Peripheral blood smear findings in a kidney transplant recipient with disseminated histoplasmosis and elevated Aspergillus galactomannan.

We report a case of disseminated histoplasmosis in a renal transplant recipient who presented with a nodular pulmonary lesion and elevated serum and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) Aspergillus galatomannan. This almost led to an erroneous diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis since the donor respiratory tract was known to be colonized with Aspergillus terreus. However, distinctive intracelluar Histoplasma yeasts on peripheral blood smear led to early diagnosis and appropriate treatment. The cross-reactivity between Aspergillus galactomannan and Histoplasma antigen is discussed further.

Comparison of Compounded, Generic, and Innovator-Formulated Itraconazole in Dogs and Cats.

The triazole antifungal itraconazole may be cost prohibitive in brand name form; therefore, compounded and generic products are often used as alternatives. Itraconazole blood concentrations have not been studied in clinical patients receiving these formulations. Itraconazole bioassay was performed on serum/plasma from 95 dogs and 20 cats receiving itraconazole (compounded from bulk powder, generic pelletized, or brand name) for systemic mycosis treatment. Mean itraconazole concentration was lower in the compounded group (n = 42) as compared with the generic (n = 40) or brand name (n = 33) groups (0.5 µg/mL versus 8.3 µg/mL and 6.5 µg/mL, respectively; P < .001). No statistical difference was observed between itraconazole concentrations in the generic and brand name groups. Forty animals (95.2%) in the compounded group had subtherapeutic (<1.0 µg/mL) values. All cats in this group (n = 10) had undetectable itraconazole concentrations. Some animals in the generic and brand name groups had subtherapeutic values (12.5 and 12.1%, respectively) or potentially toxic values (>10 µg/mL; 37.5 and 24%, respectively). Compounded itraconazole should be avoided, but generic itraconazole appears to serve as a reasonable alternative to brand name itraconazole. Therapeutic drug monitoring may be beneficial in all cases.

Dual vs single protease inhibitor therapy following antiretroviral treatment failure: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Management of antiretroviral treatment failure in patients receiving protease inhibitor (PI)-containing regimens is a therapeutic challenge. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether adding a second PI improves antiviral efficacy of a 4-drug combination in patients with virologic failure while taking a PI-containing regimen. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, 4-arm trial, double-blind and placebo-controlled for second PI, conducted between October 1998 and April 2000, for which there was a 24-week primary analysis with extension to 48 weeks. SETTING: Thirty-one participating AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) Clinical Trials Units in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 481 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected persons with prior exposure to a maximum of 3 PIs and viral load above 1000 copies/mL. INTERVENTION: Selectively randomized assignment (per prior PI exposure) to saquinavir (n = 116); indinavir (n = 69); nelfinavir (n = 139); or placebo twice per day (n = 157); in combination with amprenavir, abacavir, efavirenz, and adefovir dipivoxil. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary efficacy analysis involved the proportion with viral load below 200 copies/mL at 24 weeks. Other measures were changes in viral load and CD4 cell count from baseline, adverse events, and HIV drug susceptibility. RESULTS: Of 481 patients, 148 (31%) had a viral load below 200 copies/mL at week 24. The proportions of patients with a viral load below 200 copies/mL in the saquinavir, indinavir, nelfinavir, and placebo arms were 34% (40/116), 36% (25/69), 34% (47/139), and 23% (36/157), respectively. The proportion in the combined dual-PI arms was higher than in the amprenavir-plus-placebo arm (35% [112/324] vs 23% [36/157], respectively; P =.002). Overall, a higher proportion of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-naive patients had a viral load below 200 copies/mL compared with NNRTI-experienced patients (43% [115/270] vs 16% [33/211], respectively; P<.001). Baseline HIV-1 hypersusceptibility to efavirenz (< or = 0.4-fold difference in susceptibility compared with reference virus) was associated with suppression of viral load at 24 weeks to below 200 copies/mL (odds ratio [OR], 3.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.62-7.33; P =.001), and more than 10-fold reduction in efavirenz susceptibility, with less likelihood of suppression at 24 weeks (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.87; P =.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of antiretroviral-experienced patients with advanced immunodeficiency, viral load suppression to below 200 copies/mL was achieved in 31% of patients with regimens containing 4 or 5 new drugs. Use of 2 PIs, being naive to NNRTIs, and baseline hypersusceptibility to efavirenz were associated with a favorable outcome.