Search

Objectives HIV treatment guidelines endorse switching or simplification of antiretroviral therapy in therapy-experienced patients with suppressed viraemia; ritonavir discontinuation may also enhance tolerability and reduce long-term adverse events ( AEs). This open-label, multicentre, noninferiority study enrolled HIV-1-infected, treatment-experienced adults with confirmed HIV-1 RNA ≤ 75 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL currently receiving tenofovir/emtricitabine + atazanavir/ritonavir ( TDF/ FTC + ATV/r) for ≥ 6 months with no reported history of virological failure. Methods Participants were randomized 1:2 to continue current treatment or switch to abacavir/lamivudine + atazanavir ( ABC/3TC + ATV). Endpoints included the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL by time to loss of virological response ( TLOVR), AEs, fasting lipids, and inflammatory, coagulation, bone and renal biomarkers. Results After 48 weeks, 76% (152 of 199) of ABC/3TC + ATV-treated and 79% (77 of 97) of TDF/ FTC + ATV/r-treated participants had HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL ( TLOVR; P = 0.564). Other efficacy analyses yielded similar results. Rates of new grade 2-4 AEs were 45% in both groups, but an excess of hyperbilirubinaemia made the rate of treatment-emergent grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities higher with TDF/ FTC + ATV/r (36%) compared with ABC/3TC + ATV (19%). Most fasting lipid levels remained stable over time; high-density lipoprotein ( HDL) cholesterol increased modestly in ABC/3TC + ATV-treated participants. Bone and renal biomarkers improved significantly between baseline and week 48 in participants taking ABC/3TC + ATV and were stable in participants taking TDF/ FTC + ATV/r. No significant changes occurred in any inflammatory or coagulation biomarker within or between treatment groups. Conclusions The ABC/3TC + ATV treatment-switch group had similar viral suppression rates up to 48 weeks to the TDF/ FTC + ATV/r comparator group, with lower rates of moderate- to high-grade hyperbilirubinaemia and improvements in bone and renal biomarkers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We compared mortality rates among state prisoners and other state residents to identify prisoners' health care needs.Methods: We linked North Carolina prison records with state death records for 1995-2005 to estimate all-cause and cause-specific death rates among black and white male prisoners ages 20-79 years and used standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) to compare these observed deaths with the expected number on the basis of death rates among state residents.Results: The all-cause SMR of black prisoners was 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.57), with fewer deaths than expected from accidents, homicides, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. The all-cause SMR of white prisoners was 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.25) with fewer deaths than expected for accidents but more deaths than expected from viral hepatitis, liver disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory disease, and HIV.Conclusions: The mortality of black prisoners was lower than that of black state residents for both traumatic and chronic causes of death. The mortality of white prisoners was lower than that of white state residents for accidents but greater for several chronic causes of death. Future studies should investigate the effect of prisoners' preincarceration and in-prison morbidity, the prison environment, and prison health care on prisoners' patterns of mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to the growing number of outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases, the US Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR) has embarked on a plan to improve and expand special pathogen patient care capabilities. To achieve this, ASPR is developing a coordinated network of Regional Emerging Special Pathogen Treatment Centers (RESPTCs) to serve as state-of-the-art facilities staffed by a highly trained workforce to care for and manage special pathogen patients across the lifespan. The RESPTC network represents the operational arm of a broader US National Special Pathogen System of care to prevent and prepare for the next infectious disease outbreak. RESPTCs are strategically located in every region across the country and form a network linking local and regional healthcare partners to enhance national preparedness through training in best practices for detection, isolation, and treatment of individuals suspected of or known to be infected with a special pathogen. This local, regional, and national network is also designed to lead a coordinated response that includes the dissemination of accurate and trustworthy information to responders and the public. The overarching goal of the RESPTCs is to serve as a valuable resource for clinical care, training, and material support to meet current and future major infectious diseases challenges. In this case study, 2 new RESPTCs, MedStar Washington Hospital Center and the University of North Carolina, describe their experiences related to designing a biocontainment unit, creating clinical teams, building staff resiliency, receiving mentoring from regional RESPTC partners, and developing opportunities for innovation.

Lassa fever is a zoonotic disease identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as having pandemic potential. This study estimates the health-economic burden of Lassa fever throughout West Africa and projects impacts of a series of vaccination campaigns. We also model the emergence of 'Lassa-X'-a hypothetical pandemic Lassa virus variant-and project impacts of achieving 100 Days Mission vaccination targets. Our model predicted 2.7 million (95% uncertainty interval: 2.1-3.4 million) Lassa virus infections annually, resulting over 10 years in 2.0 million (793,800-3.9 million) disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). The most effective vaccination strategy was a population-wide preventive campaign primarily targeting WHO-classified 'endemic' districts. Under conservative vaccine efficacy assumptions, this campaign averted $20.1 million ($8.2-$39.0 million) in lost DALY value and $128.2 million ($67.2-$231.9 million) in societal costs (2021 international dollars ($)). Reactive vaccination in response to local outbreaks averted just one-tenth the health-economic burden of preventive campaigns. In the event of Lassa-X emerging, spreading throughout West Africa and causing approximately 1.2 million DALYs within 2 years, 100 Days Mission vaccination averted 22% of DALYs given a vaccine 70% effective against disease and 74% of DALYs given a vaccine 70% effective against both infection and disease. These findings suggest how vaccination could alleviate Lassa fever's burden and assist in pandemic preparedness., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

T cells are involved in protective immunity against numerous viral infections. Data regarding functional roles of human T cells in SARS-CoV-2 (SARS2) viral clearance in primary COVID-19 are limited. To address this knowledge gap, samples were assessed for associations between SARS2 upper respiratory tract viral RNA levels and early virus-specific adaptive immune responses for 95 unvaccinated clinical trial participants with acute primary COVID-19 aged 18-86 years old, approximately half of whom were considered high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. Functionality and magnitude of acute SARS2-specific CD4 and CD8 T cell responses were evaluated, in addition to antibody responses. Most individuals with acute COVID-19 developed SARS2-specific T cell responses within 6 days of COVID-19 symptom onset. Early CD4 T cell and CD8 T cell responses were polyfunctional, and both strongly associated with reduced upper respiratory tract SARS2 viral RNA, independent of neutralizing antibody titers. Overall, these findings provide evidence for protective roles for circulating SARS2-specific CD4 and CD8 T cells during acute COVID-19.

