New Algorithm for Managing Childhood Illness Using Mobile Technology (ALMANACH): A Controlled Non-Inferiority Study on Clinical Outcome and Antibiotic Use in Tanzania.

INTRODUCTION: The decline of malaria and scale-up of rapid diagnostic tests calls for a revision of IMCI. A new algorithm (ALMANACH) running on mobile technology was developed based on the latest evidence. The objective was to ensure that ALMANACH was safe, while keeping a low rate of antibiotic prescription. METHODS: Consecutive children aged 2-59 months with acute illness were managed using ALMANACH (2 intervention facilities), or standard practice (2 control facilities) in Tanzania. Primary outcomes were proportion of children cured at day 7 and who received antibiotics on day 0. RESULTS: 130/842 (15∙4%) in ALMANACH and 241/623 (38∙7%) in control arm were diagnosed with an infection in need for antibiotic, while 3∙8% and 9∙6% had malaria. 815/838 (97∙3%;96∙1-98.4%) were cured at D7 using ALMANACH versus 573/623 (92∙0%;89∙8-94∙1%) using standard practice (p<0∙001). Of 23 children not cured at D7 using ALMANACH, 44% had skin problems, 30% pneumonia, 26% upper respiratory infection and 13% likely viral infection at D0. Secondary hospitalization occurred for one child using ALMANACH and one who eventually died using standard practice. At D0, antibiotics were prescribed to 15∙4% (12∙9-17∙9%) using ALMANACH versus 84∙3% (81∙4-87∙1%) using standard practice (p<0∙001). 2∙3% (1∙3-3.3) versus 3∙2% (1∙8-4∙6%) received an antibiotic secondarily. CONCLUSION: Management of children using ALMANACH improve clinical outcome and reduce antibiotic prescription by 80%. This was achieved through more accurate diagnoses and hence better identification of children in need of antibiotic treatment or not. The building on mobile technology allows easy access and rapid update of the decision chart. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR201011000262218.

BRAF Alterations as Therapeutic Targets in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Several subsets of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are defined by molecular alterations acting as tumor drivers, some of them being currently therapeutically actionable. The rat sarcoma (RAS)-rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (RAF)-mitogen-activated protein/extracellular signal-regulated kinase kinase (MEK)-extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) pathway constitutes an attractive potential target, as v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) mutations occur in 2-4% of NSCLC adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Here, we review the latest clinical data on BRAF serine/threonine kinase inhibitors in NSCLC. RESULTS: Treatment of V600E BRAF-mutated NSCLC with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity. Combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors using dabrafenib and trametinib is under evaluation. Preliminary data suggest superior efficacy compared with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Targeting BRAF alterations represents a promising new therapeutic approach for a restricted subset of oncogene-addicted NSCLC. Prospect ive trials refining this strategy are ongoing. A next step will probably aim at combining BRAF inhibitors and immunotherapy or alternatively improve a multilevel mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway blockade by combining with ERK inhibitors.

Switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide in antiretroviral regimens for virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, active-controlled, multicentre, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral regimens containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate have been associated with renal toxicity and reduced bone mineral density. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug that reduces tenofovir plasma concentrations by 90%, thereby decreasing off-target side-effects. We aimed to assess whether efficacy, safety, and tolerability were non-inferior in patients switched to a regimen containing tenofovir alafenamide versus in those remaining on one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. METHODS: In this randomised, actively controlled, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited HIV-1-infected adults from Gilead clinical studies at 168 sites in 19 countries. Patients were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL per min or greater, and were taking one of four tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens for at least 96 weeks before enrolment. With use of a third-party computer-generated sequence, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive a once-a-day single-tablet containing elvitegravir 150 mg, cobicistat 150 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 10 mg (tenofovir alafenamide group) or to carry on taking one of four previous tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group) for 96 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by previous treatment regimen in blocks of six. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to the assigned study regimen; outcome assessors were masked until database lock. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received at least one dose of study drug who had undetectable viral load (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) at week 48. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01815736. FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2013 and April 3, 2014, we enrolled 1443 patients. 959 patients were randomly assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and 477 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. Viral suppression at week 48 was noted in 932 (97%) patients assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and in 444 (93%) assigned to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (adjusted difference 4·1%, 95% CI 1·6-6·7), with virological failure noted in ten and six patients, respectively. The number of adverse events was similar between the two groups, but study drug-related adverse events were more common in the tenofovir alafenamide group (204 patients [21%] vs 76 [16%]). Hip and spine bone mineral density and glomerular filtration were each significantly improved in patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with those in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. INTERPRETATION: Switching to a tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimen from one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was non-inferior for maintenance of viral suppression and led to improved bone mineral density and renal function. Longer term follow-up is needed to better understand the clinical impact of these changes. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.