Publications

BACKGROUND

In the US, the HIV diagnostic algorithm for laboratory settings recommends the use of an HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation supplemental assay after an initial reactive antigen/antibody (Ag/Ab) assay result. Since the discontinuation of the Multispot HIV-1/HIV-2 Rapid Test (MS), the Geenius HIV-1/2 Supplemental assay (Geenius) is the only FDA-approved supplemental differentiation test.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the performance of Geenius to MS and Western Blot (WB).

STUDY DESIGN

The relative seroconversion plasma reactivity of Geenius and MS was assessed using a 50% cumulative frequency analysis from 17 HIV-1 seroconverters. In addition, previously characterized plasma specimens, 186 HIV-1 positive, 100 HIV-2 positive, and 93 Ag/Ab-positive/HIV-1 RNA-negative, were tested with Geenius v1.1 software. McNemar's test was used for paired comparison analysis. A subset of 48 specimens were retested with the upgraded Geenius v1.3 software.

RESULTS

In HIV-1 seroconverters, the relative seroconversion reactivity was 2.5 and 2 days before the first positive HIV-1 WB for Geenius and MS, respectively. In HIV-1 positive samples, Geenius performed similarly to HIV-1 WB (p=0.1687) and MS (p=0.8312). In HIV-2 positive samples, Geenius underperformed compared to HIV-2 WB (p=0.0005) and MS (p=0.0012). When using the upgraded software among the HIV-1 positive and Ag/Ab-reactive/HIV-1 RNA-negative samples, gp140 reactivity decreased without affecting characterization of HIV-2 samples.

CONCLUSIONS

With HIV-1 samples, Geenius, WB and MS performance was similar as supplemental tests. The updated Geenius software reduced false gp140 reactivity, but had no impact on identifying true HIV-2 infections. Further evaluation will assess the impact of the Geenius software update on final diagnostic interpretations.

On August 30, 2017 the US Food and Drug Administration approved tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah; Novartis, Basel, Switzerland), a synthetic bioimmune product of anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T), for the treatment of children and young adults with relapsed/refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). With this new era of personalized cancer immunotherapy, multiple challenges are present, ranging from implementation of a CAR-T program to safe delivery of the drug, long-term toxicity monitoring, and disease assessments. To address these issues experts representing the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplant, the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, the International Society of Cell and Gene Therapy, and the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy formed a global CAR-T task force to identify and address key questions pertinent for hematologists and transplant physicians regarding the clinical use of anti CD19 CAR-T therapy in patients with B-ALL. This article presents an initial roadmap for navigating common clinical practice scenarios that will become more prevalent now that the first commercially available CAR-T product for B-ALL has been approved.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 common alternate treatments for depression.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted as part of a randomized clinical trial, the Veterans Affairs Augmentation and Switching Treatments for Improving Depression Outcomes (VAST-D) trial, in which patients were randomized from December 2012 to May 2015 and followed for 12 weeks in 35 Veterans Affairs medical centers. Depression diagnosis was based on ICD-9 codes. Patients were randomized to standard antidepressant therapy augmented with aripiprazole, standard antidepressant therapy augmented with bupropion, or switch to bupropion. Remission was measured using the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinican Rated. Outcomes included the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) comparing costs per remission and costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) with 12 weeks as the time horizon using the health care sector perspective.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants enrolled in the trial (N = 1,522) was 54 years, and participants were predominantly male. The rate of remission at 12 weeks was highest for the aripiprazole augmentation arm (29%), followed by bupropion augmentation (27%), and lowest for switching to bupropion (22%). Switching to bupropion was strongly dominated by bupropion augmentation at an ICER of -$640/remission (95% CI, -$5,770 to $3,008). The ICER for the aripiprazole augmentation versus switching to bupropion was $1,074/remission (95% CI, $47 to $5,022), and the ICER for aripiprazole augmentation versus bupropion augmentation was $5,094/remission (95% CI, -$34,027 to $32,774). There were no significant differences in QALYs, mental health care costs, employment, or other work and social adjustment outcomes between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In treatment of depression with less than optimal response, augmentation with either aripiprazole or bupropion was cost-effective relative to switching to bupropion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01421342.