% cream), or cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen. Quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccination is effective in preventing infection, and disease, but whether it has any therapeutic effect is not known. METHODS AND DESIGN: To investigate the efficacy of clearance and prevention of recurrence of external anogenital warts by topical treatments, podophyllotoxin 0.15% cream or imiquimod 5% cream, in combination with a three-dose regimen of qHPV or control vaccination. 500 adult patients presenting with external anogenital warts with either a first or subsequent episode of anogenital warts will be entered into this randomised, controlled partially blinded 2 × 2 factorial trial. DISCUSSION: The trial is expected to provide the first high-quality evidence of the comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the two topical treatments in current use, as well as investigate the potential benefit of HPV vaccination, in the management of anogenital warts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered prior to starting recruitment under the following reference numbers: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry - ISRCTN32729817 (registered 25 July 2014); European Union Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT) - 2013-002951-14 (registered 26 June 2013).

Multicenter European Prevalence Study of Neurocognitive Impairment and Associated Factors in HIV Positive Patients.

We conducted a cross-sectional study in 448 HIV positive patients attending five European outpatient clinics to determine prevalence of and factors associated with neurocognitive impairment (NCI) using computerized and pen-and-paper neuropsychological tests. NCI was defined as a normalized Z score ≤-1 in at least 2 out of 5 cognitive domains. Participants' mean age was 45.8 years; 84% male; 87% white; 56% university educated; median CD4 count 550 cells/mm3; 89% on antiretroviral therapy. 156 (35%) participants had NCI, among whom 26 (17%; 5.8% overall) reported a decline in activities of daily living. Prevalence of NCI was lower in those always able to afford basic needs (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.94) or with a university education (aPR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.97) and higher in those with severe depressive symptoms (aPR 1.53, 95% CI 1.09-2.14) or a significant comorbid condition (aPR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03-1.90).

RESUMEN: Reportamos un estudio de tipo corte transversal que incluye 448 pacientes VIH seropositivos vistos en cinco clínicas especializadas en Europa con el objetivo de medir la prevalencia del trastorno neurocognitivo asociado al VIH (NCI por sus siglas en inglés) y los factores de riesgo asociados a éste. Se usaron pruebas neuropsicológicas computarizadas y en papel para determinar la presencia de NCI, definido como puntuación Z ≤ 1 en al menos 2 de los 5 dominios cognitivos evaluados. La media de edad de los pacientes fue 45,8 años, 84% eran hombres, 87% blancos y 56% tenían educación universitaria. La media de CD4 fue de 550 cel/mm3 y 89% de los pacientes recibían terapia antiretroviral. Un total de 156 (35%) participantes tenían NCI, de los cuales 26 (17%, 5,8% de la población de estudio) reportaron deterioro en actividades de la vida diaria. La prevalencia de NCI fue menor en participantes capaces de cubrir sus necesidades básicas (Razón de prevalencia ajustada [aPR] 0,71; Intervalo de confianza del 95% [95% CI] 0,54-0,94) o con educación universitaria (aPR 0,72; 95%CI 0,54-0,97) pero fue mayor en aquellos con síntomas de depresión severa (aPR 1,53; 95%CI 1,09-2,14) o alguna comorbilidad importante (aPR 1,40; 95%CI 1,03-1,90).

Defining immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome: evaluation of expert opinion versus 2 case definitions in a South African cohort.

BACKGROUND: There is no validated case definition for human immunodeficiency virus-associated immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS). We measured the level of agreement of 2 published case definitions (hereafter referred to as CD1 and CD2) with expert opinion in a prospective cohort of patients who were starting antiretroviral therapy in South Africa. METHODS: A total of 498 adult patients were monitored for the first 6 months of antiretroviral therapy. All new or worsening clinical events were reviewed by 2 investigators and classified on the basis of expert opinion, CD1, and CD2. Events were categorized according to whether they were paradoxical or unmasking in presentation. We measured positive, negative, and chance-corrected agreement (kappa) with expert opinion for CD1 and CD2, and reviewed areas of disagreement. RESULTS: A total of 620 clinical events were recorded, of which, on the basis of expert opinion, 144 (23.2%) were defined as probable IRIS and 112 (18.1%) were defined as possible IRIS. Of the 144 probable IRIS events, 93 (64.6%) were unmasking in presentation, 99 (68.8%) were associated with dermatological or orogenital disease, and 45 (31.3%) were associated with tuberculosis or major opportunistic infections. Of the 620 clinical events recorded, 41 (6.6%) were classified as IRIS on the basis of CD1, and 156 (25.2%) were classified as IRIS on the basis of CD2. Positive agreement between CD1 and expert opinion was low for both unmasking (17.2%; kappa = 0.24) and paradoxical events (37.3%; kappa = 0.43), mainly because 1 major criterion requires IRIS to be atypical and either an opportunistic infection or a tumor, although negative agreement was >98%. In contrast, CD2 had good positive agreement (>75% for most event types), with a kappa value of 0.75 for paradoxical and 0.62 for unmasking. CONCLUSIONS: CD2 agreed well with expert opinion, with additional clinical events, such as arthropathy and inflammatory dermatoses, being classified as IRIS and added to CD2. We propose revised case definitions for both paradoxical and unmasking IRIS.