Search

Background: Treatment options for outpatients with COVID-19 could reduce morbidity and prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, three-arm (1:1:1) placebo-equivalent controlled trial conducted remotely throughout the United States, adult outpatients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned to receive hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) (400 mg BID x1day, followed by 200 mg BID x9days) with or without azithromycin (AZ) (500 mg, then 250 mg daily x4days) or placebo-equivalent (ascorbic acid (HCQ) and folic acid (AZ)), stratified by risk for progression to severe COVID-19 (high-risk vs. low-risk). Self-collected nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 PCR, FLUPro symptom surveys, EKGs and vital signs were collected daily. Primary endpoints were: (a) 14-day progression to lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalization, or death; (b) 14-day time to viral clearance; secondary endpoints included time to symptom resolution (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04354428). Due to the low rate of clinical outcomes, the study was terminated for operational futility. Findings: Between 15th April and 27th July 2020, 231 participants were enrolled and 219 initiated medication a median of 5.9 days after symptom onset. Among 129 high-risk participants, incident LRTI occurred in six (4.7%) participants (two control, four HCQ/AZ) and COVID-19 related hospitalization in seven (5.4%) (four control, one HCQ, two HCQ/AZ); no LRTI and two (2%) hospitalizations occurred in the 102 low-risk participants (one HCQ, one HCQ/AZ). There were no deaths. Among 152 participants with viral shedding at enrollment, median time to clearance was 5 days (95% CI=4–6) in HCQ, 6 days (95% CI=4–8) in HCQ/AZ, and 8 days (95% CI=6–10) in control. Viral clearance was faster in HCQ (HR=1.62, 95% CI=1.01–2.60, p = 0.047) but not HCQ/AZ (HR=1.25, p = 0.39) compared to control. Among 197 participants who met the COVID-19 definition at enrollment, time to symptom resolution did not differ by group (HCQ: HR=1.02, 95% CI-0.63–1.64, p = 0.95, HCQ/AZ: HR=0.91, 95% CI=0.57–1.45, p = 0.70). Interpretation: Neither HCQ nor HCQ/AZ shortened the clinical course of outpatients with COVID-19, and HCQ, but not HCQ/AZ, had only a modest effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding. HCQ and HCQ/AZ are not effective therapies for outpatient treatment of SARV-CoV-2 infection. Funding: The COVID-19 Early Treatment Study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-017062) through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator. University of Washington Institute of Translational Health Science (ITHS) grant support (UL1 TR002319), KL2 TR002317, and TL1 TR002318 from NCATS/NIH funded REDCap. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views, decisions, or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated. PAN and MJA were supported by the Mayo Clinic Windland Smith Rice Comprehensive Sudden Cardiac Death Program.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04354428

Background: Mathematical models are widely used to simulate the effects of interventions to control HIV and to project future epidemiological trends and resource needs. We aimed to validate past model projections against data from a large household survey done in South Africa in 2012. Methods: We compared ten model projections of HIV prevalence, HIV incidence, and antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage for South Africa with estimates from national household survey data from 2012. Model projections for 2012 were made before the publication of the 2012 household survey. We compared adult (age 15–49 years) HIV prevalence in 2012, the change in prevalence between 2008 and 2012, and prevalence, incidence, and ART coverage by sex and by age groups between model projections and the 2012 household survey. Findings: All models projected lower prevalence estimates for 2012 than the survey estimate (18·8%), with eight models' central projections being below the survey 95% CI (17·5–20·3). Eight models projected that HIV prevalence would remain unchanged (n=5) or decline (n=3) between 2008 and 2012, whereas prevalence estimates from the household surveys increased from 16·9% in 2008 to 18·8% in 2012 (difference 1·9, 95% CI −0·1 to 3·9). Model projections accurately predicted the 1·6 percentage point prevalence decline (95% CI −0·3 to 3·5) in young adults aged 15–24 years, and the 2·2 percentage point (0·5 to 3·9) increase in those aged 50 years and older. Models accurately represented the number of adults on ART in 2012; six of ten models were within the survey 95% CI of 1·54–2·12 million. However, the differential ART coverage between women and men was not fully captured; all model projections of the sex ratio of women to men on ART were lower than the survey estimate of 2·22 (95% CI 1·73–2·71). Interpretation: Projections for overall declines in HIV epidemics during the ART era might have been optimistic. Future treatment and HIV prevention needs might be greater than previously forecasted. Additional data about service provision for HIV care could help inform more accurate projections. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Background: New WHO guidelines recommend initiation of antiretroviral therapy for HIV-positive adults with CD4 counts of 500 cells per μL or less, a higher threshold than was previously recommended. Country decision makers have to decide whether to further expand eligibility for antiretroviral therapy accordingly. We aimed to assess the potential health benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of various eligibility criteria for adult antiretroviral therapy and expanded treatment coverage. Methods: We used several independent mathematical models in four settings—South Africa (generalised epidemic, moderate antiretroviral therapy coverage), Zambia (generalised epidemic, high antiretroviral therapy coverage), India (concentrated epidemic, moderate antiretroviral therapy coverage), and Vietnam (concentrated epidemic, low antiretroviral therapy coverage)—to assess the potential health benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of various eligibility criteria for adult antiretroviral therapy under scenarios of existing and expanded treatment coverage, with results projected over 20 years. Analyses assessed the extension of eligibility to include individuals with CD4 counts of 500 cells per μL or less, or all HIV-positive adults, compared with the previous (2010) recommendation of initiation with CD4 counts of 350 cells per μL or less. We assessed costs from a health-system perspective, and calculated the incremental cost (in US$) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted to compare competing strategies. Strategies were regarded very cost effective if the cost per DALY averted was less than the country's 2012 per-head gross domestic product (GDP; South Africa: $8040; Zambia: $1425; India: $1489; Vietnam: $1407) and cost effective if the cost per DALY averted was less than three times the per-head GDP. Findings: In South Africa, the cost per DALY averted of extending eligibility for antiretroviral therapy to adult patients with CD4 counts of 500 cells per μL or less ranged from $237 to $1691 per DALY averted compared with 2010 guidelines. In Zambia, expansion of eligibility to adults with a CD4 count threshold of 500 cells per μL ranged from improving health outcomes while reducing costs (ie, dominating the previous guidelines) to $749 per DALY averted. In both countries results were similar for expansion of eligibility to all HIV-positive adults, and when substantially expanded treatment coverage was assumed. Expansion of treatment coverage in the general population was also cost effective. In India, the cost for extending eligibility to all HIV-positive adults ranged from $131 to $241 per DALY averted, and in Vietnam extending eligibility to patients with CD4 counts of 500 cells per μL or less cost $290 per DALY averted. In concentrated epidemics, expanded access for key populations was also cost effective. Interpretation: Our estimates suggest that earlier eligibility for antiretroviral therapy is very cost effective in low-income and middle-income settings, although these estimates should be revisited when more data become available. Scaling up antiretroviral therapy through earlier eligibility and expanded coverage should be considered alongside other high-priority health interventions competing for health budgets. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, WHO.