Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- Benefit (1)
- Cancer (1)
- Cerebral toxoplasmosis HIV (1)
- Complementary medicine (1)
- Costs (1)
- Diagnosis (1)
- EBV (1)
- Economic evaluation (1)
- Evidence-based medicine (1)
- First-line regimen (1)
Objective: Combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) has markedly increased survival and quality of life in people living with HIV. With the advent of new treatment options, including single-tablet regimens, durability and efficacy of first-line cART regimens are evolving.
Methods: We analyzed data from the prospective multicenter German Clinical Surveillance of HIV Disease (ClinSurv) cohort of the Robert-Koch Institute. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were run to examine the factors associated with treatment modification. Recovery after treatment initiation was analyzed comparing pre-cART viral load and CD4+ T-cell counts with follow-up data.
Results: We included 8788 patients who initiated cART between 2005 and 2017. The sample population was predominantly male (n = 7040; 80.1%), of whom 4470 (63.5%) were reporting sex with men as the transmission risk factor. Overall, 4210 (47.9%) patients modified their first-line cART after a median time of 63 months (IQR 59–66). Regimens containing integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTI) were associated with significantly lower rates of treatment modification (adjusted hazard ratio 0.44; 95% CI 0.39–0.50) compared to protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimens. We found a decreased durability of first-line cART significantly associated with being female, a low CD4+ T-cell count, cART initiation in the later period (2011–2017), being on a multi-tablet regimen (MTR).
Conclusions: Drug class and MTRs are significantly associated with treatment modification. INSTI-based regimens showed to be superior compared to PI-based regimens in terms of durability.
Correction to: Infection (2020) 48:723–733 https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-020-01469-6. The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. In this article the authors Dirk Schürmann at affiliation Charité, University Medicine, Berlin, Olaf Degen at affiliation University Clinic Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg and Heinz-August Horst at affiliation University Hospital Schleswig–Holstein, Kiel, Germany were missing from the author list. The original article has been corrected.
Global change effects on biodiversity and human wellbeing call for improved long-term environmental data as a basis for science, policy and decision making, including increased interoperability, multifunctionality, and harmonization. Based on the example of two global initiatives, the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network and the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), we propose merging the frameworks behind these initiatives, namely ecosystem integrity and essential biodiversity variables, to serve as an improved guideline for future site-based long-term research and monitoring in terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems. We derive a list of specific recommendations of what and how to measure at a monitoring site and call for an integration of sites into co-located site networks across individual monitoring initiatives, and centered on ecosystems. This facilitates the generation of linked comprehensive ecosystem monitoring data, supports synergies in the use of costly infrastructures, fosters cross-initiative research and provides a template for collaboration beyond the ILTER and GEO BON communities.
Objective: To analyze the financial burden of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in cancer treatment. Materials and Methods: Based on a systematic search of the literature (Medline and the Cochrane Library, combining the MeSH terms ‘complementary therapies', ‘neoplasms', ‘costs', ‘cost analysis', and ‘cost-benefit analysis'), an expert panel discussed different types of analyses and their significance for CAM in oncology. Results: Of 755 publications, 43 met our criteria. The types of economic analyses and their parameters discussed for CAM in oncology were cost, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses. Only a few articles included arguments in favor of or against these different methods, and only a few arguments were specific for CAM because most CAM methods address a broad range of treatment aim parameters to assess effectiveness and are hard to define. Additionally, the choice of comparative treatments is difficult. To evaluate utility, healthy subjects may not be adequate as patients with a life-threatening disease and may be judged differently, especially with respect to a holistic treatment approach. We did not find any arguments in the literature that were directed at the economic analysis of CAM in oncology. Therefore, a comprehensive approach assessment based on criteria from evidence-based medicine evaluating direct and indirect costs is recommended. Conclusion: The usual approaches to conventional medicine to assess costs, benefits, and effectiveness seem adequate in the field of CAM in oncology. Additionally, a thorough deliberation on the comparator, endpoints, and instruments is mandatory for designing studies.
Background: To evaluate clinical outcomes after either immediate or deferred initiation of antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1-infected patients, presenting late with pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) or toxoplasma encephalitis (TE).
Methods: Phase IV, multicenter, prospective, randomized open-label clinical trial. Patients were randomized into an immediate therapy arm (starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) within 7 days after initiation of OI treatment) versus a deferred arm (starting ART after completing the OI-therapy). All patients were followed for 24 weeks. The rates of clinical progression (death, new or relapsing opportunistic infections (OI) and other grade 4 clinical endpoints) were compared, using a combined primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were hospitalization rates after completion of OI treatment, incidence of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS), virologic and immunological outcome, adherence to proteinase-inhibitor based antiretroviral therapy (ART) protocol and quality of life.
Results: 61 patients (11 patients suffering TE, 50 with PCP) were enrolled. No differences between the two therapy groups in all examined primary and secondary endpoints could be identified: immunological and virologic outcome was similar in both groups, there was no significant difference in the incidence of IRIS (11 and 10 cases), furthermore 9 events (combined endpoint of death, new/relapsing OI and grade 4 events) occurred in each group.
Conclusions: In summary, this study supports the notion that immediate initiation of ART with a ritonavir-boosted proteinase-inhibitor and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors is safe and has no negative effects on incidence of disease progression or IRIS, nor on immunological and virologic outcomes or on quality of life.