Prevalence and resistance mutations of non-B HIV-1 subtypes among immigrants in Southern Spain along the decade 2000-2010.

Most of the non-B HIV-1 subtypes are predominant in Sub-Saharan Africa and India although they have been found worldwide. In the last decade, immigration from these areas has increased considerably in Spain. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of non-B subtypes circulating in a cohort of HIV-1-infected immigrants in Seville, Southern Spain and to identify drug resistance-associated mutations. METHODS: Complete protease and first 220 codons of the reverse transcriptase coding regions were amplified and sequenced by population sequencing. HIV-1 subtypes were determined using Stanford University Drug Resistance Database, and phylogenetic analysis was performed comparing multiple reported sequences. Drug resistance mutations were defined according to the International AIDS Society-USA. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2010 a total of 1,089 newly diagnosed HIV-1-infected patients were enrolled in our cohort. Of these, 121 were immigrants, of which 98 had ethical approval and informed consent to include in our study. Twenty-nine immigrants (29/98, 29.6%) were infected with non-B subtypes, of which 15/29 (51.7%) were CRF02-AG, mostly from Sub-Saharan Africa, and 2/29 (6.9%) were CRF01-AE from Eastern Europe. A, C, F, J and G subtypes from Eastern Europe, Central-South America and Sub-Saharan Africa were also present. Some others harboured recombinant forms CRF02-AG/CRF01-AE, CRF2-AG/G and F/B, B/C, and K/G, in PR and RT-coding regions. Patients infected with non-B subtypes showed a high frequency of minor protease inhibitor resistance mutations, M36I, L63P, and K20R/I. Only one patient, CRF02_AG, showed major resistance mutation L90M. Major RT inhibitor resistance mutations K70R and A98G were present in one patient with subtype G, L100I in one patient with CRF01_AE, and K103N in another patient with CRF01_AE. Three patients had other mutations such as V118I, E138A and V90I. CONCLUSIONS: The circulation of non-B subtypes has significantly increased in Southern Spain during the last decade, with 29.6% prevalence, in association with demographic changes among immigrants. This could be an issue in the treatment and management of these patients. Resistance mutations have been detected in these patients with a prevalence of 7% among treatment-naïve patients compared with the 21% detected among patients under HAART or during treatment interruption.

Dapagliflozina

Dapagliflozin is a new oral antidiabetic agent whose mechanism of action increases renal glucose excretion, independently of insulin secretion or insulin action. The efficacy of dapagliflozin is dependent on renal function. The use of dapagliflozin has been licensed to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus as: - monotherapy when diet and exercise alone do not provide adequate glycaemic control in patients for whom the use of metformin is considered inappropriate due to intolerance. - Add-on combination therapy with other glucose-lowering agents including insulin, when these, together with diet and exercise, do not provide adequate glycaemic control. Funding has been restricted to the use of dapagliflozin, prior approval, as dual therapy in combination with metformin. This report aims to assess the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, rate the added therapeutic value of dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes mellitus and identify its current place in therapy. A systematic literature search was carried out, for the purpose of this evaluation, using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and IDIS databases as well as other secondary sources of evidence-based medicine, therapeutic bulletins and national and international drug agencies. Following the critical reading and analysis of the selected articles, a summary is made out of the scientific evidence available, using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria. Only one randomised clinical trial, out of the ten trials found, was considered to be a suitable comparison (versus a dual therapy in combination with the sulfonylurea glipizide in patients inadequately controlled with metformin, diet and exercise). No trials have evaluated variables of relevance to patients, except for safety variables. The main efficacy variable in the trials was the change from baseline in HbA1c, except for a study which evaluated the change from baseline in total body weight as main variable. Baseline characteristics of the patients enrolled in the trials significantly differ from those of the population with diabetes in our society which tend to be of an older age and have a longer history of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The major limitation of dapagliflozin derives from its mechanism of action, since its efficacy decreases as renal function declines. The use of dapagliflozin is not recommended in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment ((CrCl<60ml/min or GFG <60 ml/min/1.73 m2) nor in elderly patients, in which a decrease in renal function can be expected. The assessment of safety includes the incidence and rate of discontinuations due to adverse events, episodes of hypoglycaemia, signs or symptoms of genital and urinary tract infections, dehydration, hypovolaemia and hypotension. Further pharmacoepidemiological studies are to be carried out to clarify the long-term effects of dapagliflozin on renal function and the potential effect in the development of breast and bladder tumours. Dapagliflozin as monotherapy has not been evaluated against adequate comparators (sulfonylureas, pioglitazone, gliptins). In combination therapy with metformin, the efficacy of dapagliflozin was shown to be non-inferior to glipizide plus metformin, resulting in a mean reduction of 0.52% in HbA1c, with a difference of 0.00 among both groups (95% CI: -0.11 a 0.11). There are no comparative data against other second-line treatment options. As shown in the studies, the overall incidence of adverse events with dapagliflozin as monotherapy (21.5%) was similar to that observed with placebo, and greater to that observed with metformin (15.4%). Hypoglycaemia of any type was the adverse event more frequently reported. The incidence of severe hypoglycaemic events observed in most of the studies was low. The overall incidence of adverse events observed in the study that compared dapagliflozin+metformin against glipizide+metformin was similar for both groups (27%) and incidence of hypoglycaemic events with dapagliflozin (3.5%) was significantly lower to that observed with glipizide (40.8%). Reductions of body weight of about 2 to 3 kg and a slight decrease in blood pressure (1 to 5 mmHg) have been observed in all studies in the groups treated with dapagliflozin together with diet and exercise. Dosing scheme (every 24 hours) is similar to other oral antidiabetic agents and its cost is similar to that for gliptines and higher to that for sulfonylureas or generic pioglitazone. Funding has been limited to the use of dapagliflozin as dual therapy regimen in combination with metformin as an option for patients with contraindication or intolerance to sulfonylureas, such a those experiencing frequent hypoglycaemic events, weight loss associated risks, as long as they are under 75 years of age and have no moderate to severe renal impairment. In the light of the above, we consider dapagliflozin means no therapeutic innovation in the therapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus over other therapeutic alternatives available.

