Search

BackgroundThe COVID-19 standard of care (SOC) evolved rapidly during 2020 and 2021, but its cumulative effect over time is unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether recovery and mortality improved as SOC evolved, using data from ACTT (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial).DesignACTT is a series of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated COVID-19 therapeutics from February 2020 through May 2021. ACTT-1 compared remdesivir plus SOC to placebo plus SOC, and in ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, remdesivir plus SOC was the control group. This post hoc analysis compared recovery and mortality between these comparable sequential cohorts of patients who received remdesivir plus SOC, adjusting for baseline characteristics with propensity score weighting. The analysis was repeated for participants in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4 who received remdesivir plus dexamethasone plus SOC. Trends in SOC that could explain outcome improvements were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3], and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4]).Setting94 hospitals in 10 countries (86% U.S. participants).ParticipantsAdults hospitalized with COVID-19.InterventionSOC.Measurements28-day mortality and recovery.ResultsAlthough outcomes were better in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were close to 1 (HR for recovery, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17]; HR for mortality, 0.90 [CI, 0.56 to 1.40]). Comparable patients were less likely to be intubated in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1 (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.53 to 0.97]), and hydroxychloroquine use decreased. Outcomes improved from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3 (HR for recovery, 1.43 [CI, 1.24 to 1.64]; HR for mortality, 0.45 [CI, 0.21 to 0.97]). Potential explanatory factors (SOC trends, case surges, and variant trends) were similar between ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, except for increased dexamethasone use (11% to 77%). Outcomes were similar in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4. Antibiotic use decreased gradually across all stages.LimitationUnmeasured confounding.ConclusionChanges in patient composition explained improved outcomes from ACTT-1 to ACTT-2 but not from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3, suggesting improved SOC. These results support excluding nonconcurrent controls from analysis of platform trials in rapidly changing therapeutic areas.Primary funding sourceNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

BackgroundBaricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168.FindingsBetween Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012).InterpretationIn hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered.FundingNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Liver injury may persist in patients with HBV receiving antiviral therapy who have ongoing transcription and translation. We sought to assess ongoing HBV transcription by serum HBV RNA, translation by serum hepatitis B core related antigen (HBcrAg), and their associations with hepatic HBsAg and HBcAg staining in patients coinfected with HBV and HIV.This is a cross-sectional study of 110 adults coinfected with HBV and HIV who underwent clinical assessment and liver biopsy. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed for HBsAg and HBcAg. Viral biomarkers included quantitative HBsAg, HBV RNA, and HBcrAg.Participants' median age was 49 years (male, 93%; Black, 51%; HBeAg+, 65%), with suppressed HBV DNA (79%) and undetectable HIV RNA (77%) on dually active antiretroviral therapy. Overall, HBV RNA and HBcrAg were quantifiable in 81% and 83%, respectively (96% and 100% in HBeAg+, respectively). HBcAg staining was detected in 60% and HBsAg in 79%. Higher HBV RNA was associated with higher HBcAg and HBsAg IHC grades (both p 0.0001). The HBsAg membranous staining pattern was significantly associated with higher HBV-RNA and HBcrAg levels.HBcAg and HBsAg IHC staining persisted despite viral suppression, and IHC grades and staining patterns correlated with markers of transcription (HBV RNA) and translation (HBcrAg). These data indicate that apparent HBV suppression is associated with residual transcription and translation that could contribute to liver pathology. Additional antiviral strategies directed to HBV protein expression may be useful to ameliorate liver injury.

