| 1. |
- Aad, G, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2015
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Eron, Joseph J., et al.
(författare)
-
Week 96 efficacy and safety results of the phase 3, randomized EMERALD trial to evaluate switching from boosted-protease inhibitors plus emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimens to the once daily, single-tablet regimen of darunavir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (D/C/F/TAF) in treatment-experienced, virologically-suppressed adults living with HIV-1
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Antiviral Research. - : Elsevier BV. - 0166-3542 .- 1872-9096. ; 170
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © 2019 The Authors Darunavir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (D/C/F/TAF) 800/150/200/10 mg was investigated through 96 weeks in EMERALD (NCT02269917). Virologically-suppressed, HIV-1-positive treatment-experienced adults (previous non-darunavir virologic failure [VF] allowed) were randomized (2:1) to D/C/F/TAF or boosted protease inhibitor (PI) plus emtricitabine/tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate (F/TDF) over 48 weeks. At week 52 participants in the boosted PI arm were offered switch to D/C/F/TAF (late-switch, 44 weeks D/C/F/TAF exposure). All participants were followed on D/C/F/TAF until week 96. Efficacy endpoints were percentage cumulative protocol-defined virologic rebound (PDVR; confirmed viral load [VL] ≥50 copies/mL) and VL < 50 copies/mL (virologic suppression) and ≥50 copies/mL (VF) (FDA-snapshot analysis). Of 1141 randomized patients, 1080 continued in the extension phase. Few patients had PDVR (D/C/F/TAF: 3.1%, 24/763 cumulative through week 96; late-switch: 2.3%, 8/352 week 52–96). Week 96 virologic suppression was 90.7% (692/763) (D/C/F/TAF) and 93.8% (330/352) (late-switch). VF was 1.2% and 1.7%, respectively. No darunavir, primary PI, tenofovir or emtricitabine resistance-associated mutations were observed post-baseline. No patients discontinued for efficacy-related reasons. Few discontinued due to adverse events (2% D/C/F/TAF arm). Improved renal and bone parameters were maintained in the D/C/F/TAF arm and observed in the late-switch arm, with small increases in total cholesterol/high-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol ratio. A study limitation was the lack of a control arm in the week 96 analysis. Through 96 weeks, D/C/F/TAF resulted in low PDVR rates, high virologic suppression rates, very few VFs, and no resistance development. Late-switch results were consistent with D/C/F/TAF week 48 results. EMERALD week 96 results confirm the efficacy, high genetic barrier to resistance and safety benefits of D/C/F/TAF.
|
|
| 4. |
- López-Cano, M., et al.
(författare)
-
EHS clinical guidelines on the management of the abdominal wall in the context of the open or burst abdomen
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Hernia. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1265-4906 .- 1248-9204. ; 22:6, s. 921-939
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To provide guidelines for all surgical specialists who deal with the open abdomen (OA) or the burst abdomen (BA) in adult patients both on the methods used to close the musculofascial layers of the abdominal wall, and regarding possible materials to be used. Methods: The guidelines were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach including publications up to January 2017. When RCTs were available, outcomes of interest were quantitatively synthesized by means of a conventional meta-analysis. When only observational studies were available, a meta-analysis of proportions was done. The guidelines were written using the AGREE II instrument. Results: For many of the Key Questions that were researched, there were no high quality studies available. While some strong recommendations could be made according to GRADE, the guidelines also contain good practice statements and clinical expertise guidance which are distinct from recommendations that have been formally categorized using GRADE. Recommendations: When considering the OA, dynamic closure techniques should be prioritized over the use of static closure techniques (strong recommendation). However, for techniques including suture closure, mesh reinforcement, component separation techniques and skin grafting, only clinical expertise guidance was provided. Considering the BA, a clinical expertise guidance statement was advised for dynamic closure techniques. Additionally, a clinical expertise guidance statement concerning suture closure and a good practice statement concerning mesh reinforcement during fascial closure were proposed. The role of advanced techniques such as component separation or relaxing incisions is questioned. In addition, the role of the abdominal girdle seems limited to very selected patients.
|
|
