Search

Investment, collaboration, and coordination have been key

Background There is an incompletely understood increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) among people with HIV (PWH). We investigated if a collection of biomarkers were associated with CVD among PWH. Mendelian randomization (MR) was used to identify potentially causal associations. Methods Data from follow-up in 4 large trials among PWH were used to identify 131 incident CVD cases and they were matched to 259 participants without incident CVD (controls). Tests of associations between 460 baseline protein levels and case status were conducted. Results Univariate analysis found CLEC6A, HGF, IL-6, IL-10RB, and IGFBP7 as being associated with case status and a multivariate model identified 3 of these: CLEC6A (odds ratio [OR] = 1.48, P = .037), HGF (OR = 1.83, P = .012), and IL-6 (OR = 1.45, P = .016). MR methods identified 5 significantly associated proteins: AXL, CHI3L1, GAS6, IL-6RA, and SCGB3A2. Conclusions These results implicate inflammatory and fibrotic processes as contributing to CVD. While some of these biomarkers are well established in the general population and in PWH (IL-6 and its receptor), some are novel to PWH (HGF, AXL, and GAS6) and some are novel overall (CLEC6A). Further investigation into the uniqueness of these biomarkers in PWH and the role of these biomarkers as targets among PWH is warranted.

PurposePrevious SPECT and PET semi-quantitative in vivo imaging studies in monkeys have demonstrated specific uptake of radiolabeled rhesus recombinant anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody fragment CD4R1-F(ab΄)2in the spleen and clusters of lymph nodes (LNs) but yielded conflicting results of imaging the gut CD4 + T-cell pool. Here, using PET dynamic imaging with kinetic analysis, we performed a fully quantitative CD4 imaging in rhesus macaques.MethodsThe biodistributions of [89Zr]Zr-CD4R1-F(ab΄)2and/or of [89Zr]Zr-ibalizumab were performed with static PET scans up to 144 h (6 days) post-injection in 18 rhesus macaques with peripheral blood CD4 + T cells/μl ranging from ~ 20 to 2400. Fully quantitative analysis with a 4-h dynamic scan, arterial sampling, metabolite evaluation, and model fitting was performed in three immunocompetent monkeys to estimate the binding potential of CD4 receptors in the LNs, spleen, and gut.ResultsThe biodistributions of [89Zr]Zr-CD4R1-F(ab΄)2and [89Zr]Zr-ibalizumab were similar in lymphoid tissues with a clear delineation of the CD4 pool in the LNs and spleen and a significant difference in lymphoid tissue uptake between immunocompetent and immunocompromised macaques. Consistent with our previous SPECT imaging of [99mTc]Tc-CD4R1-F(ab΄)2, the [89Zr]Zr-CD4R1-F(ab΄)2and [89Zr]Zr-Ibalizumab uptakes in the gut were low and not different between uninfected and SIV-infected CD4-depleted monkeys. Ex vivo studies of large and small intestines confirmed the in vivo images.ConclusionThe majority of specific binding to CD4 + tissue was localized to LNs and spleen with minimal uptake in the gut. Binding potential derived from fully quantitative studies revealed that the contribution of the gut is lower than the spleen’s contribution to the total body CD4 pool.

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

HIV prevalence in Indonesia is increasing, and only 64% of infected individuals know their status. In a prospective cohort of 1,453 hospitalized patients with unexplained fever, 46 (3.2%) had HIV, including 15 (1.1%) patients without a prior HIV diagnosis. Among 31 subjects previously known to have HIV, 21 (68%) had been receiving combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) at the time of enrollment. Of 39 HIV cases with HIV RNA levels ≥ 100 copies/mL, sequencing for genotype analysis and resistance testing was successful in 30 (77%) subjects. The most common HIV subtypes were AE (90%) and B (10%). Five (16.7%) subjects had resistance mutations to nucleoside and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and all of them were on cART. No evidence of transmitted drug resistance was found in newly diagnosed individuals. Hospital-based screening may be an efficient method to expand HIV testing and identify a significant number of new cases. Access to care, close monitoring, expansion of anti-retroviral options, and ensuring availability of CD4 determinations, viral load testing, and genotyping are crucial to control of the epidemic in Indonesia.