Background: It is unknown if early COVID-19 monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy can reduce risk of Long COVID. The mAbs amubarvimab/romlusevimab were previously demonstrated to reduce risk of hospitalization/death by 79%. This study assessed the impact of amubarvimab/romlusevimab on late outcomes, including Long COVID., Methods: Non-hospitalized high-risk adults within 10 days of COVID-19 symptom onset enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial of amubarvimab/romlusevimab for COVID-19 treatment. Late symptoms, assessed using a participant-completed symptom diary, were a pre-specified exploratory endpoint. The primary outcome for this analysis was the composite of Long COVID by participant self-report (presence of COVID-19 symptoms as recorded in the diary at week 36) or hospitalization or death by week 36. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to address incomplete outcome ascertainment, giving weighted risk ratios (wRR) comparing amubarvimab/romlusevimab to placebo., Findings: Participants received amubarvimab/romlusevimab (n = 390) or placebo (n = 390) between January and July 2021. Median age was 49 years, 52% were female, 18% Black/African American, 49% Hispanic/Latino, and 9% COVID-19-vaccinated at entry. At week 36, 103 (13%) had incomplete outcome ascertainment, and 66 (17%) on amubarvimab/romlusevimab and 92 (24%) on placebo met the primary outcome (wRR = 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.93). The difference was driven by fewer hospitalizations/deaths with amubarvimab/romlusevimab (4%) than placebo (13%). Among 652 participants with available diary responses, 53 (16%) on amubarvimab/romlusevimab and 44 (14%) on placebo reported presence of Long COVID., Interpretation: Amubarvimab/romlusevimab treatment, while highly effective in preventing hospitalizations/deaths, did not reduce risk of Long COVID. Additional interventions are needed to prevent Long COVID., Funding: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab supplied by Brii Biosciences., Competing Interests: Dr. Evering reports other from AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG), during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Tonix Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Dr. Moser reports grants from NIH/NIAID, grants from NIH/NIAID, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Jilg reports other from AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG), during the conduct of the study; grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH), grants from Harvard University Center for AIDS Research (HU-CFAR), other from Sagent Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Mr. Ritz reports grants from NIH/NIAID, grants from NIH/NIAID, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Wohl reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, grants and personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, grants and personal fees from Merck & Co, personal fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Theratechnologies, personal fees from EMD Serono, personal fees from Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Dr. Margolis reports other from BRII Biosciences, outside the submitted work. Dr. Eron reports grants from National Institutes of Health, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Merck & Co, grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, other from Invivyd, outside the submitted work. Dr. Currier reports personal fees from Merck, outside the submitted work. Dr. Daar reports grants from NIH, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Gilead, grants and personal fees from ViiV, personal fees from Theratechnologies, outside the submitted work. Dr. Smith reports grants from NIH, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Model Medicines, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Lucira, personal fees from VXBiosciences, personal fees from Linear Therapies, personal fees from Red Queen Therapeutics, other from A2 Bio, personal fees from Pharma Holdings, personal fees from Evidera, personal fees from Hyundai, outside the submitted work. Dr. Hughes reports grants from United States National Institutes of Health, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Chew reports grants from NIH/NIAID, grants from NIH/NCATS, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Pardes Biosciences, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no competing interests to disclose., (© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) represent a crucial antiviral strategy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but it is unclear whether combination mAbs offer a benefit over single-active mAb treatment. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab significantly reduced the risk of hospitalizations or death in the ACTIV-2/A5401 trial. Certain SARS-CoV-2 variants are intrinsically resistant against romlusevimab, leading to only single-active mAb therapy with amubarvimab in these variants. We evaluated virologic outcomes in individuals treated with single- versus dual-active mAbs., Methods: Participants were nonhospitalized adults at higher risk of clinical progression randomized to amubarvimab plus romlusevimab or placebo. Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels and targeted S-gene next-generation sequencing was performed on anterior nasal samples. We compared viral load kinetics and resistance emergence between individuals treated with effective single- versus dual-active mAbs depending on the infecting variant., Results: Study participants receiving single- or dual-active mAbs had similar demographics, baseline nasal viral load, symptom score, and symptom duration. Compared with single-active mAb treatment, treatment with dual-active mAbs led to faster viral load decline at study days 3 (P < .001) and 7 (P < .01). Treatment-emergent resistance mutations were more likely to be detected after amubarvimab plus romlusevimab treatment than with placebo (2.6% vs 0%; P < .001) and were more frequently detected in the setting of single-active compared with dual-active mAb treatment (7.3% vs 1.1%; P < .01). Single-active and dual-active mAb treatment resulted in similar decrease in rates of hospitalizations or death., Conclusions: Compared with single-active mAb therapy, dual-active mAbs led to similar clinical outcomes but significantly faster viral load decline and a lower risk of emergent resistance., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Data characterising the long-term use and safety of emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate as daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are scarce and there are uncertainties regarding the value of routine HIV-1 RNA testing during oral PrEP follow-up., Methods: The DISCOVER trial was a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in which cisgender men and transgender women aged 18 years and older with a high likelihood of acquiring HIV were recruited from 94 clinics in Europe and North America and randomly assigned to receive either emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (200/25 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets, or emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide (200/300 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets, for at least 96 weeks. After completion of the trial, participants were offered enrolment in this 48-week open-label extension study of emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide. In participants diagnosed with HIV during the randomised and open-label phases of the study, we characterised HIV-1 test results and measured HIV-1 RNA viral load retrospectively when available. Adherence based on tenofovir diphosphate concentrations in dried blood spots and genotypic resistance were assessed in participants diagnosed with HIV. Safety assessments included adverse events, laboratory parameters, and, in a subset of participants, bone mineral density. HIV-1 incidence in participants initially randomly assigned to receive emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide was estimated using a Poisson distribution. Changes from baseline in safety endpoints were described in participants assigned to received emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide and in those who switched from emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate during the open-label phase. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02842086, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Sept 13, 2016, and June 30, 2017, 5399 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned in DISCOVER. 2699 were assigned to receive emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and 2700 were assigned to receive emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide, of whom 2693 and 2694, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug. 2115 (79%) assigned to emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate switched to emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide in the open-label phase, and 2070 (77%) continued with emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide in the open-label phase. As of data cutoff (Dec 10, 2020), after 15 817 person-years of follow-up, 27 new HIV-1 diagnoses were observed across the total study period, with three occurring during the open-label phase. In participants who were initially assigned to emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide, the incidence was 0·13 per 100 person-years (95% CI 0·061-0·23; ten of 2670). Stored plasma samples were available for 23 of 27 participants, including 22 with incident infection. In four (17%) of 23 participants, retrospective testing detected HIV-1 RNA before serological HIV-1 test positivity; one was a suspected baseline infection. Of the three incident cases, all three were non-adherent to PrEP and none developed drug resistance. Among participants taking emtricitabine plus tenofovir alafenamide for up to 144 weeks, markers of glomerular filtration and proximal renal tubule dysfunction (β2-microglobulin to creatinine ratio and retinol-binding protein to creatinine ratio) improved or remained stable at 144 weeks compared with baseline, bone mineral density in hip and lumbar spine increased or remained stable from baseline to week 144 (n=191), cholesterol and glucose concentrations remained stable, and median bodyweight increased by less than 1 kg per year. In participants who switched from emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate during the open-label phase (2115 [79%] of 2693), markers of glomerular filtration and proximal renal tubule dysfunction improved or remained stable, bone mineral density increased, cholesterol concentrations increased, glucose concentrations were similar, and median bodyweight increased more compared with those who remained on emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide., Interpretation: Routine HIV-1 RNA testing for follow-up of individuals on daily oral PrEP provides modest