An 18-Week, Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study of Amlodipine/Ramipril Combination Versus Amlodipine Monotherapy in the Treatment of Hypertension: The Assessment of Combination Therapy of Amlodipine/Ramipril (ATAR) Study

Background: A combination of antihypertensive agents of different drug classes in a fixed-dose combination (FDC) may offer advantages in terms of efficacy, tolerability, and treatment compliance. Combination of a calcium channel blocker with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor may act synergistically to reduce blood pressure (BP). Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of an amlodipine/ramipril FDC with those of amlodipine monotherapy. Methods: This 18-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind study was conducted at 8 centers across Brazil. Patients with stage 1 or 2 essential hypertension were enrolled. After a 2-week placebo run-in phase, patients received amlodipine/ramipril 2.5/2.5 mg or amlodipine 2.5 mg, after which the doses were titrated, based on BP, to 515 then 10/10 mg (amlodipme/ramipril) and 5 then 10 mg (amiodipine). The primary end point was BP measured in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Hematology and serum biochemistry were assessed at baseline and study end. Tolerability was assessed using patient interview, laboratory analysis, and physical examination, including measurement of ankle circumference to assess peripheral edema. Results: A total of 222 patients completed the study (age range, 40-79 years; FDC group, 117 patients [mean dose, 7.60/7.60 mg]; monotherapy, 105 patients [mean dose, 7.97 mg]). The mean (SD) changes in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP), as measured using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and in the physician`s office, were significantly greater with combination therapy than monotherapy, with the exception of office DBP (ABPM, -20.76 [1.25] vs -15.80 [1.18] mm Hg and -11.71 [0.78] vs -8.61 [0.74] mm Hg, respectively [both, P = 0.004]; office, -27.51 [1.40] vs -22.84 [1.33] min Hg [P = 0.012] and -16.41 [0.79] vs -14.64 [0.75] mm Hg [P = NS], respectively). In the ITT analysis, the mean changes in ambulatory, but not office-based, BP were statistically significant (ABPM: SBP, -20.21 [1.14] vs -15.31 [1.12] mm Hg and DBP, -11.61 [0.72] vs -8.42 [0.70] mm Hg, respectively [both, P = 0.002]; office: SBP, -26.60 [1.34] vs -22.97 [1.30] mm Hg and DBP, -16.48 [0.78] vs -14.48 [0.75] mm Hg [both, P = NS]). Twenty-nine patients (22.1%) treated with combination therapy and 41 patients (30.6%) treated with monotherapy experienced >= 1 adverse event considered possibly related to study drug. The combmation-therapy group had lower prevalence of edema (7.6% vs 18.7%; P = 0.011) and a similar prevalence of dry cough (3.8% vs 0.8%; P = NS). No clinically significant changes in laboratory values were found in either group. Conclusions: In this population of patients with essential hypertension, the amlodipine/ramipril FDC was associated with significantly reduced ambulatory and office-measured BP compared with amlodipine monotherapy, with the exception of office DBP. Both treatments were well tolerated. (Clin Ther. 2008;30: 1618-1628) (C) 2008 Excerpta Medica Inc.

Additive Intraocular Pressure Reduction Effect of Fixed Combination of Maleate Timolol 0.5%/Dorzolamide 2% (Cosopt) on Monotherapy With Latanoprost (Xalatan) in Patients With Elevated Intraocular Pressure A Prospective, 4-week, Open-label, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

