Search

The language we use in our scientific communications can either empower or stigmatize the people we study and care for. Clinical Infectious Diseases is committed to prioritizing the use of inclusive, nonstigmatizing language in published manuscripts. We hereby call upon submitting authors, reviewers, and editors to do the same.

Background Treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (NMV-r) in high-risk nonhospitalized unvaccinated patients reduced the risk of progression to severe disease. However, the potential benefits of NMV-r among vaccinated patients are unclear. Methods We conducted a comparative retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX research network. Patients ≥18 years of age who were vaccinated and subsequently developed COVID-19 between 1 December 2021 and 18 April 2022 were included. Cohorts were developed based on the use of NMV-r within 5 days of diagnosis. The primary composite outcome was all-cause emergency room (ER) visit, hospitalization, or death at a 30-day follow-up. Secondary outcomes included individual components of primary outcomes, multisystem symptoms, COVID-19–associated complications, and diagnostic test utilization. Results After propensity score matching, 1130 patients remained in each cohort. A primary composite outcome of all-cause ER visits, hospitalization, or death in 30 days occurred in 89 (7.87%) patients in the NMV-r cohort compared with 163 (14.4%) patients in the non–NMV-r cohort (odds ratio: .5; 95% confidence interval: .39–.67; P < .005) consistent with 45% relative risk reduction. A significant reduction in multisystem symptom burden and subsequent complications, such as lower respiratory tract infection, cardiac arrhythmia, and diagnostic radiology testing, were noted in NMV-r–treated patients. There was no apparent increase in serious complications between days 10 and 30. Conclusions Treatment with NMV-r in nonhospitalized vaccinated patients with COVID-19 was associated with a reduced likelihood of ER visits, hospitalization, or death. Complications and overall resource utilization were also decreased.

We investigated the prevalence of preexisting M184V/I and associated risk factors among clinical trial participants with suppressed HIV and evaluated the impact of M184V/I on virologic response after switching to bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF).Participant data were pooled from six clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of switching to B/F/TAF in virologically suppressed people with HIV.Preexisting drug resistance was assessed by historical genotypes and/or baseline proviral DNA genotyping. Virologic outcomes were determined by last available on-treatment HIV-1 RNA. Stepwise selection identified potential risk factors for M184V/I in a multivariate logistic regression model.Altogether, 2034 participants switched treatment regimens to B/F/TAF and had follow-up HIV-1 RNA data, and 1825 of these participants had baseline genotypic data available. Preexisting M184V/I was identified in 182 (10%), mostly by baseline proviral DNA genotype ( n = 167). Most substitutions were M184V ( n = 161) or M184V/I mixtures ( n = 10). Other resistance substitutions were often detected in addition to M184V/I ( n = 147). At last on-treatment visit, 98% (179/182) with preexisting M184V/I and 99% (2012/2034) of all B/F/TAF-treated participants had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml, with no treatment-emergent resistance to B/F/TAF. Among adult participants, factors associated with preexisting M184V/I included other resistance, black race, Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, lower baseline CD4 + cell count, advanced HIV disease, longer duration of antiretroviral therapy, and greater number of prior third agents.M184V/I was detected in 10% of virologically suppressed clinical trial participants at study baseline. Switching to B/F/TAF demonstrated durable efficacy in maintaining viral suppression, including in those with preexisting M184V/I.

BackgroundThe role of Nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (NMV-r) in preventing post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) is unknown. The objective of this study is to assess the effect of NMV-r in non-hospitalized, vaccinated patients on the occurrence of PASC.MethodsWe performed a comparative retrospective cohort study utilizing data from the TriNetX research network, including vaccinated patients ≥18 years old who subsequently developed Covid-19 between December 2021-April 2022. Cohorts were based on NMV-r administration within five days of diagnosis. Based on previously validated broad and narrow definitions, the main outcome was the presence of symptoms associated with PASC. Outcomes were assessed between 30-180 days and 90-180 days after the index Covid-19 infection.Results1,004 patients remained in each cohort after propensity-score matching. PASC (broad definition) occurred in 425 patients (42%) in the NMV-r cohort, vs. 480 patients (48%) in the control cohort (OR 0.8 CI 0.67-0.96; p=0.01) from 30-180 days and in 273 patients (27%) in the NMV-r cohort, as compared to 347 patients (35%) in the control cohort (OR 0.707, CI 0.59-0.86; pConclusionsNMV-r treatment in non-hospitalized vaccinated patients with Covid-19 was associated with a reduction in the development of symptoms commonly observed with PASC and healthcare utilization.Key PointsAssessment of Nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (NMV-r) in preventing post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), based on broad and narrow definitions in non-hospitalized, vaccinated patients between 30-180 days and 90-180 days.

