This editorial to the special issue of Sexual Health on antiretroviral-based prevention of HIV infection is dedicated to showcasing research and practice in this area. It aims to promote debate regarding the potential of new antiretroviral-based prevention approaches and the challenges encountered in moving prevention innovations into the community. This special issue covers the breadth of innovative HIV prevention research, including that undertaken in the fields of epidemiology, clinical research, social and behavioural science, public health and policy analysis, and with special emphasis on Asia and the Pacific region. Most importantly, it provides an indication of how the region is progressing towards embracing new prevention approaches to combat HIV epidemics across the region.
INTRODUCTION: Ruxolitinib is the first approved drug for treatment of myelofibrosis, but its impact of outcome after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is unknown.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reported on 159 myelofibrosis patients (pts) with a median age of 59 years (r: 28-74) who received reduced intensity ASCT between 2000 and 2015 in eight German centers from related (n = 23), matched (n = 86) or mismatched (n = 50) unrelated donors. Forty-six (29%) patients received ruxolitinib at any time point prior to ASCT. The median daily dose of ruxolitinib was 30 mg (range 10-40 mg) and the median duration of treatment was 4.9 months (range 0.4-39.1 months).
RESULTS: Primary graft failure was seen in 2 pts (4%) in the ruxolitinib and 3 (2%) in the non-ruxolitinib group. Engraftment and incidence of acute GVHD grade II to IV and III/IV did not differ between groups (37% vs 39% and 19% vs 28%, respectively), nor did the non-relapse mortality at 2 years (23% vs 23%). A trend for lower risk of relapse was seen in the ruxolitinib group (9% vs 17%, P = .2), resulting in a similar 2 year DFS and OS (68% vs 60% and 73% vs 70%, respectively). No difference in any outcome variable could be seen between ruxolitinib responders and those who failed or lost response to ruxolitinib.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that ruxolitinib pretreatment in myelofibrosis patient does not negatively influence outcome after allogeneic stem cell transplantation.
Study site: 8 health clinics in Germany
Health systems have improved their abilities to identify, diagnose, treat and, increasingly, achieve viral suppression among people living with HIV (PLHIV). Despite these advances, a higher burden of multimorbidity and poorer health-related quality of life are reported by many PLHIV in comparison to people without HIV. Stigma and discrimination further exacerbate these poor outcomes. A global multidisciplinary group of HIV experts developed a consensus statement identifying key issues that health systems must address in order to move beyond the HIV field's longtime emphasis on viral suppression to instead deliver integrated, person-centered healthcare for PLHIV throughout their lives.
The ABC and ACMG variant classification systems were compared by asking mainly European clinical laboratories to classify variants in 10 challenging cases using both systems, and to state if the variant in question would be reported as a relevant result or not as a measure of clinical utility. In contrast to the ABC system, the ACMG system was not made to guide variant reporting but to determine the likelihood of pathogenicity. Nevertheless, this comparison is justified since the ACMG class determines variant reporting in many laboratories. Forty-three laboratories participated in the survey. In seven cases, the classification system used did not influence the reporting likelihood when variants labeled as "maybe report" after ACMG-based classification were included. In three cases of population frequent but disease-associated variants, there was a difference in favor of reporting after ABC classification. A possible reason is that ABC step C (standard variant comments) allows a variant to be reported in one clinical setting but not another, e.g., based on Bayesian-based likelihood calculation of clinical relevance. Finally, the selection of ACMG criteria was compared between 36 laboratories. When excluding criteria used by less than four laboratories (<10%), the average concordance rate was 46%. Taken together, ABC-based classification is more clear-cut than ACMG-based classification since molecular and clinical information is handled separately, and variant reporting can be adapted to the clinical question and phenotype. Furthermore, variants do not get a clinically inappropriate label, like pathogenic when not pathogenic in a clinical context, or variant of unknown significance when the significance is known.