additional clinical benefit. Long-term use of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide as daily oral PrEP is safe and well tolerated and can be an especially appropriate choice for people with bone or renal morbidities., Funding: Gilead Sciences., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DAW has received grants, consulting fees, and speaker honoraria from Gilead Sciences; grants from Merck; consulting fees and speaker honoraria from ViiV Healthcare; and consulting fees and speaker honoraria from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. CDS has received funding, grants, consulting fees, and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences; grants and speaker honoraria from AbbVie; grants and personal fees from Janssen-Cilag; grants and personal fees from MSD, ViiV Healthcare, BioNtech, and Eli Lilly; grants from Cepheid; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from B Braun Melsungen; consulting fees from AstraZeneca; personal fees, non-financial support, and other support outside the submitted work from Apeiron Biologics; and personal fees from GSK, Formycon, Moderna, Molecular Partners, Novartis, Roche, Sobi, and Pfizer. JF, PJR, and RMG have received research funding from Gilead Sciences. CBH has received research grant support from Gilead Sciences. SD-L has received research grant support (paid to their institution) from Gilead Sciences and Merck. J-MM has received grants (paid to their institution) from Gilead Sciences and Merck; consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and ViiV Healthcare; and payments for participation on an advisory board from AELIX Therapeutics. AM has received research funding (paid to their institution) from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Merck, GSK, AbbVie, and TaiMed Biologics; speaker honoraria from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and EMD Serono; and payments for participation on an advisory board from Gilead Sciences and ViiV Healthcare. CB has received funding and speaker honoraria from Gilead Sciences; speaker honoraria from ViiV Healthcare; and support for attending principal investigator meetings from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, GSK, PPD (Thermo Fisher Scientific), Merck, Viking Therapeutics, Syneos Health, Novo Nordisk, AbbVie, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, and Shionogi. MR has received funding and speaker and consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, speaker and consulting fees from ViiV Healthcare, consulting fees from MSD and Abbott, and speaker honoraria from AbbVie and Janssen. AC has received advisory boards fees from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, MSD, and Theratechnologies; funding for clinical trials (paid to their institution) from Gilead Sciences, MSD, GSK, ViiV Healthcare, and Pfizer; speaker fees from MSD; and support for congress attendance from Gilead Sciences and ViiV Healthcare. GC has received research funding (paid to their institution) from Gilead Sciences for conducting research discussed in this manuscript. CM has received funding and speaker fees from Gilead Sciences and grants and speaker fees from ViiV Healthcare and Theratechnologies. CC, SC, JCH, YS, MD, AK, and JMB are shareholders and employees of Gilead Sciences. KMo has received funding from Gilead Sciences; speaker fees and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Janssen Therapeutics, Theratechnologies, and Epividian; and funding for clinical trials (paid to their institution) from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and Janssen Therapeutics. KMa has received research funding from Gilead Sciences, and unrestricted grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences and Merck., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been studied in humans, but the impact on immune memory of mAb treatment during an ongoing infection has remained unclear. We evaluated the effect of infusion of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor binding domain (RBD) mAb bamlanivimab on memory B cells (MBCs) in SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals. Bamlanivimab treatment skewed the repertoire of memory B cells targeting Spike towards non-RBD epitopes. Furthermore, the relative affinity of RBD memory B cells was weaker in mAb-treated individuals compared to placebo-treated individuals over time. Subsequently, after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, memory B cell differences persisted and mapped to a specific reduction in recognition of the class II RBD site, the same RBD epitope recognized by bamlanivimab. These findings indicate a substantial role of antibody feedback in regulating memory B cell responses to infection, and single mAb administration can continue to impact memory B cell responses to additional antigen exposures months later., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: To address the need for novel COVID-19 therapies, we evaluated the fully-human polyclonal antibody product SAB-185 in a phase 3 clinical trial., Methods: Non-hospitalized high-risk adults within 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset were randomized 1:1 to open-label SAB-185 3,840 units/kg or casirivimab/imdevimab 1200 mg. Non-inferiority comparison was undertaken for the pre-Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab expected to be fully active) and superiority comparison for the Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab not expected to be active). Primary outcomes were the composite of all-cause hospitalizations/deaths and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to sustained symptom improvement and resolution., Results: Enrollment was terminated early due to low hospitalization/death rates upon Omicron emergence. 733 adults were randomized, 255 included in pre-Omicron and 392 in Omicron analysis populations. Hospitalizations/deaths occurred in 6 (5.0%) and 3 (2.2%) of pre-Omicron SAB-185 and casirivimab/imdevimab arms, respectively (absolute difference [95% CI] 2.7% [-2.3%, 8.6%]), inconclusive for non-inferiority; and 5 (2.5%) versus 3 (1.5%) (absolute difference 1.0% [-2.3%, 4.5%]) for Omicron. Risk ratios for grade ≥3 TEAEs were 0.94 [0.52, 1.71] (pre-Omicron) and 1.71 [0.96, 3.07] (Omicron). Time to symptom improvement and resolution were shorter for SAB-185, median 11 vs 14 (pre-Omicron) and 11 vs 13 days (Omicron) (symptom improvement), and 16 vs 24 days and 18 vs >25 days (symptom resolution), p<0.05 for symptom resolution for Omicron only., Conclusions: SAB-185 had an acceptable safety profile with faster symptom resolution in the Omicron population. Additional studies are needed to characterize its efficacy for COVID-19., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: The primary objective of the study was to assess the immunogenicity of an HIV-1 Gag conserved element DNA vaccine (p24CE DNA) in people with HIV (PWH) receiving suppressive antiretroviral therapy (ART)., Design: AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5369 was a phase I/IIa, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of PWH receiving ART with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml, current CD4 + T-cell counts greater than 500 cells/μl, and nadir CD4 + T-cell counts greater than 350 cells/μl., Methods: The study enrolled 45 participants randomized 2 : 1 : 1 to receive p24CE DNA vaccine at weeks 0 and 4, followed by p24CE DNA admixed with full-length p55 Gag DNA vaccine at weeks 12 and 24 (arm A); full-length p55 Gag DNA vaccine at weeks 0, 4, 12, and 24 (arm B); or placebo at weeks 0, 4, 12, and 24 (arm C). The active and placebo vaccines were administered by intramuscular electroporation., Results: There was a modest, but significantly greater increase in the number of conserved elements recognized by CD4 + and/or CD8 + T cells in arm A compared with arm C ( P  = 0.014). The percentage of participants with an increased number of conserved elements recognized by T cells was also highest in arm A (8/18, 44.4%) vs. arm C (0/10, 0.0%) ( P  = 0.025). There were no significant differences between treatment groups in the change in magnitude of responses to total conserved elements., Conclusion: A DNA-delivered HIV-1 Gag conserved element vaccine boosted by a combination of this vaccine with a full-length p55 Gag DNA vaccine induced a new conserved element-directed cellular immune response in approximately half the treated PWH on ART., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: WAF reports research funding from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Ridgeback Biopharmaceuticals unrelated to the manuscript. DAW reports research funding from NIAID and NIH.

Introduction: Obesity is common among patients with pediatric Crohn's disease (PCD). Some adult studies suggest obese patients respond less well to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) treatment. This study sought compares anti-TNF response and anti-TNF levels between pediatric patients with normal and high body mass index (BMI)., Methods: The COMBINE trial compared anti-TNF monotherapy with combination therapy with methotrexate in patients with PCD. In this secondary analysis, a comparison of time-to-treatment failure among patients with normal BMI vs BMI Z -score >1, adjusting for prescribed anti-TNF (infliximab [IFX] or adalimumab [ADA]), trial treatment assignment (combination vs monotherapy), and relevant covariates. Median anti-TNF levels across BMI category was also examined., Results: Of 224 participants (162 IFX initiators and 62 ADA initiators), 111 (81%) had a normal BMI and 43 (19%) had a high BMI. High BMI was associated with treatment failure among ADA initiators (7/10 [70%] vs 12/52 [23%], hazard ratio 0.29, P = 0.007) but not IFX initiators. In addition, ADA-treated patients with a high BMI had lower ADA levels compared with those with normal BMI (median 5.8 vs 12.8 μg/mL, P = 0.02). IFX trough levels did not differ between BMI groups., Discussion: Overweight and obese patients with PCD are more likely to experience ADA treatment failure than those with normal BMI. Higher BMI was associated with lower drug trough levels. Standard ADA dosing may be insufficient for overweight children with PCD. Among IFX initiators, there was no observed difference in clinical outcomes or drug levels, perhaps due to weight-based dosing and/or greater use of proactive drug monitoring., (Copyright © 2024 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Ebola virus (EBOV) infection results in Ebola virus disease (EVD), an often severe disease with a nonspecific presentation. Since its recognition, periodic outbreaks of EVD continue to occur in sub-Saharan Africa. The 2013-2016 West African EVD outbreak was the largest recorded, resulting in a substantial cohort of EVD survivors with persistent health complaints and variable immune responses. In this study, we characterize humoral immune responses in EVD survivors and their contacts in Eastern Sierra Leone. We found high levels of EBOV IgG in EVD survivors and lower yet substantial antibody levels in household contacts, suggesting subclinical transmission. Neutralizing antibody function was prevalent but variable in EVD survivors, raising questions about the durability of immune responses from natural infection with EBOV. Additionally, we found that certain discrete symptoms-ophthalmologic and auditory-are associated with EBOV IgG seropositivity, while an array of symptoms are associated with the presence of neutralizing antibody., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. The Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium (VHFC) is a partnership of academic and industry scientists developing diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines for Lassa fever and other severe diseases. Tulane University and various industry partners have filed US and foreign patent applications on behalf of the VHFC for several of these technologies. If commercial products are developed, VHFC members may receive royalties or profits. R. F. G. is currently an affiliate and cofounder of Zalgen Labs, LLC. Zalgen Labs is the company that manufactures the primary commercialized ELISA used in this study, which presents a potential conflict of interest. No Zalgen employees were involved with the data analysis or interpretation of the results in this study. This does not alter our adherence to journal policies on sharing data and materials. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Outpatient COVID-19 monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment via subcutaneous delivery, if effective, overcomes the logistical burdens of intravenous administration., Methods: ACTIV-2/A5401 was a randomized, masked placebo-controlled platform trial where participants with COVID-19 at low risk for progression were randomized 1:1 to subcutaneously administered BMS-986414 (C135-LS) 200 mg, plus BMS-986413 (C144-LS) 200 mg, (BMS mAbs), or placebo. Coprimary outcomes were time to symptom improvement through 28 days; nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below the lower limit of quantification (LLoQ) on days 3, 7, or 14; and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events (TEAEs) through 28 days., Results: A total of 211 participants (105 BMS mAbs and 106 placebo) initiated study product. Time to symptom improvement favored the active therapy but was not significant (median 8 vs 10 days, P =0.19). There was no significant difference in the proportion with SARS-CoV-2 RNA

To mitigate the loss of lives during the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency use authorization was given to several anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients with a high risk of progressing to severe disease. Monoclonal antibodies used to treat SARS-CoV-2 target the spike protein of the virus and block its ability to enter and infect target cells. Monoclonal antibody therapy can thus accelerate the decline in viral load and lower hospitalization rates among high-risk patients with variants susceptible to mAb therapy. However, viral resistance has been observed, in some cases leading to a transient viral rebound that can be as large as 3-4 orders of magnitude. As mAbs represent a proven treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 and other viral infections, evaluation of treatment-emergent mAb resistance can help uncover underlying pathobiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection and may also help in the development of the next generation of mAb therapies. Although resistance can be expected, the large rebounds observed are much more difficult to explain. We hypothesize replenishment of target cells is necessary to generate the high transient viral rebound. Thus, we formulated two models with different mechanisms for target cell replenishment (homeostatic proliferation and return from an innate immune response antiviral state) and fit them to data from persons with SARS-CoV-2 treated with a mAb. We showed that both models can explain the emergence of resistant virus associated with high transient viral rebounds. We found that variations in the target cell supply rate and adaptive immunity parameters have a strong impact on the magnitude or observability of the viral rebound associated with the emergence of resistant virus. Both variations in target cell supply rate and adaptive immunity parameters may explain why only some individuals develop observable transient resistant viral rebound. Our study highlights the conditions that can lead to resistance and subsequent viral rebound in mAb treatments during acute infection., Competing Interests: We have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: K.W.C. has received research funding to her institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme and consulted for Pardes Biosciences. D.M.S. has consulted for the following companies Fluxergy, Kiadis, Linear Therapies, Matrix BioMed, Lucira, VxBiosciences, Model Medicines, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, and Evidera. E.S.D. has consulted for Gilead, Merck, ViiV and Theratechnologies and received research funding to his institution from Gilead and ViiV. D.A.W. has consulted for Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Theratechnologies, and has university grant funding from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and Merck and Co. J. J. E. is on the DMC for Adagio/Invyvid and has consulted for Gilead Sciences and Merck & Co. J. S. C. has consulted for Merck & Co., J.Z.L. has consulted for Abbvie. The other authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)

Body weight is influenced by an interplay of individual and environmental factors. In people with HIV (PWH), weight is also influenced by disease status with loss accompanying disease progression that is reversed with effective antiretroviral therapy (ART). Weight changes in comparative ART trials differ by regimen, with greater gains observed with the integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) dolutegravir and bictegravir, particularly when co-administered with tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF), compared to regimens that include agents such as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) that attenuate weight gain. We review weight changes in major randomized trials of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and initial and switch HIV therapy, highlighting the challenges to assessing the role of ART in weight change. This examination forms the basis for a model that questions assumptions regarding an association between INSTI and TAF and excessive weight gain and calls for more careful consideration of these data when making HIV treatment decisions., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: In the USA, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is authorized for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients at least 12 years of age, at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19., Objectives: To estimate the impact of outpatient nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on COVID-19 hospitalization risk in a US healthcare system., Methods: We conducted a cohort study using electronic health records among outpatients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between January and August 2022. We evaluated the association of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir therapy with time to hospitalization by estimating adjusted HRs and assessed the impact of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on predicted COVID-19 hospitalizations using machine-learning methods., Results: Among 44 671 patients, 4948 (11%) received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 201 (0.4%) were hospitalized within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients were more likely to be older, white, vaccinated, have comorbidities and reside in areas with higher average socioeconomic status. The 28 day cumulative incidence of hospitalization was 0.06% (95% CI: 0.02%-0.17%) among nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients and 0.52% (95% CI: 0.46%-0.60%) among non-recipients. For nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus no therapy, the age-adjusted HR was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.03-0.26); the fully adjusted HR was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.05-0.50). In the machine-learning model, the primary features reducing predicted hospitalization risk were nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, younger age, vaccination, female gender and residence in a higher socioeconomic status area., Conclusions: COVID-19 hospitalization risk was reduced by 84% among nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients in a large, diverse healthcare system during the Omicron wave. These results suggest that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir remained highly effective in a setting substantially different than the original clinical trials., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Long-acting injectable antiretroviral therapy (LA-ART) expands treatment options for people living with HIV (PLWH). This qualitative study characterizes LA-ART awareness, perceptions, and preferences among PLWH engaged in HIV care. From 2019 through 2021, we conducted semistructured in-depth interviews with 71 PLWH sampled from three clinics in three U.S. settings (North Carolina, Washington, DC, Massachusetts). Transcripts were analyzed using narrative and thematic techniques. Participant mean age was 46 years (range 24-72); most were cisgender men (55%) and virally suppressed (73%). Most participants had not heard of LA-ART and reacted with a mix of excitement and cautiousness. Potential LA-ART benefits included easier adherence, privacy, and effectiveness; concerns included effectiveness, side effects, costs, and increased clinic visits. Participants appreciated that LA-ART could support achieving and sustaining viral suppression. To inform their decision, participants wanted more information and convenient access and administration. Findings indicated that a shared decision-making approach and economic and logistical support for PLWH could facilitate LA-ART uptake.