Background Clinical trials initiated during emerging infectious disease outbreaks must quickly enroll participants to identify treatments to reduce morbidity and mortality. This may be at odds with enrolling a representative study population especially when the population affected is undefined. Methods We evaluated the utility of CDC COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET), COVID-19 Case Surveillance System (CCSS), and 2020 U.S. Census data to determine demographic representation in the four stages of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT). We compared the cumulative proportion of participants by sex, race, ethnicity, and age enrolled at U.S. ACTT sites, with the respective 95% confidence intervals, to the reference data in forest plots. Results U.S. ACTT sites enrolled 3,509 adults hospitalized with COVID-19. When compared with COVID-NET, ACTT enrolled a similar or higher proportion of Hispanic or Latino and White participants depending on the stage, and a similar proportion of African American participants in all stages. In contrast, ACTT enrolled a higher proportion of these groups when compared with U.S. Census and CCSS. The proportion of participants ages 65 years was either similar or lower than COVID-NET and higher than CCSS and U.S. Census. The proportion of females enrolled in ACTT was lower than the proportion of females in the reference datasets. Conclusions While surveillance data of hospitalized cases may not be available early in an outbreak, it is a better comparator than U.S. Census data and surveillance of all cases, which may not reflect the population affected and at higher risk of severe disease.

Background Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited. Methods In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581. Findings From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77–1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66–1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14–4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29–0·90; pinteraction=0·001). Interpretation When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry. Funding US National Institutes of Health.

Background Texas has one of the highest rates of uninsured populations in the US (Fig1). We hypothesized that those without insurance were more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 but were at higher risk for severe disease and mortality due to uncontrolled medical illness prior to hospitalization. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized in 81 hospitals in Dallas- Ft. Worth (DFW) area. All inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 from 3/1/2020 to 4/1/2021 were included to examine risk for hospitalization. Subset analysis included those hospitalized with COVID-19. Data presented is comparison between Medicaid and uninsured population as they were similar in age distribution (Fig 2). Results 198, 174 COVID-19 unique individuals were identified; 7.5% had Medicaid and 25.1% were uninsured. Among Medicaid, 29.6% were hospitalized vs. 25.8% of Medicaid vs. uninsured (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.26 (1.20, 1.33). Among the 71,778 (∼36%) hospitalized for COVID-19, comparing Medicaid vs. uninsured: 44.9 vs. 56.3% had ICU care; 51.4% vs. 80.2% had pneumonia, 41.1% vs. 67.5% had respiratory failure with higher odds of developing these outcomes in uninsured (see Table 1). Median duration of hospital stay was longer in uninsured than Medicaid ( see Table 2a) and mortality in the hospital was 7.4% vs. 7.9% among Medicaid vs. uninsured (p< 0.0001). Thirty-day readmission rates were lower for Medicaid vs. uninsured (Table 3). In the year prior to the COVID-19 hospitalizations, use of health care among the uninsured was lower compared to Medicaid patients for outpatient, inpatient, and ER visits (p< 0.0001 for all comparisons; see Table 2b). Conclusion Uninsured in North Texas had lower odds of hospitalization vs. Medicaid patients, likely due to younger age, but once hospitalized had higher risk for COVID pneumonia, ICU care, and respiratory failure. Median number of days was higher among uninsured but in-hospital mortality was higher among Medicaid population. Prior contact with healthcare system was lower among uninsured and 30-day readmissions were also lower, suggesting barriers accessing health care. Poorer outcomes among uninsured once hospitalized may be due to untreated co-morbidities (Fig 3). Expansion of Medicaid has the potential of ameliorating these disparities. Figure 3Conclusion graphic Disclosures Mamta K. Jain, MD, MPH, Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support|GSK/ViiV: Grant/Research Support|Janssen: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Regeneron: Grant/Research Support Mae Thamer, PhD, Gilead: Grant/Research Support Kavita Bhavan, MD, MPH, Gilead: Grant/Research Support.