Purpose: To evaluate the additive effect of dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination in patients under monotherapy with latanoprost. Patients and Methods: In this prospective, 4-week, randomized, open-label controlled clinical trial, patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension, which presented at least 15% intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction after a minimum period of 15 days of monotherapy with latanoprost and whose IOP level was considered above the established target-IOP level were randomized to receive fixed combination of timolol/dorzolamide twice daily in one of eyes. The fellow eye was kept under monotherapy and was included in the control group. A modified diurnal tension curve (mDTC) followed by the water drinking test were performed in the baseline and week 4 visits to evaluate IOP profile between groups. Results: Forty-nine per-protocol patients were analyzed. After latanoprost monotherapy run-in period, IOP levels were significantly reduced (P<0.001) in both control and study groups to 15.34 +/- 2.96 mm Hg and 15.24 +/- 2.84 mm Hg (30.8% and 32.2% IOP reduction, respectively; P=0.552). At week 4, mean baseline diurnal IOP levels were 15.60 +/- 3.09 and 14.44 +/- 3.03 (7.4% difference; P=0.01). Mean baseline IOP modified diurnal tension curve peak after latanoprost run-in period were 17.47 +/- 3.68 mm Hg and 17.02 +/- 3.35 mm Hg (control and study eyes, respectively; P=0.530). At week 4 visit, mean water-drinking test peaks were significantly reduced in the study eye group in comparison with the control group: 19.02 +/- 3.81 mm Hg and 20.39 +/- 4.19 mm Hg, respectively (6.7% reduction; P=0.039). Conclusions: In our sample, dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination as add-on therapy in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension under monotherapy with latanoprost with IOP already in mid-teens levels may further enhance pressure reduction.

Prednisone monotherapy induced remission in a group of patients with membranous lupus nephritis

The treatment of membranous lupus nephritis (MLN) is still controversial in the literature. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients in two medical centers of Sao Paulo-Brazil in order to evaluate the clinical response in patients submitted to either a regimen with prednisone alone or to a double immunosuppressive regimen (prednisone plus cyclophosphamide or prednisone plus azathioprine). Methods: MLN female patients were enrolled in this retrospective study conducted from February 1999 to June 2007. Data were collected from the patients` medical charts. Race distribution was similar in both groups: Caucasian (72.3%) and Afro-Latin-American (27.7%). The prednisone regimen consisted of 1 mg/kg/day for 8 weeks and tapering until 0.1 mg/kg/day (n = 29). The double immunosuppressive treatment consisted of the same doses of prednisone plus monthly intravenous cyclophosphamide or azathioprine for 6 months (n = 24). Criteria for remission (complete and partial) and renal function loss as well as flare criteria followed those used in the literature. Results: There was no difference between the prednisone group and the double immunosuppressive group regarding age (33.2 +/- 9.4 vs. 29.1 +/- 9.1 y), estimated GFR (76.5 +/- 26.6 vs. 74.1 +/- 39.6 ml/min/1.73 m(2)), serum albumin (2.8 +/- 0.7 vs. 2.6 +/- 0.3 g/dl), positive ANA (87.5 vs. 90.0%), positive anti-dsDNA (47.6 vs. 44.0%), renal SLEDAI indices (6.6 +/- 2.6 vs. 7.0 +/- 3.1), follow-up time (71 +/- 46 vs. 62 +/- 45 months), as well as proteinuria (3.1 +/- 1.9 vs. 4.8 +/- 2.4 g/day) and number of non-nephrotic patients (6 in the prednisone group vs. 3 in the double immunosuppressive group). The prednisone group presented higher C3 values (85.2 +/- 31.5 vs. 62.3 +/- 41.6 U/ml, p = 0.04). Clinical and laboratory characteristics at 6 months and at last follow-up did not reveal any differences between treatment regimens. Renal survival after an 8-year follow-up did not differ in both groups (prednisone group 86.2% vs. double immunosuppressive group 75%), and patients in both groups showed a high rate of renal flares (prednisone group 51.7% vs. double immunosuppressive group 62.5%). Univariate analysis showed that only patient age predicted flares (r = -0.048, p = 0.04). Borderline significance was obtained for proteinuria analysis (p = 0.07). Adverse effects did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: A regimen of corticosteroids in MLN induced a high remission rate after 6 months. Both treatment regimens showed a high flare rate and age was the only predictive parameter (r = -0.048, p = 0.04). Renal survival after 8 years did not differ between the groups.