ImportanceRecent advances in treatment and prevention of HIV warrant updated recommendations to guide optimal practice.ObjectiveBased on a critical evaluation of new data, to provide clinicians with recommendations on use of antiretroviral drugs for the treatment and prevention of HIV, laboratory monitoring, care of people aging with HIV, substance use disorder and HIV, and new challenges in people with HIV, including COVID-19 and monkeypox virus infection.Evidence ReviewA panel of volunteer expert physician scientists were appointed to update the 2020 consensus recommendations. Relevant evidence in the literature (PubMed and Embase searches, which initially yielded 7891 unique citations, of which 834 were considered relevant) and studies presented at peer-reviewed scientific conferences between January 2020 and October 2022 were considered.FindingsInitiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) is recommended as soon as possible after diagnosis of HIV. Barriers to care should be addressed, including ensuring access to ART and adherence support. Integrase strand transfer inhibitor–containing regimens remain the mainstay of initial therapy. For people who have achieved viral suppression with a daily oral regimen, long-acting injectable therapy with cabotegravir plus rilpivirine given as infrequently as every 2 months is now an option. Weight gain and metabolic complications have been linked to certain antiretroviral medications; novel strategies to ameliorate these complications are needed. Management of comorbidities throughout the life span is increasingly important, because people with HIV are living longer and confronting the health challenges of aging. In addition, management of substance use disorder in people with HIV requires an evidence-based, integrated approach. Options for preexposure prophylaxis include oral medications (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine) and, for the first time, a long-acting injectable agent, cabotegravir. Recent global health emergencies, like the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and monkeypox virus outbreak, continue to have a major effect on people with HIV and the delivery of services. To address these and other challenges, an equity-based approach is essential.Conclusions and RelevanceAdvances in treatment and prevention of HIV continue to improve outcomes, but challenges and opportunities remain.

In this narrative medicine essay, an infectious diseases physician tells of the painful decision he and his wife made after hearing the news that a twin fetus had severe cardiac abnormalities.

Background We sought to identify factors associated with weight gain in randomized clinical trials of antiretroviral therapy (ART) switch. Methods We explored the effects of demographic factors, clinical characteristics, and ART on weight gain in a pooled analysis of 12 prospective clinical trials, wherein virologically suppressed people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PWH) were randomized to switch or remain on a stable baseline regimen (SBR). Results Both PWH randomized to switch ART (n = 4166) and those remaining on SBR (n = 3150) gained weight. Median weight gain was greater in those who switched (1.6 kg, interquartile range [IQR], –.05 to 4.0 vs 0.4 kg, [IQR], –1.8 to 2.4 at 48 weeks, P Conclusions Moderate weight gain after ART switch was common and usually plateaued by 48 weeks. Baseline ART was a predictor of post-switch weight gain; participants who switched off of EFV and TDF had the greatest weight gain. The biological mechanisms that underlie the differential effects of switching ART agents on weight and associated clinical implications require further study.

Treatment of coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19) with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (NMV-r) in high-risk non-hospitalized unvaccinated patients reduced the risk of progression to severe disease. However, the potential benefits of NMV-r among vaccinated patients are unclear.We conducted a comparative retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX research network. Patients ≥18 years of age who were vaccinated and subsequently developed Covid-19 between December 1, 2021, and April 18, 2022, were included. Cohorts were developed based on the use of NMV-r within five days of diagnosis. The primary composite outcome was all-cause emergency room (ER) visit, hospitalization, or death at a 30-days follow-up. Secondary outcomes included individual components of primary outcomes, multisystem symptoms, Covid-19 associated complications, and diagnostic test utilization.After propensity score matching, 1,130 patients remained in each cohort. A primary composite outcome of all-cause ER visits, hospitalization, or death in 30 days occurred in 89 (7.87%) patients in the NMV-r cohort as compared to 163 (14.4%) patients in the non-NMV-r cohort (OR 0.5, CI 0.39-0.67; p0.005) consistent with 45% relative risk reduction. A significant reduction in multisystem symptom burden and subsequent complications such as lower respiratory tract infection, cardiac arrhythmia, and diagnostic radiology testing were noted in NMV-r treated patients. There was no apparent increase serious complications between days 10 to 30.Treatment with NMV-r in non-hospitalized vaccinated patients with Covid-19 was associated with a reduced likelihood of emergency room visits, hospitalization, or death. Complications and overall resource utilization were also decreased.