BACKGROUND: Ensovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multinational, multicenter trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Intravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Ensovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90. RESULTS: An independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR

Background: Levels of plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antigen may be an important biomarker in patients with COVID-19 and enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis of COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate whether levels of plasma antigen can predict short-term clinical outcomes and identify clinical and viral factors associated with plasma antigen levels in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2. Design: Cross-sectional study of baseline plasma antigen level from 2540 participants enrolled in the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients With COVID-19) platform trial from August 2020 to November 2021, with additional data on day 5 outcome and time to discharge. Setting: 114 centers in 10 countries. Participants: Adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with 12 days or less of symptoms. Measurements: Baseline plasma viral N antigen level was measured at a central laboratory. Delta variant status was determined from baseline nasal swabs using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Associations between baseline patient characteristics and viral factors and baseline plasma antigen levels were assessed using both unadjusted and multivariable modeling. Association between elevated baseline antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater and outcomes, including worsening of ordinal pulmonary scale at day 5 and time to hospital discharge, were evaluated using logistic regression and Fine-Gray regression models, respectively. Results: Plasma antigen was below the level of quantification in 5% of participants at enrollment, and 1000 ng/L or greater in 57%. Baseline pulmonary severity of illness was strongly associated with plasma antigen level, with mean plasma antigen level 3.10-fold higher among those requiring noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula compared with room air (95% CI, 2.22 to 4.34). Plasma antigen level was higher in those who lacked antispike antibodies (6.42 fold; CI, 5.37 to 7.66) and in those with the Delta variant (1.73 fold; CI, 1.41 to 2.13). Additional factors associated with higher baseline antigen level included male sex, shorter time since hospital admission, decreased days of remdesivir, and renal impairment. In contrast, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and immunocompromising conditions were not associated with plasma antigen levels. Plasma antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater was associated with a markedly higher odds of worsened pulmonary status at day 5 (odds ratio, 5.06 [CI, 3.41 to 7.50]) and longer time to hospital discharge (median, 7 vs. 4 days; subhazard ratio, 0.51 [CI, 0.45 to 0.57]), with subhazard ratios similar across all levels of baseline pulmonary severity. Limitations: Plasma samples were drawn at enrollment, not hospital presentation. No point-of-care test to measure plasma antigen is currently available. Conclusion: Elevated plasma antigen is highly associated with both severity of pulmonary illness and clinically important patient outcomes. Multiple clinical and viral factors are associated with plasma antigen level at presentation. These data support a potential role of ongoing viral replication in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients.

While we have the tools to achieve this goal, the persistent barriers to healthcare services experienced by too many individuals will need to be addressed to make significant progress and improve the health and quality of life of all people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The necessary structural changes require actions by federal, state, and local policymakers and range from ensuring universal access to healthcare services to optimizing care delivery to ensuring a robust and diverse infectious diseases and HIV workforce. In this article, we outlines 10 key principles for policy reforms that, if advanced, would make ending the HIV epidemic in the United States possible and could have much more far-reaching effects in improving the health of our nation.

Patient navigation interventions can improve health outcomes in underserved, low-income, and racial and ethnic minority groups, who often experience health disparities. We examined the effectiveness of patient navigation to improve linkage to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment receipt in a socioeconomically disadvantaged, racially diverse patient population.We performed a pre-post analysis evaluating the effectiveness of a patient navigation program among baby boomers who tested positive for HCV in a safety-net health system. The usual care group (June 2013 to May 2015) and patient navigation group (January 2016 to December 2017) were balanced using a stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting approach. We used logistic regression analyses to evaluate associations between patient navigation and linkage to care for HCV treatment evaluation, treatment initiation, and sustained virologic response.Among 1353 patients (62% black, 61% uninsured, 16% homeless), 769 were in the usual care group, and 584 were in the patient navigation group. The patient navigation group had significantly higher odds of linkage to care (odds ratio [OR], 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-4.8) and treatment initiation (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.3-4.2) within 6 months. The patient navigation group continued to have increased linkage to care (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.7-4.3) and treatment initiation (OR 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7-3.0) at 12 months. However, there was no significant difference in sustained virologic response between the groups (86.9% vs 86.1%; P = .78).Patient navigation was associated with significantly increased linkage to care and treatment initiation among patients with HCV infection. Patient navigation programs can be used to promote HCV elimination among traditionally difficult-to-reach patient populations.