Effects of losartan, in monotherapy or in association with hydrochlorothiazide, in chronic nephropathy resulting from losartan treatment during lactation

Fanelli C, Fernandes BH, Machado FG, Okabe C, Malheiros DM, Fujihara CK, Zatz R. Effects of losartan, in monotherapy or in association with hydrochlorothiazide, in chronic nephropathy resulting from losartan treatment during lactation. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 301: F580-F587, 2011. First published June 8, 2011; doi:10.1152/ajprenal.00042.2011.-We recently standardized a model (L(Lact)) of severe chronic kidney disease based on impaired nephrogenesis by suppression of angiotensin II activity during lactation (Machado FG, Poppi EP, Fanelli C, Malheiros DM, Zatz R, Fujihara CK. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 294: F1345-F1353, 2008). In this new study of the L(Lact) model, we sought to gain further insight into renal injury mechanisms associated with this model and to verify whether the renoprotection obtained with the association of the angiotensin II receptor blocker losartan (L) and hydrochlorothiazide (H), which arrested renal injury in the remnant kidney model, would provide similar renoprotection. Twenty Munich-Wistar dams, each nursing six pups, were divided into control, untreated, and L(Lact) groups, given losartan (L; 250 mg.kg(-1).day(-1)) until weaning. The male LLact offspring remained untreated until 7 mo of age, when renal functional and structural parameters were studied in 17 of them, used as pretreatment control (L(Lact)Pre), and followed no further. The remaining rats were then divided among groups L(Lact) + V, untreated; L(Lact) + L, given L (50 mg.kg(-1).day(-1)) now as a therapy; L(Lact) + H, given H (6 mg.kg(-1).day(-1)); and L(Lact) + LH, given L and H. All parameters were reassessed 3 mo later in these groups and in age-matched controls. At this time, L(Lact) rats exhibited hypertension, severe albuminuria, glomerular damage, marked interstitial expansion/inflammation, enhanced cell proliferation, myofibroblast infiltration, and creatinine retention. L monotherapy normalized albuminuria and prevented hypertension and the progression of renal injury, inflammation, and myofibroblast infiltration. In contrast to the remnant model, the LH combination promoted only slight additional renoprotection, perhaps because of a limited tendency to retain sodium in L(Lact) rats.

Locally Advanced and Metastatic Prostate Cancer Treated with Intermittent Androgen Monotherapy or Maximal Androgen Blockade: Results from a Randomised Phase 3 Study by the South European Uroncological Group

BACKGROUND: Few randomised studies have compared antiandrogen intermittent hormonal therapy (IHT) with continuous maximal androgen blockade (MAB) therapy for advanced prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether overall survival (OS) on IHT (cyproterone acetate; CPA) is noninferior to OS on continuous MAB. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This phase 3 randomised trial compared IHT and continuous MAB in patients with locally advanced or metastatic PCa. INTERVENTION: During induction, patients received CPA 200 mg/d for 2 wk and then monthly depot injections of a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH; triptoreline 11.25 mg) analogue plus CPA 200 mg/d. Patients whose prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was <4 ng/ml after 3 mo of induction treatment were randomised to the IHT arm (stopped treatment and restarted on CPA 300 mg/d monotherapy if PSA rose to ≥20 ng/ml or they were symptomatic) or the continuous arm (CPA 200 mg/d plus monthly LHRH analogue). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcome measurement was OS. Secondary outcomes included cause-specific survival, time to subjective or objective progression, and quality of life. Time off therapy in the intermittent arm was recorded. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We recruited 1045 patients, of which 918 responded to induction therapy and were randomised (462 to IHT and 456 to continuous MAB). OS was similar between groups (p=0.25), and noninferiority of IHT was demonstrated (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.07). There was a trend for an interaction between PSA and treatment (p=0.05), favouring IHT over continuous therapy in patients with PSA ≤1 ng/ml (HR: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.02). Men treated with IHT reported better sexual function. Among the 462 patients on IHT, 50% and 28% of patients were off therapy for ≥2.5 yr or >5 yr, respectively, after randomisation. The main limitation is that the length of time for the trial to mature means that other therapies are now available. A second limitation is that T3 patients may now profit from watchful waiting instead of androgen-deprivation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Noninferiority of IHT in terms of survival and its association with better sexual activity than continuous therapy suggest that IHT should be considered for use in routine clinical practice.