Background: With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants resistant to monoclonal antibody therapies and limited global access to therapeutics, the evaluation of novel therapeutics to prevent progression to severe COVID-19 remains a critical need., Methods: Safety, clinical and antiviral efficacy of inhaled interferon-β1a (SNG001) were evaluated in a phase II randomized controlled trial on the ACTIV-2/A5401 platform (ClinicalTrials.govNCT04518410). Adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 10 days of symptom onset were randomized and initiated either orally inhaled nebulized SNG001 given once daily for 14 days (n = 110) or blinded pooled placebo (n = 110) between February 10 and August 18, 2021., Findings: The proportion of participants reporting premature treatment discontinuation was 9% among SNG001 and 13% among placebo participants. There were no differences between participants who received SNG001 or placebo in the primary outcomes of treatment emergent Grade 3 or higher adverse events (3.6% and 8.2%, respectively), time to symptom improvement (median 13 and 9 days, respectively), or proportion with unquantifiable nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA at days 3 (28% [26/93] vs. 39% [37/94], respectively), 7 (65% [60/93] vs. 66% [62/94]) and 14 (91% [86/95] vs. 91% [83/81]). There were fewer hospitalizations with SNG001 (n = 1; 1%) compared with placebo (n = 7; 6%), representing an 86% relative risk reduction (p = 0.07). There were no deaths in either arm., Interpretation: In this trial, SNG001 was safe and associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in hospitalization for COVID-19 pneumonia., Funding: The ACTIV-2 platform study is funded by the NIH. Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UM1 AI068634, UM1 AI068636 and UM1 AI106701. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health., Competing Interests: P.J. has received research funding to the institution from NIH/NIAID. K.W.C. has received research funding to the institution from NIH/NIAID and Merck Sharp & Dohme; has served as a consultant for Pardes Biosciences; and has received honoraria for CME from International Antiviral Society-USA. M.J.G. has received research funding to the institution from NIH/NIAID. M.D.H. has received research funding to the institution from NIH/NIAID. C.M. has received research funding to the institution from NIH/NIAID. M.J.M. has received research funding to the institution from NIH/NIAID. P.D.M. is an employee of Synairgen; Synairgen covered cost of supplying SNG001 and placebo for the study; Patents filed in relation to use of SNG001 to treat viral lung disease; Shareholder. A.C.J. report no competing interests. J.Z.L. has received research funding to the institution from NIH/NIAID. C.F. has received research funding to the institution from NIH/NIAID. C.Mc. has received research funding to the institution from NIH/NIAID. D.A.W. has received funding to the institution to support research and honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Gilead Sciences, Eli Lilly, and Merck. E.S.D. receives consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and GSK/ViiV and research support through the institution from Gilead Sciences and GSK/ViiV. J.J.E. has received research funding to the institution from NIH/NIAID; is an ad hoc consultant to GSK/VIR, Merck, Gilead; data monitoring committee (DMC) chair for Adagio Phase III studies. W.F. has received research funding to the institution from Ridgeback Biopharmaceuticals, served on adjudication committees for Janssen, Syneos, served as a consultant for Roche and Merck, and has received honoraria for CME from Medlearning group. J.S.C. has received research funding to the institution from NIH/NIAID; has consulted for Merck and Company. U.S. has received research funding to the institution from NIH/NIAID and Pfizer; Scientific advisory board Burroughs Wellcome Fund. D.M.S. has received research funding to the institution from NIH/NIAID; has consulted for the following companies VxBiosciences, Model Medicines, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Lucira, Pharma Holdings, and Evidera., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: Camostat inhibits severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in vitro. We studied the safety and efficacy of camostat in ACTIV-2/A5401, a phase 2/3 platform trial of therapeutics for COVID-19 in nonhospitalized adults., Methods: We conducted a phase 2 study in adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 randomized to oral camostat for 7 days or a pooled placebo arm. Primary outcomes were time to improvement in COVID-19 symptoms through day 28, proportion of participants with SARS-CoV-2 RNA below the lower limit of quantification (LLoQ) from nasopharyngeal swabs through day 14, and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through day 28., Results: Of 216 participants (109 randomized to camostat, 107 to placebo) who initiated study intervention, 45% reported ≤5 days of symptoms at study entry and 26% met the protocol definition of higher risk of progression to severe COVID-19. Median age was 37 years. Median time to symptom improvement was 9 days in both arms (P = .99). There were no significant differences in the proportion of participants with SARS-CoV-2 RNA

Background: Prospective evaluations of long COVID in outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are lacking. We aimed to determine the frequency and predictors of long COVID after treatment with the monoclonal antibody bamlanivimab in ACTIV-2/A5401., Methods: Data were analyzed from participants who received bamlanivimab 700 mg in ACTIV-2 from October 2020 to February 2021. Long COVID was defined as the presence of self-assessed COVID symptoms at week 24. Self-assessed return to pre-COVID health was also examined. Associations were assessed by regression models., Results: Among 506 participants, median age was 51 years. Half were female, 5% Black/African American, and 36% Hispanic/Latino. At 24 weeks, 18% reported long COVID and 15% had not returned to pre-COVID health. Smoking (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 2.41 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.34- 4.32]), female sex (aRR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.28-2.85]), non-Hispanic ethnicity (aRR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.19-3.13]), and presence of symptoms 22-28 days posttreatment (aRR, 2.70 [95% CI, 1.63-4.46]) were associated with long COVID, but nasal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RNA was not., Conclusions: Long COVID occurred despite early, effective monoclonal antibody therapy and was associated with smoking, female sex, and non-Hispanic ethnicity, but not viral burden. The strong association between symptoms 22-28 days after treatment and long COVID suggests that processes of long COVID start early and may need early intervention., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04518410., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. T. H. E. serves as a consultant for Tonix Pharmaceuticals. N. J. received salary support to the institution from Sagent Pharmaceuticals. D. A. W. has received funding to his institution to support research and honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Gilead Sciences. E. S. D. receives consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and GSK/ViiV and research support through his institution from Gilead Sciences and GSK/ViiV. J. Z. L. has received research funding from Merck. P. K. is an employee and shareholder of Eli Lilly. J.J.E. is an ad hoc consultant to GSK/VIR, data monitoring committee chair for Adagio Phase 3 studies. J. S. C. has consulted for Merck and Company. D. M. S. has consulted for Fluxergy, Kiadis, Linear Therapies, Matrix BioMed, Arena Pharmaceuticals, VxBiosciences, Model Medicines, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Signant Health, and Brio Clinical. K. W. C. received research funding to institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme and is a consultant for Pardes Biosciences. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Time to symptom resolution measures were used in outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment trials without prior validation., Methods: ACTIV-2/A5401 trial participants completed a COVID-19 diary assessing 13 targeted symptoms and global experience (overall COVID-19 symptoms, return to pre-COVID-19 health) daily for 29 days. We evaluated concordance of time to sustained (2 days) resolution of all targeted symptoms (TSR) with resolution of overall symptoms and return to health in participants receiving placebo., Results: The analysis included 77 high-risk and 81 standard-risk participants with overall median 6 days of symptoms at entry and median age 47 years, 50% female, 82% white, and 31% Hispanic/Latino. Correlation between TSR and resolution of overall symptoms was 0.80 and 0.68, and TSR and return to health, 0.66 and 0.57 for high- and standard-risk groups, respectively. Of the high- and standard-risk participants, 61% and 79%, respectively, achieved targeted symptom resolution, of which 47% and 43%, respectively, reported symptom recurrence. Requiring >2 days to define sustained resolution reduced the frequency of recurrences., Conclusions: There was good internal consistency between TSR and COVID-19-specific global outcomes, supporting TSR as a trial end point. Requiring >2 days of symptom resolution better addresses natural symptom fluctuations but must be balanced against the potential influence of non-COVID-19 symptoms., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04518410., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . K. W. C. reports research funding to the institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and is a consultant for Pardes Biosciences. D. A. W. has received funding to the institution to support research; and honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Gilead Sciences. E. S. D. receives consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and GSK/ViiV; and research support through the institution from Gilead Sciences and GSK/ViiV. J. J. E. is an ad hoc consultant to GSK/VIR; and data monitoring committee chair for Adagio phase 3 studies. J. S. C. has consulted for Merck and Company. D. M. S. has consulted for Evidera, Fluxergy, Kiadis, Linear Therapies, Matrix BioMed, Arena Pharmaceuticals, VxBiosciences, Model Medicines, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Signant Health, and Brio Clinical. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: There is little information regarding severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA as a predictor for clinical outcomes in outpatients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Methods: Anterior nasal (AN) and plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA data from 2115 nonhospitalized adults who received monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or placebo in the ACTIV-2/A5401 trial were analyzed for associations with hospitalization or death., Results: One hundred two participants were hospitalized or died through 28 days of follow-up. Higher day 0 (pretreatment) AN RNA was associated with increasing risk of hospitalization/death (risk ratio [RR], 1.24 per log10 copies/mL [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.04-1.49]) among placebo recipients, ranging from 3% to 16% for <2 to ≥6 log10 copies/mL. Although only 1% had quantifiable levels, there was a similar trend across day 0 plasma RNA categories. Higher day 3 AN RNA was associated with subsequent hospitalization/death among placebo recipients (RR, 1.42 per log10 copies/mL [95% CI, 1.00-2.03]), but not mAb recipients (RR, 1.02 per log10 copies/mL [95% CI, 0.68-1.56]). The proportion of treatment effect (reduction in hospitalizations/deaths after day 3 for mAb vs placebo) explained by day 3 AN RNA was 8%., Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels are predictive of hospitalization/death in the natural history setting, but AN RNA levels may not be a reliable surrogate marker of mAb treatment effect in COVID-19 trials. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. K. W. C. has received research funding (paid to institution) from Merck Sharp & Dohme and is a consultant for Pardes Biosciences. J. J. E. is an ad hoc consultant to GSK/VIR and the data monitoring committee chair for Adagio phase 3 studies. J. Z. L. has consulted for AbbVie. W. A. F. has received research funding (paid to institution) from Ridgeback Biopharmaceuticals; served on adjudication committees for Janssen and Syneos; and consulted for Roche and Merck. P. K. is an employee and shareholder of Eli Lilly. D. M. is an employee of Brii Biosciences. D. A. W. has received funding (paid to institution) to support research and honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Gilead Sciences. E. S. D. has received consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and GSK/ViiV and research support (paid to institution) from GSK and ViiV. J. S. C. has consulted for Merck and Co. D. M. S. has consulted for Fluxergy, Kiadis, Linear Therapies, Matrix BioMed, Arena Pharmaceuticals, VxBiosciences, Model Medicines, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Signant Health, and Brio Clinical. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Immunocompromised individuals are disproportionately affected by severe coronavirus disease 2019, but immune compromise is heterogenous, and viral dynamics may vary by the degree of immunosuppression. In this study, we categorized ACTIV-2/A5401 participants based on the extent of immunocompromise into none, mild, moderate, and severe immunocompromise. Moderate/severe immunocompromise was associated with higher nasal viral load at enrollment (adjusted difference in means: 0.47 95% confidence interval, .12-.83 log10 copies/mL) and showed a trend toward higher cumulative nasal RNA levels and plasma viremia compared to nonimmunocompromised individuals. Immunosuppression leads to greater viral shedding and altered severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viral decay kinetics. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. K. W. C. receives research funding from Merck, Sharp & Dohme (paid to institution) and Amgen (research contract with institution); consultancy for Pardes Biosciences; honoraria to the author for continuing medical education presentations (not-for-profit organization) from the International Antiviral Society–USA (IAS-USA); and participation on a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) or advisory board for the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) (served as Chair of a safety monitoring committee for an investigator-initiated study where the sponsor is UCSF). E. S. D. receives consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and GSK/ViiV; research support through the institution from Gilead Sciences and GSK/ViiV; participation on a DSMB or advisory board for Gilead and ViiV; and reports support from NIH. D. A. W. has received funding to institution to support research and honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Gilead Sciences and grant or contracts from Lilly. J. Z. L. has consulted for AbbVie and received a research grant from Merck. J. J. E. is an ad hoc consultant to GSK/Vir Biotechnology and is data monitoring committee chair for Adagio phase 3 studies. J. S. C. has consulted for Merck and Co and reports a leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy groups as a volunteer for the Board of Directors of the IAS-USA and the Foundation Board, Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. D. M. S. has consulted for Bayer Healthcare, Fluxergy, Kiadis, Linear Therapies, Matrix BioMed, VxBiosciences, Model Medicines, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, and Pharma Holdings; has grants or contracts from NIH (DK131532, AI169609, DA047039, AI036214, AI131385, AI100665, AI126620, funding provided to institution), the James B. Pendleton Charitable Trust John, and the Mary Tu Foundation, including payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events for Medscape (COVID treatment), American Institute continuing medical education (COVID treatment), and Kiadis; stock or stock options for Model Medicine, Linear Therapies, and Cv Biosciences; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writings, gifts, or other services from the James B. Pendleton Charitable Trust. C. M. reports participation on a DSMB for BONE STAR. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Adaptive platform trials were implemented during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to rapidly evaluate therapeutics, including the placebo-controlled phase 2/3 ACTIV-2 trial, which studied 7 investigational agents with diverse routes of administration. For each agent, safety and efficacy outcomes were compared to a pooled placebo control group, which included participants who received a placebo for that agent or for other agents in concurrent evaluation. A 2-step randomization framework was implemented to facilitate this. Over the study duration, the pooled placebo design achieved a reduction in sample size of 6% versus a trial involving distinct placebo control groups for evaluating each agent. However, a 26% reduction was achieved during the period when multiple agents were in parallel phase 2 evaluation. We discuss some of the complexities implementing the pooled placebo design versus a design involving nonoverlapping control groups, with the aim of informing the design of future platform trials. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. C. B. M. participated on a data safety monitoring board for the BONE STAR study. K. W. C. has received research funding to the institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and is a consultant for Pardes Biosciences. E. S. D. receives consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and GSK/ViiV; and research support through the institution from Gilead Sciences and GSK/ViiV. D. A. W. has received funding to the institution to support research and honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Gilead Sciences. J. S. C. has consulted for Merck and Company. J. J. E. is an ad hoc consultant to GSK/VIR; and data monitoring committee chair for Adagio phase 3 studies. D. M. S. has consulted for Evidera, Fluxergy, Kiadis, Linear Therapies, Matrix BioMed, Arena Pharmaceuticals, VxBiosciences, Model Medicines, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Signant Health, and Brio Clinical. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Clinical Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04518410., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. JSC has consulted for Merck and Company. KWC reports research funding to the institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme and is a consultant for Pardes Biosciences. CM participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for the BONE STAR study. JJE is an ad hoc consultant to GSK/VIR and data monitoring committee chair for Adagio Phase III studies. DMS has consulted for Evidera, Fluxergy, Kiadis, Linear Therapies, Matrix BioMed, Arena Pharmaceuticals, VxBiosciences, Model Medicines, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Signant Health, and Brio Clinical. DAW has received funding to the institution to support research and honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Gilead Sciences. ESD receives consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and GSK/ViiV and research support through the institution from Gilead Sciences and GSK/ViiV. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Most clinical trials evaluating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapeutics include assessments of antiviral activity. In recently completed outpatient trials, changes in nasal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA levels from baseline were commonly assessed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) or mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM) with single imputation for results below assay lower limits of quantification (LLoQ). Analyzing changes in viral RNA levels with singly imputed values can lead to biased estimates of treatment effects. In this article, using an illustrative example from the ACTIV-2 trial, we highlight potential pitfalls of imputation when using ANCOVA or MMRM methods, and illustrate how these methods can be used when considering values

Understanding variant-specific differences in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral kinetics may explain differences in transmission efficiency and provide insights on pathogenesis and prevention. We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 kinetics from nasal swabs across multiple variants (Alpha, Delta, Epsilon, Gamma) in placebo recipients of the ACTIV-2/A5401 trial. Delta variant infection led to the highest maximum viral load and shortest time from symptom onset to viral load peak. There were no significant differences in time to viral clearance across the variants. Viral decline was biphasic with first- and second-phase decays having half-lives of 11 hours and 2.5 days, respectively, with differences among variants, especially in the second phase. These results suggest that while variant-specific differences in viral kinetics exist, post-peak viral load all variants appeared to be efficiently cleared by the host. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. K. W. C. received research funding to institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme, and was a consultant for Pardes Biosciences. J. Z. L. was a consultant for AbbVie and received research support from Merck. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: SAB-185, a novel fully human IgG polyclonal immunoglobulin product, underwent phase 2 evaluation for nonhospitalized adults with mild-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Methods: Participants received intravenous SAB-185 3840 units/kg (low-dose) or placebo, or 10 240 units/kg (high-dose) or placebo. Primary outcome measures were nasopharyngeal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA < lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) at study days 3, 7, and 14, time to symptomatic improvement, and safety through day 28., Results: Two-hundred thirteen participants received low-dose SAB-185/placebo (n = 107/106) and 215 high-dose SAB-185/placebo (n = 110/105). The proportions with SARS-CoV-2 RNA < LLOQ were higher for SAB-185 versus placebo at days 3 and 7 and similar at day 14, and significantly higher at day 7 for high-dose SAB-185 versus placebo only, relative risk 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.49). At day 3, SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels were lower with low-dose and high-dose SAB-185 versus placebo: differences in medians of -0.78 log10 copies/mL (P = .08) and -0.71 log10 copies/mL (P = .10), respectively. No difference was observed in time to symptom improvement: median 11/10 days (P = .24) for low-dose SAB-185/placebo and 8/10 days (P = .50) for high-dose SAB-185/placebo. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 5%/13% of low-dose SAB-185/placebo and 9%/12% of high-dose SAB-185/placebo., Conclusions: SAB-185 was safe and generally well tolerated and demonstrated modest antiviral activity in predominantly low-risk nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. B. T. has received honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Gilead Sciences. K. W. C. has received research funding to the institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme and consulted for Pardes Biosciences. E. S. D. receives consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and GSK/ViiV; and research support through the institution from Gilead Sciences and GSK/ViiV. D. A. W. has received funding to the institution to support research and honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Gilead Sciences. J. Z. L. has consulted for Abbvie. A. L. G. reports contract testing from Abbott, Cepheid, Novavax, Pfizer, Janssen, and Hologic; and research support from Gilead and Merck, outside of the described work. J. J. E. is an ad hoc consultant to GSK/VIR; and data monitoring committee chair for Adagio phase 3 studies. J. S. C. has consulted for Merck and Company. D. M. S. has consulted for Fluxergy, Kiadis, Linear Therapies, Matrix BioMed, Arena Pharmaceuticals, VxBiosciences, Model Medicines, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Signant Health, and Brio Clinical. C. B. and T. L. are employees of SAB Biotherapeutics. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background & Aims: Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, including infliximab and adalimumab, are a mainstay of pediatric Crohn's disease therapy; however, nonresponse and loss of response are common. As combination therapy with methotrexate may improve response, we performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pragmatic trial to compare tumor necrosis factor inhibitors with oral methotrexate to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor monotherapy., Methods: Patients with pediatric Crohn's disease initiating infliximab or adalimumab were randomized in 1:1 allocation to methotrexate or placebo and followed for 12-36 months. The primary outcome was a composite indicator of treatment failure. Secondary outcomes included anti-drug antibodies and patient-reported outcomes of pain interference and fatigue. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were collected., Results: Of 297 participants (mean age, 13.9 years, 35% were female), 156 were assigned to methotrexate (110 infliximab initiators and 46 adalimumab initiators) and 141 to placebo (102 infliximab initiators and 39 adalimumab initiators). In the overall population, time to treatment failure did not differ by study arm (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.45-1.05). Among infliximab initiators, there were no differences between combination and monotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.55-1.56). Among adalimumab initiators, combination therapy was associated with longer time to treatment failure (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.81). A trend toward lower anti-drug antibody development in the combination therapy arm was not significant (infliximab: odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49-1.07; adalimumab: odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.24-2.07). No differences in patient-reported outcomes were observed. Combination therapy resulted in more AEs but fewer SAEs., Conclusions: Among adalimumab but not infliximab initiators, patients with pediatric Crohn's disease treated with methotrexate combination therapy experienced a 2-fold reduction in treatment failure with a tolerable safety profile., Clinicaltrials: gov, Number: NCT02772965., (Copyright © 2023 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hospitalizations for infective endocarditis (IE) associated with opioid use disorder (O-IE) have increased in the USA and have been linked to high rates of discharge against medical advice (DAMA). DAMA represents a truncation of care for a severe infection, yet patient outcomes after DAMA are unknown., Objective: This study aimed to assess readmissions following O-IE and quantify the impact of DAMA on outcomes., Design: A retrospective study of a nationally representative dataset of persons' inpatient discharges in the USA in 2016 PARTICIPANTS: A total of 6018 weighted persons were discharged for O-IE, stratified by DAMA vs. other discharge statuses. Of these, 1331 (22%) were DAMA., Main Measures: The primary outcome of interest was 30-day readmission rates, stratified by discharge type. We also examined the total number of hospitalizations during the year and estimated the effect of DAMA on readmission., Key Results: Compared with non-DAMA, those experiencing DAMA were more commonly female, resided in metropolitan areas, lower income, and uninsured. Crude 30-day readmission following DAMA was 50%, compared with 21% for other discharge types. DAMA was strongly associated with readmission in an adjusted logistic regression model (OR 3.72, CI 3.02-4.60). Persons experiencing DAMA more commonly had ≥2 more hospitalizations during the period (31% vs. 18%, p<0.01), and were less frequently readmitted at the same hospital (49% vs 64%, p<0.01)., Conclusions: DAMA occurs in nearly a quarter of patients hospitalized for O-IE and is strongly associated with short-term readmission. Interventions to address the root causes of premature discharges will enhance O-IE care, reduce hospitalizations and improve outcomes., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: Development of safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics is a high priority. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab are noncompeting anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies with an extended half-life., Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of amubarvimab plus romlusevimab., Design: Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 and 3 platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410)., Setting: Nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, and the Philippines., Patients: Adults within 10 days onset of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection who are at high risk for clinical progression., Intervention: Combination of monoclonal antibodies amubarvimab plus romlusevimab or placebo., Measurements: Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 symptoms, safety, and progression to hospitalization or death., Results: Eight-hundred and seven participants who initiated the study intervention were included in the phase 3 analysis. Median age was 49 years (quartiles, 39 to 58); 51% were female, 18% were Black, and 50% were Hispanic or Latino. Median time from symptom onset at study entry was 6 days (quartiles, 4 to 7). Hospitalizations and/or death occurred in 9 (2.3%) participants in the amubarvimab plus romlusevimab group compared with 44 (10.7%) in the placebo group, with an estimated 79% reduction in events ( P  < 0.001). This reduction was similar between participants with 5 or less and more than 5 days of symptoms at study entry. Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events through day 28 were seen less frequently among participants randomly assigned to amubarvimab plus romlusevimab (7.3%) than placebo (16.1%) ( P  < 0.001), with no severe infusion reactions or drug-related serious adverse events., Limitation: The study population was mostly unvaccinated against COVID-19 and enrolled before the spread of Omicron variants and subvariants., Conclusion: Amubarvimab plus romlusevimab was safe and significantly reduced the risk for hospitalization and/or death among nonhospitalized adults with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection at high risk for progression to severe disease., Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M22-3428.

Importance: Development of effective, scalable therapeutics for SARS-CoV-2 is a priority., Objective: To test the efficacy of combined tixagevimab and cilgavimab monoclonal antibodies for early COVID-19 treatment., Design, Setting, and Participants: Two phase 2 randomized blinded placebo-controlled clinical trials within the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV)-2/A5401 platform were performed at US ambulatory sites. Nonhospitalized adults 18 years or older within 10 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 test and symptom onset were eligible and were enrolled from February 1 to May 31, 2021., Interventions: Tixagevimab-cilgavimab, 300 mg (150 mg of each component) given intravenously (IV) or 600 mg (300 mg of each component) given intramuscularly (IM) in the lateral thigh, or pooled placebo., Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were time to symptom improvement through 28 days; nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) on days 3, 7, or 14; and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events through 28 days., Results: A total of 229 participants were randomized for the IM study and 119 were randomized for the IV study. The primary modified intention-to-treat population included 223 participants who initiated IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n = 106) or placebo treatment (n = 117) (median age, 39 [IQR, 30-48] years; 113 [50.7%] were men) and 114 who initiated IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n = 58) or placebo treatment (n = 56) (median age, 44 [IQR, 35-54] years; 67 [58.8%] were women). Enrollment in the IV study was stopped early based on a decision to focus on IM product development. Participants were enrolled at a median of 6 (IQR, 4-7) days from COVID-19 symptom onset. Significant differences in time to symptom improvement were not observed for IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo or IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo. A greater proportion in the IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab arm (69 of 86 [80.2%]) than placebo (62 of 96 [64.6%]) had nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below LLOQ at day 7 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.12-1.57]) but not days 3 and 14; the joint test across time points favored treatment (P = .003). Differences in the proportion below LLOQ were not observed for IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo at any of the specified time points. There were no safety signals with either administration route., Conclusions: In these 2 phase 2 randomized clinical trials, IM or IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab was safe but did not change time to symptom improvement. Antiviral activity was more evident in the larger IM trial., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04518410.