Half of the people living with HIV (PLWH) with hepatitis C virus (HCV) remain untreated for HCV. We examined predictors of HCV linkage to care among PLWH and the impact of HIV lost to care.We conducted a retrospective review of PLWH/HCV from our HIV clinics between 2014 and 2017, and examined predictors of HCV linkage to care. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the probability of HIV retention and HCV linkage over time.Of 615 PLWH/HCV, 34% linked to HCV care and 21% were cured. Higher odds of linkage to HCV care were among blacks (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.59, 5.47), prior injection drug users (IDUs; aOR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.39, 6.01), Medicare (aOR: 3.09, 95% CI: 1.56, 6.11), and cirrhotics (aOR: 2.80, 95% CI: 1.52, 5.14). Reduced odds for linkage were in active IDU (aOR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.45) and those seen by an advanced practice provider (aOR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.92). The main reason for failure to link to HCV care was lost to HIV care. At 3 years, the overall probability of being retained in HIV care was 53%; among those who had an HCV evaluation visit, it was 75% vs. 41% with no HCV evaluation visit. Accounting for loss to follow-up, PLWH/HCV had a 65% probability of having an HCV evaluation at 3 years.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19.METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978.FINDINGS: Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50-72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74-1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67-1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74-1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68-1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91-1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88-1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90.INTERPRETATION: Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Speed.

BACKGROUND: Tixagevimab-cilgavimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody combination hypothesised to improve outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We aimed to compare tixagevimab-cilgavimab versus placebo, in patients receiving remdesivir and other standard care.METHODS: In a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, adults with symptoms for up to 12 days and hospitalised for COVID-19 at 81 sites in the USA, Europe, Uganda, and Singapore were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous tixagevimab 300 mg-cilgavimab 300 mg or placebo, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care. Patients were excluded if they had acute organ failure including receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressor therapy, mechanical circulatory support, or new renal replacement therapy. The study drug was prepared by an unmasked pharmacist; study participants, site study staff, investigators, and clinical providers were masked to study assignment. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery up to day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home after hospital discharge, with co-primary analyses for the full cohort and for participants who were neutralising antibody-negative at baseline. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as participants who received a complete or partial infusion of tixagevimab-cilgavimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978 and the participant follow-up is ongoing.FINDINGS: From Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021, 1455 patients were randomly assigned and 1417 in the primary modified intention-to-treat population were infused with tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n=710) or placebo (n=707). The estimated cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 89% for tixagevimab-cilgavimab and 86% for placebo group participants at day 90 in the full cohort (recovery rate ratio [RRR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·97-1·20]; p=0·21). Results were similar in the seronegative subgroup (RRR 1·14 [0·97-1·34]; p=0·13). Mortality was lower in the tixagevimab-cilgavimab group (61 [9%]) versus placebo group (86 [12%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50-0·97]; p=0·032). The composite safety outcome occurred in 178 (25%) tixagevimab-cilgavimab and 212 (30%) placebo group participants (HR 0·83 [0·68-1·01]; p=0·059). Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (5%) participants in the tixagevimab-cilgavimab group and 38 (5%) in the placebo group.INTERPRETATION: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and other standard care, tixagevimab-cilgavimab did not improve the primary outcome of time to sustained recovery but was safe and mortality was lower.FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Operation Warp Speed.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, bamlanivimab, a SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, given in combination with remdesivir, did not improve outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on an early futility assessment.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori hypothesis that bamlanivimab has greater benefit in patients without detectable levels of endogenous neutralizing antibody (nAb) at study entry than in those with antibodies, especially if viral levels are high.DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978).SETTING: Multicenter trial.PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without end-organ failure.INTERVENTION: Bamlanivimab (7000 mg) or placebo.MEASUREMENTS: Antibody, antigen, and viral RNA levels were centrally measured on stored specimens collected at baseline. Patients were followed for 90 days for sustained recovery (defined as discharge to home and remaining home for 14 consecutive days) and a composite safety outcome (death, serious adverse events, organ failure, or serious infections).RESULTS: Among 314 participants (163 receiving bamlanivimab and 151 placebo), the median time to sustained recovery was 19 days and did not differ between the bamlanivimab and placebo groups (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.22]; sHR > 1 favors bamlanivimab). At entry, 50% evidenced production of anti-spike nAbs; 50% had SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid plasma antigen levels of at least 1000 ng/L. Among those without and with nAbs at study entry, the sHRs were 1.24 (CI, 0.90 to 1.70) and 0.74 (CI, 0.54 to 1.00), respectively (nominal P for interaction = 0.018). The sHR (bamlanivimab vs. placebo) was also more than 1 for those with plasma antigen or nasal viral RNA levels above median level at entry and was greatest for those without antibodies and with elevated levels of antigen (sHR, 1.48 [CI, 0.99 to 2.23]) or viral RNA (sHR, 1.89 [CI, 1.23 to 2.91]). Hazard ratios for the composite safety outcome (LIMITATION: Subgroup analysis of a trial prematurely stopped because of futility; small sample size; multiple subgroups analyzed.CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab may differ depending on whether an endogenous nAb response has been mounted. The limited sample size of the study does not allow firm conclusions based on these findings, and further independent trials are required that assess other types of passive immune therapies in the same patient setting.PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The protection provided by natural versus hybrid immunity from COVID-19 is unclear. We reflect on the challenges from trying to conduct a randomized post-SARS-CoV-2 infection vaccination trial study with rapidly evolving scientific data, vaccination guidelines, varying international policies, difficulties with vaccine availability, vaccine hesitancy, and a constantly evolving virus.