Monotherapy and combined therapy of new potential antitumor compounds: antiproliferative activities and biological targets

Review article Martins, P., Marques, M., Coito, L., Pombeiro, A.J.L., Baptista, P.V., Fernandes, A.R. 2014. Organometallic Compounds in Cancer Therapy: Past Lessons and Future Directions. Anti-cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry 14. PMID: 25173559

An international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of pregabalin monotherapy in treatment of patients with fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin monotherapy versus placebo for symptomatic pain relief and improvement of patient global assessment in patients with fibromyalgia (FM) enrolled from countries outside the United States. METHODS: This international, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned 747 patients with FM to placebo or 300, 450, or 600 mg/day pregabalin twice daily for 14 weeks. Primary efficacy measures were endpoint mean pain scores and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Secondary outcomes included assessments of sleep and function. RESULTS: Patients in the 450 mg/day pregabalin group showed significant improvements versus placebo in endpoint mean pain score (-0.56; p = 0.0132), PGIC (73% improved vs 56% placebo; p = 0.0017), and function [Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) total score -5.85; p = 0.0012]. PGIC was also significant for 600 mg/day pregabalin (69% improved; p = 0.0227). Results for these endpoints were nonsignificant for pregabalin at 300 mg/day and for pain and FIQ score at 600 mg/day. Early onset of pain relief was seen, with separation from placebo detected by Week 1 in all pregabalin groups. All pregabalin doses demonstrated superiority to placebo on the Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep Scale Sleep Disturbance subscale and the Sleep Quality diary. Dizziness and somnolence were the most frequently reported adverse events. CONCLUSION: Pregabalin demonstrated modest efficacy in pain, global assessment, and function in FM at 450 mg/day, and improved sleep across all dose levels, but it did not provide consistent evidence of benefit at 300 and 600 mg/day in this study. Pregabalin was generally well tolerated for the treatment of FM. (Clinical trial registry NCT00333866).

Effectiveness of Pregabalin as Monotherapy or Combination Therapy for Neuropathic Pain in Patients Unresponsive to Previous Treatments in a Spanish Primary Care Setting

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Patients from a previous study of neuropathic pain (NP) in the Spanish primary care setting still had symptoms despite treatment. Subsequently, patients were treated as prescribed by their physician and followed up for 3 months. Since pregabalin has been shown to be effective in NP, including refractory cases, the objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of pregabalin therapy in patients with NP refractory to previous treatments. METHODS This was a post hoc analysis of pregabalin-naïve NP patients treated with pregabalin in a 3-month follow-up observational multicenter study to assess symptoms and satisfaction with treatment. Patients were evaluated with the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions (DN4), the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the Treatment Satisfaction for Medication Questionnaire (SATMED-Q) overall satisfaction domain. RESULTS 1,670 patients (mean age 58 years, 59 % women), previously untreated or treated with ≥1 drug other than pregabalin, were treated with pregabalin (37 % on monotherapy). At 3 months, pain intensity and its interference with activities decreased by half (p < 0.0001), while the number of days with no or mild pain increased by a mean of 4.5 days (p < 0.0001). Treatment satisfaction increased twofold (p < 0.0001). Patients with a shorter history of pain and those with neuralgia and peripheral nerve compression syndrome (PCS) as etiologies had the highest proportion on monotherapy and showed the greatest improvements in pain-related parameters in their respective group categories. CONCLUSION Treatment with pregabalin (as monotherapy or combination therapy) provides benefits in pain and treatment satisfaction in patients with NP, including refractory cases. Shorter disease progression and neuralgia and PCS etiologies are favorable factors for pregabalin treatment response.

