Search

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1. Supplementary Quotes – In-Depth Interviews with Racial, Ethnic, Sex and Gender Diverse HIV Serodifferent Couples (United States, 2020).

IntroductionThe impact of colchicine on hospitalized patients with Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) related cardiac injury is unknown.Materials and MethodsIn this multicenter randomized controlled open-label clinical trial, we randomized hospitalized adult patients with documented COVID-19 and evidence of cardiac injury in a 1:1 ratio to either colchicine 0.6 mg po twice daily for 30 days plus standard of care or standard of care alone. Cardiac injury was defined as elevated cardiac biomarkers, new arrhythmia, new/worsened left ventricular dysfunction, or new pericardial effusion. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, or need for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) at 90 days. Key secondary endpoints included the individual components of the primary endpoint and change in and at least 2-grade reduction in the World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale at 30 days. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04355143).ResultsWe enrolled 93 patients, 48 patients in the colchicine arm and 45 in the control arm. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the colchicine and control arms (19 vs. 15%, p = 0.78), nor in the individual components of all-cause mortality (17 vs. 15%, p = 1.0) and need for mechanical ventilation (8 vs. 5%, p = 0.68); no patients in either group required MCS. The change in (−1.8 ± 2.4 vs. −1.2 ± 2.0, p = 0.12) and at least 2-grade reduction (75 vs. 75%, p = 1.0) in the WHO ordinal scale was also similar between groups.ConclusionPatients hospitalized with COVID-19 and evidence of cardiac injury did not benefit from colchicine therapy.

The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.

Background: Background: Analytical treatment interruptions (ATIs) in HIV cure-related research can result in trial participants becoming viremic with HIV, placing HIV-negative sexual partners at elevated risk of acquiring HIV. Objective: Objective:Our study aimed to generate ethical and practical considerations for designing and implementing appropriate risk mitigation strategies to reduce unintended HIV transmission events during ATIs. Methods: Methods: We conducted 21 in-depth interviews with five types of informants: bioethicists, community members, biomedical HIV cure researchers, socio-behavioral scientists/epidemiologists, and HIV care providers. We used conventional content analysis to analyze the data and generate considerations. Results: Results: Key findings include: 1) Ethical permissibility of ATI trials depends on due diligence and informed consent to mitigate risks to participants and their sexual partners; 2) Participants should receive adequate support and/or counseling if they choose to disclose ATI participation to their partners; 3) Measures to protect sexual partners of trial participants from HIV transmission during ATIs should include referral to and/or provision of pre-exposure prophylaxis, as well as other available means of preventing HIV transmission; 4) There is uncertainty regarding the appropriate management of emerging sexually transmitted infections during ATI trials and possible protection measures for multiple and/or anonymous partners of ATI trial participants. Conclusion: Conclusion: While there is no way to completely eliminate the risk of HIV transmission to sexual partners during ATIs, HIV cure trialists and sponsors should consider the ethical concerns related to the sexual partners of ATI participants. Doing so is essential to ensuring the welfare of participants, their partners and the trustworthiness of research.

A growing body of research is beginning to elucidate reasons people living with HIV (PLWHIV) might prefer oral daily antiretroviral treatment (ART) compared with emerging long-acting ART (LA-ART) or HIV remission strategies under investigation. Our objective is to provide qualitative insights into the reasons why PLWHIV might prefer one of these HIV control therapies over others. From May to August 2018, we implemented a semistructured cross-sectional survey of PLWHIV in the United States to better understand patient preferences around various HIV treatment and remission options. Using free text, respondents were asked to explain why they preferred one HIV control option over the other two. We analyzed responses to the open-ended survey questions on reasons for preferring oral daily ART versus LA-ART versus HIV remission strategies using conventional content analysis. The results showed that PLWHIV preferred oral daily ART because of its familiarity and known safety and efficacy profile, whereas those who preferred LA-ART would value the convenience it offers. Finally, HIV remission strategies would be preferred to avoid taking ART altogether. The qualitative results provide insights into reasons why PLWHIV in the United States might prefer oral daily ART versus novel therapies. More importantly, they provide information to better align HIV virological control strategies with end-user perspectives. To make informed choices around evolving HIV therapeutics, PLWHIV and HIV care providers would benefit from decision tools to better assess options and trade-offs. More research is needed on how best to effectively support PLWHIV and HIV care providers in shared decision-making.

For all (n=14) papers included in the review, this table summarises the intervention, study design, sample selection and size, methods, primary and other outcomes, timing of outcome measurements and study quality (assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2011)

Salmonella Typhi is a human host-restricted pathogen that is responsible for typhoid fever in approximately 10.9 million people annually1. The typhoid toxin is postulated to have a central role in disease pathogenesis, the establishment of chronic infection and human host restriction2-6. However, its precise role in typhoid disease in humans is not fully defined. We studied the role of typhoid toxin in acute infection using a randomized, double-blind S. Typhi human challenge model7. Forty healthy volunteers were randomized (1:1) to oral challenge with 104 colony-forming units of wild-type or an isogenic typhoid toxin deletion mutant (TN) of S. Typhi. We observed no significant difference in the rate of typhoid infection (fever ≥38 °C for ≥12 h and/or S. Typhi bacteremia) between participants challenged with wild-type or TN S. Typhi (15 out of 21 (71%) versus 15 out of 19 (79%); P = 0.58). The duration of bacteremia was significantly longer in participants challenged with the TN strain compared with wild-type (47.6 hours (28.9-97.0) versus 30.3(3.6-49.4); P ≤ 0.001). The clinical syndrome was otherwise indistinguishable between wild-type and TN groups. These data suggest that the typhoid toxin is not required for infection and the development of early typhoid fever symptoms within the context of a human challenge model. Further clinical data are required to assess the role of typhoid toxin in severe disease or the establishment of bacterial carriage.

Salmonella Typhi is a human host-restricted pathogen that is responsible for typhoid fever in approximately 10.9 million people annually1. The typhoid toxin is postulated to have a central role in disease pathogenesis, the establishment of chronic infection and human host restriction2–6. However, its precise role in typhoid disease in humans is not fully defined. We studied the role of typhoid toxin in acute infection using a randomized, double-blind S. Typhi human challenge model7. Forty healthy volunteers were randomized (1:1) to oral challenge with 104 colony-forming units of wild-type or an isogenic typhoid toxin deletion mutant (TN) of S. Typhi. We observed no significant difference in the rate of typhoid infection (fever ≥38 °C for ≥12 h and/or S. Typhi bacteremia) between participants challenged with wild-type or TN S. Typhi (15 out of 21 (71%) versus 15 out of 19 (79%); P = 0.58). The duration of bacteremia was significantly longer in participants challenged with the TN strain compared with wild-type (47.6 hours (28.9–97.0) versus 30.3(3.6–49.4); P ≤ 0.001). The clinical syndrome was otherwise indistinguishable between wild-type and TN groups. These data suggest that the typhoid toxin is not required for infection and the development of early typhoid fever symptoms within the context of a human challenge model. Further clinical data are required to assess the role of typhoid toxin in severe disease or the establishment of bacterial carriage., Typhoid toxin is not essential for the pathogenesis of typhoid fever in healthy humans challenged with Salmonella Typhi.