Hospital readmissions are common, costly, and potentially preventable, including among people with HIV (PWH). We present the results of an evaluation of a multicomponent intervention aimed at reducing 30-day readmissions among PWH.Demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical variables were collected from the electronic health records of PWH or those with cellulitis (control group) hospitalized at an urban safety-net hospital before and after (from September 2012 to December 2016) the implementation of a multidisciplinary HIV transitional care team. After October 2014, hospitalized PWH could receive a medical HIV consultation ± a transitional care nurse intervention. The primary outcome was readmission to any hospital within 30 days of discharge. Multivariate logistic regression and propensity score analyses were conducted to compare readmissions before and after intervention implementation in PWH and people with cellulitis.Overall, among PWH, 329 of the 2049 (16.1%) readmissions occurred before and 329 of the 2023 (16.3%) occurred after the transitional care team intervention. After including clinical and social predictors, the adjusted odds ratio of 30-day readmissions for postintervention for PWH was 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 0.99, P= 0.04), whereas little reduction was identified for those with cellulitis (adjusted odds ratio 0.91 (95% confidence interval: 0.81 to 1.02, P= 0.10). A dose-response effect was not observed for receipt of different HIV intervention components.A multicomponent intervention reduced the adjusted risk of 30-day readmissions in PWH, although no dose-response effect was detected. Additional efforts are needed to reduce overall hospitalizations and readmissions among PWH including increasing HIV prevention, early diagnosis and engagement in care, and expanding the availability and spectrum of transitional care services.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is a common component of antiretroviral therapy in hepatitis B virus (HBV)-HIV co-infected adults but few studies have evaluated worsening renal function and bone turnover, known effects of TDF.Adults from eight North American sites were enrolled in this cohort study. Research assessments were conducted at entry and every 24 weeks for ≤192 weeks. Bone markers were tested at baseline, week 96 and week 192 from stored serum. We evaluated changes in markers of renal function and bone turnover over time and potential contributing factors.A total of 115 patients were prospectively followed; median age 49 years, 91% male and 52% non-Hispanic Black. Duration of HIV was 20.5 years. TDF use ranged from 80% to 92% throughout follow-up. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (ml/min/1.73mIn this HBV-HIV cohort with high prevalence of TDF use, several biomarkers of renal function and bone turnover indicated worsening status over approximately 4 years, highlighting the importance of clinical awareness in co-infected adults.