Monotherapy with darunavir/ritonavir is effective and safe in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION Monotherapy against HIV has undoubted theoretical advantages and has good scientific fundaments. However, it is still controversial and here we will analyze the efficacy and safety of MT with darunavir with ritonavir (DRV/r) on patients who have received this treatment in our hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS Observational retrospective study that includes patients from 10 Andalusian hospitals that have received DRV/r in MT and that have been followed over a minimum of 12 months. We carried out a statistical descriptive analysis based on the profile of patients who had been prescribed MT and the efficacy and safety that were observed, paying special attention to treatment failure and virological evolution. RESULTS DRV/r was prescribed to 604 patients, of which 41.1% had a CD4 nadir <200/mmc. 33.1% had chronic hepatitis caused by HCV, had received an average of five lines of previous treatment and had a history of treatment failure to analogues in 33%, to non-analogues 22 and protease inhibitors (PI) in 19.5%. 76.6% proceeded from a previous treatment with PI. The simplification was the main criteria for the instauration of MT in the 81.5% and the adverse effects in the 18.5%. We managed to maintain MT in 84% of cases, with only 4.8% of virological failure (VF) with viral load (VL) >200 c/mL and 3.6% additional losses due to VF with VL between 50 and 200 copies/mL. Thirty three genotypes were performed after failure without findings of resistance mutations to DRV/r or other IPs. Only 23.7% of patients presented some blips during the period of exposition to MT. Eighty seven percent of all determinations of VL had <50 copies/mL, and only 4.99% had >200 copies/mL. Although up to 14.9% registered at some point an AE, only 2.6% abandoned MT because of AE and 1.2% because of voluntary decision. Although the average of total and LDL cholesterol increases 10 mg/dL after 2 years of follow-up, so did HDL cholesterol in 3mg/dL and the values of triglycerides (-14 mg/dL) and GPT (-6 UI/mL) decreased. The average count of CD4 lymphocytes increased from 642 to 714/mm(3) at 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS In a very broad series of patients obtained from clinical practice, data from clinical trials was confirmed: MT with DRV as a de-escalation strategy is very safe, it's associated to a negligible rate of adverse effects and maintains a good suppression of HIV replication. VF (with >50 or >200 copies/mL) is always under 10% and in any case without consequences.

Daptomycin plus fosfomycin versus daptomycin monotherapy in treating MRSA: protocol of a multicentre, randomised, phase III trial.

INTRODUCTION Despite the availability of new antibiotics such as daptomycin, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia continues to be associated with high clinical failure rates. Combination therapy has been proposed as an alternative to improve outcomes but there is a lack of clinical studies. The study aims to demonstrate that combination of daptomycin plus fosfomycin achieves higher clinical success rates in the treatment of MRSA bacteraemia than daptomycin alone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS A multicentre open-label, randomised phase III study. Adult patients hospitalised with MRSA bacteraemia will be randomly assigned (1:1) to group 1: daptomycin 10 mg/kg/24 h intravenous; or group 2: daptomycin 10 mg/kg/24 h intravenous plus fosfomycin 2 gr/6 g intravenous. The main outcome will be treatment response at week 6 after stopping therapy (test-of-cure (TOC) visit). This is a composite variable with two values: Treatment success: resolution of clinical signs and symptoms (clinical success) and negative blood cultures (microbiological success) at the TOC visit. Treatment failure: if any of the following conditions apply: (1) lack of clinical improvement at 72 h or more after starting therapy; (2) persistent bacteraemia (positive blood cultures on day 7); (3) therapy is discontinued early due to adverse effects or for some other reason based on clinical judgement; (4) relapse of MRSA bacteraemia before the TOC visit; (5) death for any reason before the TOC visit. Assuming a 60% cure rate with daptomycin and a 20% difference in cure rates between the two groups, 103 patients will be needed for each group (α:0.05, ß: 0.2). Statistical analysis will be based on intention to treat, as well as per protocol and safety analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The protocol was approved by the Spanish Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (AEMPS). The sponsor commits itself to publishing the data in first quartile peer-review journals within 12 months of the completion of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01898338.

β-Lactam Monotherapy vs β-Lactam-Macrolide Combination Treatment in Moderately Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The clinical benefit of adding a macrolide to a β-lactam for empirical treatment of moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To test noninferiority of a β-lactam alone compared with a β-lactam and macrolide combination in moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial conducted from January 13, 2009, through January 31, 2013, in 580 immunocompetent adult patients hospitalized in 6 acute care hospitals in Switzerland for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Follow-up extended to 90 days. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with a β-lactam and a macrolide (combination arm) or with a β-lactam alone (monotherapy arm). Legionella pneumophila infection was systematically searched and treated by addition of a macrolide to the monotherapy arm. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patients not reaching clinical stability (heart rate <100/min, systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg, temperature <38.0°C, respiratory rate <24/min, and oxygen saturation >90% on room air) at day 7. RESULTS: After 7 days of treatment, 120 of 291 patients (41.2%) in the monotherapy arm vs 97 of 289 (33.6%) in the combination arm had not reached clinical stability (7.6% difference, P = .07). The upper limit of the 1-sided 90% CI was 13.0%, exceeding the predefined noninferiority boundary of 8%. Patients infected with atypical pathogens (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.85) or with Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) category IV pneumonia (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59-1.10) were less likely to reach clinical stability with monotherapy, whereas patients not infected with atypical pathogens (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22) or with PSI category I to III pneumonia (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82-1.36) had equivalent outcomes in the 2 arms. There were more 30-day readmissions in the monotherapy arm (7.9% vs 3.1%, P = .01). Mortality, intensive care unit admission, complications, length of stay, and recurrence of pneumonia within 90 days did not differ between the 2 arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We did not find noninferiority of β-lactam monotherapy in patients hospitalized for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Patients infected with atypical pathogens or with PSI category IV pneumonia had delayed clinical stability with monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00818610.

Marked increase of the astrocytic marker S100B in the cerebrospinal fluid of HIV-infected patients on LPV/r-monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine changes of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers of patients on monotherapy with lopinavir/ritonavir. DESIGN: The Monotherapy Switzerland/Thailand study (MOST) trial compared monotherapy with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir with continued therapy. The trial was prematurely stopped due to virological failure in six patients on monotherapy. It, thus, offers a unique opportunity to assess brain markers in the early stage of HIV virological escape. METHODS: : Sixty-five CSF samples (34 on continued therapy and 31 on monotherapy) from 49 HIV-positive patients enrolled in MOST. Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, we determined the CSF concentration of S100B (astrocytosis), neopterin (inflammation), total Tau (tTau), phosphorylated Tau (pTau), and amyloid-β 1-42 (Aβ), the latter three indicating neuronal damage. Controls were CSF samples of 29 HIV-negative patients with Alzheimer dementia. RESULTS: In the CSF of monotherapy, concentrations of S100B and neopterin were significantly higher than in continued therapy (P = 0.006 and P = 0.013, respectively) and Alzheimer dementia patients (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0005, respectively). In Alzheimer dementia, concentration of Aβ was lower than in monotherapy (P = 0.005) and continued therapy (P = 0.016) and concentrations of tTau were higher than in monotherapy (P = 0.019) and continued therapy (P = 0.001). There was no difference in pTau among the three groups. After removal of the 16 CSF with detectable viral load in the blood and/or CSF, only S100B remained significantly higher in monotherapy than in the two other groups. CONCLUSION: Despite full viral load-suppression in blood and CSF, antiretroviral monotherapy with lopinavir/ritonavir can raise CSF levels of S100B, suggesting astrocytic damage.

β-Lactam Monotherapy vs β-Lactam-Macrolide Combination Treatment in Moderately Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The clinical benefit of adding a macrolide to a β-lactam for empirical treatment of moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To test noninferiority of a β-lactam alone compared with a β-lactam and macrolide combination in moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial conducted from January 13, 2009, through January 31, 2013, in 580 immunocompetent adult patients hospitalized in 6 acute care hospitals in Switzerland for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Follow-up extended to 90 days. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with a β-lactam and a macrolide (combination arm) or with a β-lactam alone (monotherapy arm). Legionella pneumophila infection was systematically searched and treated by addition of a macrolide to the monotherapy arm. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patients not reaching clinical stability (heart rate <100/min, systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg, temperature <38.0°C, respiratory rate <24/min, and oxygen saturation >90% on room air) at day 7. RESULTS: After 7 days of treatment, 120 of 291 patients (41.2%) in the monotherapy arm vs 97 of 289 (33.6%) in the combination arm had not reached clinical stability (7.6% difference, P = .07). The upper limit of the 1-sided 90% CI was 13.0%, exceeding the predefined noninferiority boundary of 8%. Patients infected with atypical pathogens (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.85) or with Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) category IV pneumonia (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59-1.10) were less likely to reach clinical stability with monotherapy, whereas patients not infected with atypical pathogens (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22) or with PSI category I to III pneumonia (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82-1.36) had equivalent outcomes in the 2 arms. There were more 30-day readmissions in the monotherapy arm (7.9% vs 3.1%, P = .01). Mortality, intensive care unit admission, complications, length of stay, and recurrence of pneumonia within 90 days did not differ between the 2 arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We did not find noninferiority of β-lactam monotherapy in patients hospitalized for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Patients infected with atypical pathogens or with PSI category IV pneumonia had delayed clinical stability with monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00818610.