A review of 28 patients who tested positive for both Epstein-Barr virus and cytomegalovirus immunoglobulin M at an academic medical center revealed that dual positivity is more common than previously reported. These cases require careful review of the history and sometimes supplemental testing. This report highlights features of patients with dual positivity and provides recommendations on interpretation of the results.

Background Doravirine (DOR) is a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor. In the phase 3 DRIVE-AHEAD trial in treatment-naive adults with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, DOR demonstrated noninferior efficacy compared with efavirenz (EFV) and superior profiles for neuropsychiatric tolerability and lipids at 48 weeks. We present data through week 96. Methods DRIVE-AHEAD is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, noninferiority trial in antiretroviral treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 RNA ≥1000 copies/mL. Participants were randomized to a daily fixed-dose tablet of DOR (100 mg), lamivudine (3TC; 300 mg) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF; 300 mg) (DOR/3TC/TDF) or EFV (600 mg), emtricitabine (FTC; 200 mg) and TDF (300 mg) (EFV/FTC/TDF). The efficacy end point of interest at week 96 was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA levels, Week 96 results support noninferior efficacy of doravirine (DOR)/3TC/ tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) compared with efavirenz (EFV)/ emtricitabine (FTC)/TDF established at week 48. DOR/3TC/TDF was well tolerated, with fewer neuropsychiatric and rash events than EFV/FTC/TDF.

Challenges of “Return to Work” in an Ongoing Pandemic The authors discuss the public health challenges faced by commercial establishments in preventing transmission of Covid-19 among their workers ...

Background People with human immunodeficiency virus (PWH) face increased risks for heart failure and adverse heart failure outcomes. Myocardial steatosis predisposes to diastolic dysfunction, a heart failure precursor. We aimed to characterize myocardial steatosis and associated potential risk factors among a subset of the Randomized Trial to Prevent Vascular Events in HIV (REPRIEVE) participants. Methods Eighty-two PWH without known heart failure successfully underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance spectroscopy, yielding data on intramyocardial triglyceride (IMTG) content (a continuous marker for myocardial steatosis extent). Logistic regression models were applied to investigate associations between select clinical characteristics and odds of increased or markedly increased IMTG content. Results Median (Q1, Q3) IMTG content was 0.59% (0.28%, 1.15%). IMTG content was increased (> 0.5%) among 52% and markedly increased (> 1.5%) among 22% of participants. Parameters associated with increased IMTG content included age (P = .013), body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m2 (P = .055), history of intravenous drug use (IVDU) (P = .033), and nadir CD4 count Conclusions A substantial proportion of antiretroviral therapy–treated PWH exhibited myocardial steatosis. Age, BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, low nadir CD4 count, and history of IVDU emerged as possible risk factors for myocardial steatosis in this group. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02344290; NCT03238755.

Summary Background In the primary week-48 analyses of two phase 3 studies, coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to a dolutegravir-containing regimen in treatment-naive people with HIV. We report week-144 efficacy and safety results from these studies. Methods We did two double-blind, active-controlled studies (now in open-label extension phase). Study 1 randomly assigned (1:1) HLA-B*5701-negative adults without hepatitis B virus co-infection to receive coformulated bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg, or coformulated dolutegravir 50 mg, abacavir 600 mg, and lamivudine 300 mg once daily. Study 2 randomly assigned (1:1) adults to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, or dolutegravir 50 mg given with coformulated emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg. We previously reported non-inferiority at the primary endpoint. Here, we report the week-144 secondary outcome of proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 144, by US Food and Drug Administration Snapshot algorithm, analysed in the same manner. These studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02607930 and NCT02607956 . Findings 629 participants were randomly assigned and treated in study 1 (314 to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, and 315 to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine) and 645 in study 2 (327 to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, 325 to dolutegravir, emtricitabine, tenofovir alafenamide). At week 144, bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to both dolutegravir-containing regimens for efficacy. In study 1, 256 (82%) of 314 participants had plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 265 (84%) of 315 in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (difference −2·6%, 95% CI −8·5 to 3·4). In study 2, 262 (82%) of 320 participants had plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 273 (84%) of 325 in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group (difference −1·9%, −7·8 to 3·9). In both studies, no participant had treatment-emergent resistance to study drugs up to week 144. All treatment regimens were well tolerated with additional exposure. