Search

COVID-19 has overwhelmed health services globally. Oral antiviral therapies are licensed worldwide, but indications and efficacy rates vary. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral favipiravir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.We conducted a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of oral favipiravir in adult patients who were newly admitted to hospital with proven or suspected COVID-19 across five sites in the UK (n=2), Brazil (n=2) and Mexico (n=1). Using a permuted block design, eligible and consenting participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral favipiravir (1800 mg twice daily for 1 day; 800 mg twice daily for 9 days) plus standard care, or standard care alone. All caregivers and patients were aware of allocation and those analysing data were aware of the treatment groups. The prespecified primary outcome was the time from randomisation to recovery, censored at 28 days, which was assessed using an intention-to-treat approach. Post-hoc analyses were used to assess the efficacy of favipiravir in patients aged younger than 60 years, and in patients aged 60 years and older. The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04373733.Between May 5, 2020 and May 26, 2021, we assessed 503 patients for eligibility, of whom 499 were randomly assigned to favipiravir and standard care (n=251) or standard care alone (n=248). There was no significant difference between those who received favipiravir and standard care, relative to those who received standard care alone in time to recovery in the overall study population (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06 [95% CI 0·89-1·27]; n=499; p=0·52). Post-hoc analyses showed a faster rate of recovery in patients younger than 60 years who received favipiravir and standard care versus those who had standard care alone (HR 1·35 [1·06-1·72]; n=247; p=0·01). 36 serious adverse events were observed in 27 (11%) of 251 patients administered favipiravir and standard care, and 33 events were observed in 27 (11%) of 248 patients receiving standard care alone, with infectious, respiratory, and cardiovascular events being the most numerous. There was no significant between-group difference in serious adverse events per patient (p=0·87).Favipiravir does not improve clinical outcomes in all patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, however, patients younger than 60 years might have a beneficial clinical response. The indiscriminate use of favipiravir globally should be cautioned, and further high-quality studies of antiviral agents, and their potential treatment combinations, are warranted in COVID-19.LifeArc and CW+.

Persistence of HIV through integration into host DNA in CD4(+) T cells presents a major barrier to virus eradication. Viral integration may be curtailed when CD8(+) T cells are triggered to kill infected CD4(+) T cells through recognition of histocompatibility leukocyte antigen (HLA) class I-bound peptides derived from incoming virions. However, this has been reported only in individuals with "beneficial'' HLA alleles that are associated with superior HIV control. Through interrogation of the pre-integration immunopeptidome, we obtain proof of early presentation of a virion-derived HLA-A*02:01-restricted epitope, FLGKIWPSH (FH9), located in Gag Spacer Peptide 2 (SP2). FH9-specific CD8(+) T cell responses are detectable in individuals with primary HIV infection and eliminate HIV-infected CD4(+) T cells prior to virus production in vitro. Our data show that non-beneficial HLA class I alleles can elicit an effective antiviral response through early presentation of HIV virion-derived epitopes and also demonstrate the importance of SP2 as an immune target.

Background: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) cannot cure HIV infection because of a persistent reservoir of latently infected cells. Approaches that force HIV transcription from these cells, making them susceptible to killing—termed kick and kill regimens—have been explored as a strategy towards an HIV cure. RIVER is the first randomised trial to determine the effect of ART-only versus ART plus kick and kill on markers of the HIV reservoir. Methods: This phase 2, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial was undertaken at six clinical sites in the UK. Patients aged 18–60 years who were confirmed as HIV-positive within a maximum of the past 6 months and started ART within 1 month from confirmed diagnosis were randomly assigned by a computer generated randomisation list to receive ART-only (control) or ART plus the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (the kick) and replication-deficient viral vector T-cell inducing vaccines encoding conserved HIV sequences ChAdV63. HIVconsv-prime and MVA.HIVconsv-boost (the kill; ART + V + V; intervention). The primary endpoint was total HIV DNA isolated from peripheral blood CD4+ T-cells at weeks 16 and 18 after randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02336074. Findings: Between June 14, 2015 and Jul 11, 2017, 60 men with HIV were randomly assigned to receive either an ART-only (n=30) or an ART + V + V (n=30) regimen; all 60 participants completed the study, with no loss-to-follow-up. Mean total HIV DNA at weeks 16 and 18 after randomisation was 3·02 log10 copies HIV DNA per 106 CD4+ T-cells in the ART-only group versus 3·06 log10 copies HIV DNA per 106 CD4+ T-cells in ART + V + V group, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (mean difference of 0·04 log10 copies HIV DNA per 106 CD4+ T-cells [95% CI −0·03 to 0·11; p=0·26]). There were no intervention-related serious adverse events. Interpretation: This kick and kill approach conferred no significant benefit compared with ART alone on measures of the HIV reservoir. Although this does not disprove the efficacy kick and kill strategy, for future trials enhancement of both kick and kill agents will be required.

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate a haptotherapeutic treatment and its effects on the perceived well-being of patients with cancer treated with chemotherapy in day care. Methods The study had a pre-test–post-test semi-experimental design, with 31 patients in the intervention group and 26 in the control group. Patients in the control group were matched with patients in the experimental condition with respect to age, gender, type of cancer, type of chemotherapy, prognosis and the period between pre- and post-test. Standardized questionnaires were used measuring perceived well-being and satisfaction with care (haptotherapy). Indicators of well-being measured were quality of life, mood, meaning in life, general functioning, physical and psychological symptoms, sleep quality and body awareness. The intervention consisted of five haptotherapy sessions of 45 minutes each. Patients in the control condition received standard medical care. Results Patients were highly satisfied with the haptotherapy treatment, and especially valued the personal attention and the relaxation they experienced. The haptotherapy treatment improved both the perceived general quality of life and the perceived cognitive and social functioning of patients. No improvement was found for mood, meaning in life, general functioning, physical symptoms, sleep quality and body awareness. Conclusion It may be concluded that haptotherapy positively contributes to several indicators of perceived well-being of patients with cancer during the period they receive chemotherapy. More rigorous experimental studies are necessary in this field, especially concerning randomization, number of participants and homogeneity of the sample. Practice implications Haptotherapy as a type of complementary medicine is a potentially valuable and effective intervention to raise the well-being of patients with cancer undergoing invasive treatments like chemotherapy.