Background ACTT-1 demonstrated clinical efficacy of remdesivir (RDV) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19; subgroup analyses suggested those most likely to benefit presented with milder clinical illness. To further clarify what subsets of hospitalized patients might benefit from RDV, we analyzed virological and immunological biomarkers in this previously reported cohort. Methods Serum and upper respiratory tract (URT) swabs were collected on Day 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11 while hospitalized; Day 15 and 29 as able were collected and tested for quantitative RNA (URT and plasma), serum nucleoprotein (NPR), IL-6, CRP through Day 6, and serostatus (baseline only). Participants with a baseline and at least one subsequent sample were used in this analysis. Associations of all these biomarkers with clinical outcomes (mortality, recovery) and response to therapy were assessed. Of the 1062 participants in ACTT-1, 642 had baseline and at least one subsequent sample within 6 days of randomization (Fig 1, Table 1). Results RDV-treated patients with moderate/severe disease who had elevated baseline NPR levels recovered faster (RRR 1.95 vs 1.04, p = 0.01); similar trends were noted for plasma and URT RNA levels (Fig 2A); mortality treatment effects by viral load subgroups (high or low) were not seen (Fig 2B). In patients with less severe illness, RDV treatment was associated with an accelerated decline in NPR (difference -0.062 log10 pg/ml per day, p = 0.003) and plasma RNA levels (difference -0.040 log10 pg/ml per day, p = 0.004. Fig 3A), and a decrease in the proportion of patients with increasing and/or persistent viral loads (Fig 3B). Patients with increasing/persistent viral loads also took longer to recover than those with decreasing viral loads, irrespective of disease severity: RRR for plasma RNA 0.45, 95% CI 0.28–0.73, RRR for NPR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22–0.88 for moderate/severe disease; RRR for plasma RNA 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 – 0.70, RRR for NPR n.e. (no recoveries) for critical disease (Fig 4). Conclusion Our study demonstrates a systemic antiviral effect of remdesivir, shows the prognostic value of viral and immunologic biomarkers for mortality and failure to recover, and identifies a group of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 most likely to benefit from remdesivir treatment. Disclosures Kevin Rubenstein, MS, Frederick National Laboratory: Funded by the NCI Contract No. 75N91019D00024 Viviane Callier, PhD, Frederick National Laboratory: Funded by the NCI Contract No. 75N91019D00024 Adam Rupert, n/a, Frederick National Laboratory: Funded by the NCI Contract No. 75N91019D00024 Robin L. Dewar, PhD, Frederick National Laboratory: Funded by the NCI Contract No. 75N91019D00024 Sylvain Laverdure, n/a, Frederick National Laboratory: Funded by the NCI Contract No. 75N91019D00024 Helene Highbarger, n/a, Frederick National Laboratory: Funded by the NCI Contract No. 75N91019D00024 Perrine Lallemand, n/a, Frederick National Laboratory: Funded by the NCI Contract No. 75N91019D00024 Danielle P. Porter, PhD, Gilead: Stocks/Bonds Kavita Juneja, n/a, Gilead Sciences: Employee Alexander L. Greninger, MD, PhD, Abbott: Contract testing|Cepheid: Contract testing|Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Hologic: Contract testing|Janssen: Contract testing|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Novavax: Contract testing|Pfizer: Contract testing.