Fosfomycin versus meropenem in bacteraemic urinary tract infections caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli (FOREST): study protocol for an investigator-driven randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION Finding therapeutic alternatives to carbapenems in infections caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli (ESBL-EC) is imperative. Although fosfomycin was discovered more than 40 years ago, it was not investigated in accordance with current standards and so is not used in clinical practice except in desperate situations. It is one of the so-called neglected antibiotics of high potential interest for the future. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The main objective of this project is to demonstrate the clinical non-inferiority of intravenous fosfomycin with regard to meropenem for treating bacteraemic urinary tract infections (UTI) caused by ESBL-EC. This is a 'real practice' multicentre, open-label, phase III randomised controlled trial, designed to compare the clinical and microbiological efficacy, and safety of intravenous fosfomycin (4 g/6 h) and meropenem (1 g/8 h) as targeted therapy for this infection; a change to oral therapy is permitted after 5 days in both arms, in accordance with predetermined options. The study design follows the latest recommendations for designing trials investigating new options for multidrug-resistant bacteria. Secondary objectives include the study of fosfomycin concentrations in plasma and the impact of both drugs on intestinal colonisation by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethical approval was obtained from the Andalusian Coordinating Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Biomedical Research (Referral Ethics Committee), which obtained approval from the local ethics committees at all participating sites in Spain (22 sites). Data will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. DISCUSSION This project is proposed as an initial step in the investigation of an orphan antimicrobial of low cost with high potential as a therapeutic alternative in common infections such as UTI in selected patients. These results may have a major impact on the use of antibiotics and the development of new projects with this drug, whether as monotherapy or combination therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT02142751. EudraCT no: 2013-002922-21. Protocol V.1.1 dated 14 March 2014.

Pandemic 2009 A(H1N1) infection requiring hospitalization of elderly Spanish adults.

To describe the clinical presentation and prognosis of elderly adults hospitalized with pandemic 2009 A(H1N1) influenza infection and to compare these data with those of younger patients. DESIGN: Prospective, observational, multicenter study. SETTING: Thirteen hospitals in Spain. PARTICIPANTS: Adults admitted to the hospital with confirmed pandemic 2009 A(H1N1) influenza infection. MEASUREMENTS: Demographic, clinical, laboratory, radiological, and outcome variables. RESULTS: Between June 12 and November 10, 2009, 585 adults with confirmed 2009 A(H1N1) influenza were hospitalized, of whom 50 (8.5%) were aged 65 and older (median age 72, range 65-87). Older adults (≥ 65) were more likely to have associated comorbidities (88.0% vs 51.2%; P < .001), primarily chronic pulmonary diseases (46.0% vs 27.3%; P < .001). Lower respiratory tract symptoms and signs such as dyspnea (60.0% vs 45.6%) and wheezing (46.0% vs 27.8%; P = .007) were also more common in these elderly adults, although pulmonary infiltrates were present in just 14 (28.0%) of the older adults, compared with 221 (41.3%) of the younger adults (P = .06). Multilobar involvement was less frequent in elderly adults with pulmonary infiltrates than younger adults with pulmonary infiltrates (21.4% vs 60.0%; P = .05). Rhinorrhea (4.0% vs 21.9%; P = .003), myalgias (42.0% vs 59.1%; P = .01), and sore throat (14.0% vs 29.2%; P = .02) were more frequent in younger adults. Early antiviral therapy (<48 hours) was similar in the two groups (34.0% vs 37.9%; P = .58). Two older adults (4.0%) died during hospitalization, compared with 11 (2.1%) younger adults (P = .30). CONCLUSION: Elderly adults with 2009 A(H1N1) influenza had fewer viral-like upper respiratory symptoms than did younger adults. Pneumonia was more frequent in younger adults. No significant differences were observed in hospital mortality.