Background: Lassa fever (LF), a haemorrhagic illness caused by the Lassa fever virus (LASV), is endemic in West Africa and causes 5000 fatalities every year. The true prevalence and incidence rates of LF are unknown as infections are often asymptomatic, clinical presentations are varied, and surveillance systems are not robust. The aim of the Enable Lassa research programme is to estimate the incidences of LASV infection and LF disease in five West African countries. The core protocol described here harmonises key study components, such as eligibility criteria, case definitions, outcome measures, and laboratory tests, which will maximise the comparability of data for between-country analyses., Method: We are conducting a prospective cohort study in Benin, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria (three sites), and Sierra Leone from 2020 to 2023, with 24 months of follow-up. Each site will assess the incidence of LASV infection, LF disease, or both. When both incidences are assessed the LASV cohort (nmin = 1000 per site) will be drawn from the LF cohort (nmin = 5000 per site). During recruitment participants will complete questionnaires on household composition, socioeconomic status, demographic characteristics, and LF history, and blood samples will be collected to determine IgG LASV serostatus. LF disease cohort participants will be contacted biweekly to identify acute febrile cases, from whom blood samples will be drawn to test for active LASV infection using RT-PCR. Symptom and treatment data will be abstracted from medical records of LF cases. LF survivors will be followed up after four months to assess sequelae, specifically sensorineural hearing loss. LASV infection cohort participants will be asked for a blood sample every six months to assess LASV serostatus (IgG and IgM)., Discussion: Data on LASV infection and LF disease incidence in West Africa from this research programme will determine the feasibility of future Phase IIb or III clinical trials for LF vaccine candidates., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Penfold et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Barriers continue to limit access to viral load (VL) monitoring across sub-Saharan Africa adversely impacting control of the HIV epidemic. The objective of this study was to determine whether the systems and processes required to realize the potential of rapid molecular technology are available at a prototypical lower-level (i.e., level III) health center in rural Uganda. In this open-label pilot study, participants underwent parallel VL testing at both the central laboratory (i.e., standard of care) and on-site using the GeneXpert HIV-1 assay. The primary outcome was the number of VL tests completed each clinic day. Secondary outcomes included the number of days from sample collection to receipt of result at clinic and the number of days from sample collection to patient receipt of the result. From August 2020 to July 2021, we enrolled a total of 242 participants. The median number of daily tests performed on the Xpert platform was 4, (IQR = 2-7). Time from sample collection to result was 51 days (IQR = 45-62) for samples sent to the central laboratory and 0 days (IQR = 0-0.25) for the Xpert assay conducted at the health center. However, few participants elected to receive results by one of the expedited options, which contributed to similar time-to-patient between testing approaches (89 versus 84 days, p = 0.07). Implementation of a rapid, near point-of-care VL assay at a lower-level health center in rural Uganda appears feasible, but interventions to promote rapid clinical response and influence patient preferences about result receipt require further study. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04517825, Registered 18 August 2020. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04517825., Competing Interests: Xpert HIV VL cartridges were supplied by Cepheid at no cost to the study. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2023 Boyce et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Over the past few decades, the life expectancy of people living with HIV has markedly improved due to the advances in HIV diagnosis, linkage to care, and treatment. However, with these advances, a new set of challenges has emerged that must be addressed to ensure the long-term well-being of people living with HIV. In this article, as part of a wider journal supplement, we explore the unmet needs and challenges across the HIV continuum of care and re-define what long-term success looks like to support the healthy ageing of all people affected by HIV., (© 2023 The Authors. HIV Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British HIV Association.)

Objectives: In recent decades, the needs of people living with HIV have evolved as life expectancy has greatly improved. Now, a new definition of long-term success (LTS) is necessary to help address the multifaceted needs of all people living with HIV., Methods: We conducted a two-phase research programme to delineate the range of experiences of people living with HIV. The insights garnered from these research phases were explored in a series of expert-led workshops, which led to the development and refinement of the LTS framework., Results: The insights generated from the research phases identified a series of themes that form a part of LTS. These themes were subsequently incorporated into the LTS framework, which includes five outcome pillars: sustained undetectable viral load, minimal impact of treatment and clinical monitoring, optimized health-related quality of life, lifelong integration of healthcare, and freedom from stigma and discrimination. A series of supporting statements were also developed by the expert panel to help in the achievement of each of the LTS pillars., Conclusions: The LTS framework offers a comprehensive and person-centric approach that, if achieved, could help improve the long-term well-being of people living with HIV and support the LTS vision of 'every person living with HIV being able to live their best life'., (© 2023 The Authors. HIV Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British HIV Association.)

Background: Although symptom and viral rebound have been reported after nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment, the trajectories of symptoms and viral load during the natural course of COVID-19 have not been well described., Objective: To characterize symptom and viral rebound in untreated outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19., Design: Retrospective analysis of participants in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410)., Setting: Multicenter trial., Patients: 563 participants receiving placebo in the ACTIV-2/A5401 (Adaptive Platform Treatment Trial for Outpatients With COVID-19) platform trial., Measurements: Participants recorded the severity of 13 symptoms daily between days 0 and 28. Nasal swabs were collected for SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing on days 0 to 14, 21, and 28. Symptom rebound was defined as a 4-point increase in total symptom score after improvement any time after study entry. Viral rebound was defined as an increase of at least 0.5 log 10 RNA copies/mL from the immediately preceding time point to a viral load of 3.0 log 10 copies/mL or higher. High-level viral rebound was defined as an increase of at least 0.5 log 10 RNA copies/mL to a viral load of 5.0 log 10 copies/mL or higher., Results: Symptom rebound was identified in 26% of participants at a median of 11 days after initial symptom onset. Viral rebound was detected in 31% and high-level viral rebound in 13% of participants. Most symptom and viral rebound events were transient, because 89% of symptom rebound and 95% of viral rebound events occurred at only a single time point before improving. The combination of symptom and high-level viral rebound was observed in 3% of participants., Limitation: A largely unvaccinated population infected with pre-Omicron variants was evaluated., Conclusion: Symptom or viral relapse in the absence of antiviral treatment is common, but the combination of symptom and viral rebound is rare., Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 symptoms limit daily activities, but little is known about its association with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viral burden. In this exploratory analysis of placebo recipients in the ACTIV-2/A5401 platform trial, we showed that high anterior nasal RNA levels and detectable plasma RNA were associated with delayed symptom improvement. Clinical Trials Registration. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04518410., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. L. J. H.: reports grants or contracts from NIH/NIAID 3 UM1 AI068636-16S1 and NIH/NIAID T32 AI007358 (paid to institution). K. W. C.: research funding to the institution from Merck, Sharp & Dohme (paid to institution) and Amgen (research contract with institution), consultant for Pardes Biosciences, honoraria to the author for CME presentations (not-for-profit organization) from International Antiviral Society–USA, participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) (served as Chair of a Safety Monitoring Committee for an investigator-initiated study where the sponsor is UCSF). E. S. D.: receives consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and GSK/ViiV and research support through the institution from Gilead Sciences and GSK/ViiV and reports support from NIH, including participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Gilead and ViiV. D. A. W. has received funding to the institution to support research and honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Gilead Sciences and grant or contracts from Lilly. J. Z. L. has consulted for AbbVie and received a research grant from Merck. J. J. E. is an ad hoc consultant to GSK/Vir Biotechnology and is data monitoring committee (DMC) chair for Adagio phase III studies. J. S. C. has consulted for Merck and Company and reports a leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy groups as a volunteer for the Board of Directors International Antiviral Society–USA and the Foundation Board, Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. D. M. S. has consulted for Bayer Healthcare, Fluxergy, Kiadis, Linear Therapies, Matrix BioMed, VxBiosciences, Model Medicines, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, and Pharma Holdings; has grants or contracts from NIH (DK131532, AI169609, DA047039, AI036214, AI131385, AI100665, AI126620: funding provided to institution), The James B. Pendleton Charitable Trust, and The James B. Pendleton Charitable Trust John and Mary Tu Foundation, including payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events for Medscape (COVID treatment), American Institute Continuing Medical Education (COVID treatment), and Kiadis; stock or stock options for Model Medicine, Linear Therapies, and Cv Biosciences; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writings, gifts, or other services from The James B. Pendleton Charitable Trust. T. H. E. receives consulting fees from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. C. M. reports participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for BONE START. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Lingering symptoms have been reported by survivors of Ebola virus disease (EVD). There are few data describing the persistence and severity of these symptoms over time., Methods: Symptoms of headache, fatigue, joint pain, muscle pain, hearing loss, visual loss, numbness of hands or feet were longitudinally assessed among participants in the Liberian Ebola Survivors Cohort study. Generalized linear mixed effects models, adjusted for sex and age, were used to calculate the odds of reporting a symptom and it being rated as highly interfering with life., Results: From June 2015 to June 2016, 326 survivors were enrolled a median of 389 days (range 51-614) from acute EVD. At baseline 75.2% reported at least 1 symptom; 85.8% were highly interfering with life. Over a median follow-up of 5.9 years, reporting of any symptom declined (odds ratio for each 90 days of follow-up = 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .95, .97; P < .0001) with all symptoms declining except for numbness of hands or feet. Rating of any symptom as highly interfering decreased over time. Among 311 with 5 years of follow-up, 52% (n = 161) reported a symptom and 29% (n = 47) of these as highly interfering with their lives., Conclusions: Major post-EVD symptoms are common early during convalescence and decline over time along with severity. However, even 5 years after acute infection, a majority continue to have symptoms and, for many, these continue to greatly impact their lives. These findings call for investigations to identify the mechanisms of post-EVD sequelae and therapeutic interventions to benefit the thousands of effected EVD survivors., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. The authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)