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

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

Summary Background Infection with influenza virus causes substantial morbidity and mortality globally, although antiviral treatments are available. Previous studies have suggested that anti-influenza immune plasma could be beneficial as treatment, but they were not designed as randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trials. Therefore, we aimed to prospectively evaluate the clinical efficacy of high-titre immune plasma compared with standard low-titre plasma to improve outcomes in patients with severe influenza A infection. Methods We did this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial at 41 US medical centres to assess the efficacy of high-titre anti-influenza plasma (haemagglutination inhibition antibody titre ≥1:80) compared with low-titre plasma (≤1:10). Children and adults with PCR-confirmed influenza A infection, a National Early Warning score of 3 or greater, and onset of illness within 6 days before randomisation were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using an interactive web response system to receive either two units (or paediatric equivalent) of high-titre plasma (high-titre group) or low-titre plasma (low-titre group), and were followed up for 28 days from randomisation. High-titre and low-titre plasma had the same appearance. Randomisation was stratified by severity (in intensive care unit, not in intensive care but requiring supplemental oxygen, or not in intensive care and not requiring supplemental oxygen) and age ( 1 indicates improvement in clinical status across all categories for the high-titre vs the low-titre group). The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population, excluding two participants who did not receive plasma. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02572817 . Findings Participants were recruited between Jan 26, 2016, and April 19, 2018. Of 200 participants enrolled (177 adults and 23 children), 140 met the criteria for randomisation and were assigned to the high-titre group (n=92) or to the control low-titre group (n=48). One participant from each group did not receive plasma. At baseline, 60 (43%) of 138 participants were in intensive care and 55 (71%) of 78 participants who were not in intensive care required oxygen. 93% of planned plasma infusions were completed. The study was terminated in July, 2018, when independent efficacy analysis showed low conditional power to detect an effect of high-titre plasma even if full accrual (150 participants) was achieved. The proportional OR for improved clinical status on day 7 was 1·22 (95% CI 0·65–2·29, p=0·54). 47 (34%) of 138 participants experienced 88 serious adverse events: 32 (35%) with 60 events in the high-titre group and 15 (32%) with 28 events in the low-titre group. The most common serious adverse events were acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS; four [4%] vs two [4%]), allergic transfusion reactions (two [2%] vs two [4%]), and respiratory distress (three [3%] vs none). 65 (47%) participants experienced 183 adverse events: 42 (46%) with 126 events in the high-titre group and 23 (49%) with 57 events in the low-titre group. The most common adverse events were anaemia (four [3%] vs two [4%]) and ARDS (four [3%] vs three [5%]). Ten patients died during the study (six [7%] in the high-titre group vs four [9%] in the low-titre group, p=0·73). The most common cause of death was worsening of acute respiratory distress syndrome (two [2%] vs two [4%] patients). Interpretation High-titre anti-influenza plasma conferred no significant benefit over non-immune plasma. Although our study did not have the precision to rule out a small, clinically relevant effect, the benefit is insufficient to justify the use of immune plasma for treating patients with severe influenza A. Funding National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, MD, USA).

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

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

Background Ebola virus RNA persists in the semen of male Ebola survivors for months to years after the acute infection, and male-to-female sexual transmission of the virus is well documented. We investigated whether remdesivir can safely reduce persistence of seminal Ebola virus RNA. Methods We recruited men with persistent seminal Ebola RNA in Liberia and Guinea. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous remdesivir (GS-5734; Gilead Sciences) or matching placebo administered once daily by intravenous infusion over 1 hour on 5 consecutive days. Stratification was by country and number of positive (1 or 2) preenrollment semen tests. We evaluated the difference in mean assay negativity rate (ANR), that is, the proportion of negative tests for each participant in each group in the treatment (days 1–28) and follow-up (months 2–6) phases on an intention-to-treat basis. Results We enrolled 38 men from July 2016 through June 2018. The mean treatment phase ANRs were 85% (standard deviation [SD] = 24%) and 76% (SD = 30%) in the remdesivir and placebo arms, respectively (P = .270). The mean follow-up phase ANRs were 96% (SD = 10%) and 81% (SD = 29%) in the remdesivir and placebo arms, respectively (P = .041). The 5-day remdesivir regimen was well tolerated with no safety concerns. Conclusions In this small trial, remdesivir 100 mg/day for 5 days safely reduced the presence of Ebola virus RNA in the semen of Ebola survivors 2 to 6 months after administration. A larger follow-up study is necessary to confirm results. Clinical Trials Registration . NCT02818582

