Publications by authors named "Daniel S Berger"
Background: Hydrocephalus in patients with neurofibromatosis (NF) type 1 is usually obstructive and may arise secondary to tumoral or nontumoral causes. Treatment of hydrocephalus in these patients is often challenging owing to combined pathologies and unique anatomic changes. The use of endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) as treatment has rarely been described in this group.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: We analyzed the 96-week results in the overall population and in prespecified subgroups from the ongoing STARTMRK study of treatment-naive HIV-infected patients.
Methods: Eligible patients with HIV-1 RNA (vRNA) levels >5000 copies per milliliter and without baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine were randomized in a double-blind noninferiority study to receive raltegravir or efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine.
Results: At week 96 counting noncompleters as failures, 81% versus 79% achieved vRNA levels <50 copies per milliliter in the raltegravir and efavirenz groups, respectively [Delta (95% confidence interval) = 2% (-4 to 9), noninferiority P < 0.
Background: This phase 2, randomized, active-controlled, 48-week study assessed the noninferiority of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) integrase inhibitor elvitegravir to comparator ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (CPI/r) in treatment-experienced subjects.
Methods: Subjects had HIV RNA levels 1000 copies/mL and 1 protease resistance mutation. Subjects received nucleoside or nucleotide reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) with or without T-20 and either CPI/r or once-daily elvitegravir at a dose of 20 mg, 50 mg, or 125 mg (blinded to dose) with ritonavir.
Background: To reduce lipid abnormalities and other side-effects associated with antiretroviral regimens containing lopinavir-ritonavir, patients might want to switch one or more components of their regimen. We compared substitution of raltegravir for lopinavir-ritonavir with continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir in HIV-infected patients with stable viral suppression on lopinavir-ritonavir-based combination therapy.
Methods: The SWITCHMRK 1 and 2 studies were multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3, randomised controlled trials.
Safety and efficacy of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection: a multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial.
Lancet
September 2009
Background: Use of raltegravir with optimum background therapy is effective and well tolerated in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. We compared the safety and efficacy of raltegravir with efavirenz as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive patients.
Methods: Patients from 67 study centres on five continents were enrolled between Sept 14, 2006, and June 5, 2008.
Forty-eight-week results from a randomized, multicentre, part-blinded, phase IIb clinical trial assessing the efficacy and safety of 400 and 800 mg etravirine twice daily (phase IIb formulation) and optimized background regimen versus standard-of-care regimen are presented. Both etravirine doses demonstrated sustained virological suppression at 48 weeks and a favourable tolerability profile. Etravirine demonstrated higher efficacy than control, irrespective of the number of detectable nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-resistance-associated mutations at baseline or active background antiretrovirals.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFObjective: TMC125-C223 is an open-label, partially blinded, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two dosages of etravirine (TMC125), a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with activity against wild-type and NNRTI-resistant HIV-1.
Design: A total of 199 patients were randomly assigned 2: 2: 1 to twice-daily etravirine 400 mg, 800 mg and control groups, respectively. The primary endpoint was a change in viral load from baseline at week 24 in the intention-to-treat population.
Objective: The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the efficacy and safety of the abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine fixed-dose combination tablet administered as two tablets once daily (qd) versus one tablet twice daily (bid) in combination with efavirenz (EFV).
Method: This was a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter study with a 24-week treatment period in 7 outpatient HIV clinics in the United States. Patients currently receiving an initial regimen of abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine bid plus EFV qd for at least 6 months with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL for at least 3 months and a screening CD4+ cell count > or = 200 cells/mm3 were eligible.
Background: Antiretroviral combinations that reduce the number of pills and dosing frequency have the potential to simplify therapy. We compared 2 regimens dosed as 2 pills once daily.
Methods: This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter study of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus efavirenz, both administered once daily with the abacavir/lamivudine fixed-dose combination in treatment-naive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-infected subjects.
Background: Hydroxyurea (HU) is an immunomodulatory agent that has been documented to enhance the antiretroviral activity of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, such as abacavir (ABC) and didanosine (ddI), and would be expected to improve virologic efficacy.
Methods: A 48-week, phase IV, multicenter, open-label, proof-of-concept clinical trial was conducted to evaluate second-line, protease inhibitor (PI)-sparing therapy with ABC/efavirenz (EFV)/ddI plus HU or without HU in HIV-infected subjects failing to achieve HIV-1 RNA < or = 400 copies/mL after > or = 16 weeks of treatment with lamivudine/zidovudine or lamivudine/stavudine, plus 1 or 2 PIs. Subjects were assigned to ABC (300 mg twice daily)/ EFV (600 mg once daily)/ ddI (400 mg once daily) plus HU (500 mg twice daily) (n = 30) or this regimen without HU (n = 24).