BackgroundSince its emergence in late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions, such as coughing, and care activities, such as aerosol-generating procedures, likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of the personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. The purpose of the current study was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsThe Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists, with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.ResultsThe IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations, including 2 updated recommendations and 1 new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included.ConclusionsUsing a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE by HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

The contribution of the novel biomarkers, hepatitis B virus (HBV) RNA and HBV core-related antigen (HBcrAg), to characterization of HBV-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) coinfection is unclear. We evaluated the longitudinal dynamics of HBV RNA and HBcrAg and their association with classical HBV serum biomarkers and liver histology and viral staining.HBV-HIV co-infected adults from 8 North American centers entered a National Institutes of Health-funded prospective cohort study. Demographic, clinical, serological, and virological data were collected at entry and every 24 to 48 weeks for up to 192 weeks. Participants with HBV RNA and HBcrAg measured ≥2 times (N = 95) were evaluated; 56 had paired liver biopsies obtained at study entry and end of follow-up.Participants had a median age of 50 years; 97% were on combination anti-viral therapy. In hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)+ participants, there were significant declines in HBV RNA and HBcrAg over 192 weeks that tracked with declines in HBeAg, hepatitis B surface antigen, HBV DNA, and hepatitis B core antigen (HBcAg) hepatocyte staining grade (all P.05). In HBeAg- participants, there were not significant declines in HBV RNA (P = .49) and HBcrAg (P = .63), despite modest reductions in hepatitis B surface antigen (P.01) and HBV DNA (P = .03). HBV serum biomarkers were not significantly related to change in hepatic activity index, Ishak fibrosis score, or hepatocyte HBcAg loss (all P.05).In HBV-HIV coinfected adults on suppressive dually active antiviral therapy, the use of novel HBV markers reveals continued improvement in suppression of HBV transcription and translation over time. The lack of further improvement in HBV serum biomarkers among HBeAg- patients suggests limits to the benefit of combination anti-viral therapy and provide rationale for additional agents with distinct mechanisms of action.

Background Since its emergence in late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions like coughing and care activities like aerosol-generating procedures likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. Objective Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Methods IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on eight recommendations, including two updated recommendations and one new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for eight specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

BACKGROUND: Using data from a randomized trial, we evaluated the cost of HCV care facilitation that supports moving along the continuum of care for HIV/HCV co-infected individuals with substance use disorder. METHODS: Participants were HIV patients residing in the community, initially recruited from eight US hospital sites. They received HCV care facilitation (n=51) or treatment as usual (n=62) for up to six months. We used micro-costing methods to evaluate costs from the healthcare sector and patient perspectives in 2017 USD. We conducted sensitivity analyses varying care facilitator caseloads and examined offsetting savings using participant self-reported healthcare utilization. RESULTS: The average site start-up cost was $6,320 (site range: $4,320–$7,000), primarily consisting of training. The mean weekly cost per participant was $20 (site range: $4–$30) for care facilitation visits and contacts, $360 (site range: $130- $700) for supervision and client outreach, and $70 (site range: $20–$180) for overhead. In sensitivity analyses applying a weekly caseload of 10 participants per care facilitator (versus 1–6 observed in the trial), the total mean weekly care facilitation cost from the healthcare sector perspective decreased to $110. Weekly participant time and travel costs averaged $7. There were no significant differences in other healthcare service costs between participants in the intervention and control arms. CONCLUSION: Weekly HCV care facilitation costs were approximately $450 per participant, but approximately $110 at a real-world setting maximum caseload of 10 participants per week. No healthcare cost offsets were identified during the trial period, although future savings might result from successful HCV treatment.