Objectives Elevated levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), D-dimer, and C-reactive protein (hsCRP) are associated with increased incidence of comorbid disease and mortality among people living with HIV (PLWH). Prior studies suggest a genetic basis for these biomarker elevations in the general population. The study objectives are to identify the genetic basis for these biomarkers among PLWH. Methods Baseline levels of hsCRP, D-dimer and IL-6, and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were determined for 7,768 participants in three HIV treatment trials. Single variant analysis was performed for each biomarker on samples from each of three ethnic groups (African [AFR], Admixed American [AMR], European [EUR]) within each trial including covariates relevant to biomarker levels. For each ethnic group, the results were pooled across trials, then further pooled across ethnicities. Results The transethnic analysis identified three, two and one known loci associated with hsCRP, D-dimer and IL-6 levels, respectively, and two novel loci, FGB and GCNT1, associated with D-dimer levels. Lead SNPs exhibited similar effects across ethnicities. Additionally, three novel, ethnic-specific loci were identified: CATSPERG associated with D-dimer in AFR and PROX1-AS1 and TRAPPC9 associated with IL-6 in AFR and AMR, respectively. Conclusions Eleven loci associated with three biomarker levels were identified in PLWH from the three studies including six loci known in the general population and five novel loci associated with D-dimer and IL-6 levels. These findings support the hypothesis that host genetics may partially contribute to chronic inflammation in PLWH and help to identify potential targets for intervention of serious non-AIDS complications.

Background It remains unclear if there is a dose-dependent relationship between exposure risk to Ebola virus (EBOV) and severity of illness. Methods From September 2016 to July 2017, we conducted a cross-sectional, community-based study of Ebola virus disease (EVD) cases and household contacts of several transmission chains in Kono District, Sierra Leone. We analyzed 154 quarantined households, comprising both reported EVD cases and their close contacts. We used epidemiological surveys and blood samples to define severity of illness as no infection, pauci-/asymptomatic infection, unrecognized EVD, reported EVD cases who survived, or reported EVD decedents. We determine seropositivity with the Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group EBOV glycoprotein immunoglobulin G antibody test. We defined levels of exposure risk from 8 questions and considered contact with body fluid as maximum exposure risk. Results Our analysis included 76 reported EVD cases (both decedents and survivors) and 421 close contacts. Among these contacts, 40 were seropositive (22 paucisymptomatic and 18 unrecognized EVD), accounting for 34% of the total 116 EBOV infections. Higher exposure risks were associated with having had EBOV infection (maximum risk: adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 12.1 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 5.8–25.4; trend test: P Conclusions This community-based study of EVD cases and contacts provides epidemiological evidence of a dose-dependent relationship between exposure risk and severity of illness, which may partially explain why pauci-/asymptomatic EBOV infection, less severe disease, and unrecognized EVD occurs.

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

Background/aims Safe and effective therapies for COVID-19 are urgently needed. In order to meet this need, the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines public–private partnership initiated the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19. Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 is a multi-arm, multi-stage platform master protocol, which facilitates the rapid evaluation of the safety and efficacy of novel candidate antiviral therapeutic agents for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Five agents have so far entered the protocol, with rapid answers already provided for three of these. Other agents are expected to enter the protocol throughout 2021. This protocol contains a number of key design and implementation features that, along with challenges faced by the protocol team, are presented and discussed. Methods Three clinical trial networks, encompassing a global network of clinical sites, participated in the protocol development and implementation. Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 utilizes a multi-arm, multi-stage design with an agile and robust approach to futility and safety evaluation at 300 patients enrolled, with subsequent expansion to full sample size and an expanded target population if the agent shows an acceptable safety profile and evidence of efficacy. Rapid recruitment to multiple agents is enabled through the sharing of placebo, the confining of agent-specific information to protocol appendices, and modular consent forms. In collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration, a thorough safety data collection and Data and Safety Monitoring Board schedule was developed for the study of potential therapeutic agents with limited in-human data in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Results As of 8 August 2021, five agents have entered the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 master protocol and a total of 1909 participants have been randomized to one of these agents or matching placebo. There were a number of challenges faced by the study team that needed to be overcome in order to successfully implement Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 across a global network of sites. These included ensuring drug supply and reliable recruitment allowing for changing infection rates across the global network of sites, the need to balance the collection of data and samples without overburdening clinical staff and obtaining regulatory approvals across a global network of sites. Conclusion Through a robust multi-network partnership, the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 protocol has been successfully used across a global network of sites for rapid generation of efficacy data on multiple novel antiviral agents. The protocol design and implementation features used in this protocol, and the approaches to address challenges, will have broader applicability. Mechanisms to facilitate improved communication and harmonization among country-specific regulatory bodies are required to achieve the full potential of this approach in dealing with a global outbreak.

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

Rationale: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to difficulty in efficacy endpoint selection for therapeutic trials. Capturing outcomes that occur after hospital discharge may improve assessment of clinical recovery among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Objectives: Evaluate 90-day clinical course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, comparing three distinct definitions of recovery. Methods: We used pooled data from three clinical trials of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to compare: 1) the hospital discharge approach; 2) the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19) trials sustained recovery approach; and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-ICU setting without organ failure or major extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. We defined discordance as a difference between time to recovery. Measurements and Main Results: Discordance between the hospital discharge and comprehensive approaches occurred in 170 (20%) of 850 enrolled participants, including 126 hospital readmissions and 24 deaths after initial hospital discharge. Discordant participants were older (median age, 68 vs. 59 years; P

Four Decades of HIV/AIDS Considering the spectacular scientific advances that have been made over nearly four decades, it is conceivable that with optimal implementation of available prevention str...

Significance In HIV-infected patients on combination antiretroviral therapy (cART), greater than 95% of proviruses in the peripheral blood are “defective.” Historically, these defective proviruses have been thought to be dead-end products with no real pathophysiological significance, as they do not encode replication-competent viruses. Contrary to this view, we have identified cells in tissue culture and from cART-treated patients that harbor defective proviruses and produce viral proteins. Features found in these translationally competent yet defective proviruses suggest that HIV-1 infection results in modification of the CD4+ T cell genome analogous to human endogenous retroviruses. We propose that these defective HIV-1 proviruses are biologically significant, despite being “replication incompetent,” have the potential to elicit immune activation, and may serve as a barrier to HIV-1 cure., HIV-1 proviruses persist in the CD4+ T cells of HIV-infected individuals despite years of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) with suppression of HIV-1 RNA levels

BackgroundUnderstanding the genetic interplay between human hosts and infectious pathogens is crucial for how we interpret virulence factors. Here, we tested for associations between HIV and host genetics, and interactive genetic effects on viral load (VL) in HIV-positive antiretroviral treatment-naive clinical trial participants.MethodsHIV genomes were sequenced and the encoded amino acid (AA) variants were associated with VL, human single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and imputed HLA alleles using generalized linear models with Bonferroni correction.ResultsHuman (388 501 SNPs) and HIV (3010 variants) genetic data were available for 2122 persons. Four HIV variants were associated with VL (P ConclusionsOur results show the importance of immunotype specificity on viral antigenic determinants, and the identified genetic interplay emphasizes that viral and human genetics should be studied in the context of each other.Clinical Trials Registration: NCT00867048.

BackgroundThe value of the soluble receptor for advanced glycation end-products (sRAGE) as a biomarker in COVID-19 is not well understood. We tested the association between plasma sRAGE and illness severity, viral burden, and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who were not mechanically ventilated.MethodsBaseline sRAGE was measured among participants enrolled in the ACTIV-3/TICO trial of bamlanivimab for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess the relationship between sRAGE and other plasma biomarkers, including viral nucleocapsid antigen. Fine-Gray models adjusted for baseline supplemental oxygen requirement, antigen level, positive endogenous anti-nucleocapsid antibody response, sex, age, BMI, diabetes mellitus, renal impairment, corticosteroid treatment, and log2-transformed IL-6 level were used to assess the association between baseline sRAGE and time to sustained recovery. Cox regression adjusted for the same factors was used to assess the association between sRAGE and mortality.ResultsAmong 277 participants, baseline sRAGE was strongly correlated with viral plasma antigen concentration (ρ = 0.57). There was a weaker correlation between sRAGE and biomarkers of systemic inflammation, such as IL-6 (ρ = 0.36) and CRP (ρ = 0.20). Participants with plasma sRAGE in the highest quartile had a significantly lower rate of sustained recovery (adjusted recovery rate ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.43-0.90]) and a higher unadjusted risk of death (HR, 4.70 [95% CI, 2.01-10.99]) compared with participants in the lower quartiles.ConclusionElevated plasma sRAGE in hospitalized, nonventilated patients with COVID-19 was an indicator of both clinical illness severity and plasma viral load. Plasma sRAGE in the highest quartile was associated with a lower likelihood of sustained recovery and higher unadjusted risk of death. These findings, which we believe to be novel, indicate that plasma sRAGE may be a promising biomarker for COVID-19 prognostication and clinical trial enrichment.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04501978.FundingNIH (5T32GM008440-24, 18X107CF6, HHSN261201500003I, R35HL140026, and OT2HL156812).

Recently, a genome-wide association study using plasma HIV RNA from antiretroviral therapy-naive patients reported that 14 naturally occurring nonsynonymous single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in HIV derived from antiretrovirus drug-naive patients were associated with virus load (VL). Those SNPs were detected in reverse transcriptase, RNase H, integrase, envelope, and Nef. However, the impact of each mutation on viral fitness was not investigated. Here, we constructed a series of HIV variants encoding each SNP and examined their replicative abilities. An HIV variant containing a Met-to-Ile change at codon 50 in integrase [HIV(IN:M50I)] was found as an impaired virus. Despite the mutation being in integrase, the virus release was significantly suppressed (P

Research in the Context of a Pandemic Clifford Lane and Anthony Fauci comment on the findings of the RECOVERY trial of dexamethasone to treat Covid-19, noting that scientifically robust and ethical...

In March 2020, the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel began developing evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19. In this article, Panel members summarize some of the lessons learned from their first year of work., 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.

ObjectivesWith the goal of facilitating the use of HIV-TRePS to optimize therapy in settings with limited healthcare resources, we aimed to develop computational models to predict treatment responses accurately in the absence of commonly used baseline data.MethodsTwelve sets of random forest models were trained using very large, global datasets to predict either the probability of virological response (classifier models) or the absolute change in viral load in response to a new regimen (absolute models) following virological failure. Two ‘standard’ models were developed with all baseline variables present and 10 others developed without HIV genotype, time on therapy, CD4 count or any combination of the above.ResultsThe standard classifier models achieved an AUC of 0.89 in cross-validation and independent testing. Models with missing variables achieved AUC values of 0.78–0.90. The standard absolute models made predictions that correlated significantly with observed changes in viral load with a mean absolute error of 0.65 log10 copies HIV RNA/mL in cross-validation and 0.69 log10 copies HIV RNA/mL in independent testing. Models with missing variables achieved values of 0.65–0.75 log10 copies HIV RNA/mL. All models identified alternative regimens that were predicted to be effective for the vast majority of cases where the new regimen prescribed in the clinic failed. All models were significantly better predictors of treatment response than genotyping with rules-based interpretation.ConclusionsThese latest models that predict treatment responses accurately, even when a number of baseline variables are not available, are a major advance with greatly enhanced potential benefit, particularly in resource-limited settings. The only obstacle to realizing this potential is the willingness of healthcare professions to use the system.

Background The PD1/PD-L1 pathway contributes to the pathogenesis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) infection, and blockade of this pathway may have potential to restore immune function and promote viral control or elimination. In this study, we combined a checkpoint inhibitor anti-PD-L1 (Avelumab) and recombinant human interleukin-15 (rhIL-15) in SIV-infected rhesus macaques (RM). Methods The rhIL-15 was administered as continuous infusion in 2 cycles of 10 days in the context of weekly administration of anti-PD-L1 (Avelumab) in SIV-infected RM receiving combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). Safety, immunological parameters, and viral loads were monitored during the study. Results Administration of rhIL-15/anti-PD-L1 was safe and well tolerated. Treatment resulted in transient increases in proliferating (Ki67+) natural killer and CD8 T cells. In addition, treatment expanded a CXCR3+PD1−/low CD8 T-cell subset with the ability to secrete cytokines. Despite these effects, no changes in plasma viremia were observed after cART interruption. Conclusions Expansion of the CXCR3+PD1−/low CD8 T-cell subset with functional capacity and potential to traffic to sites of viral reservoirs in SIV-infected rhesus macaques had no demonstrable effect on plasma viremia after cART interruption.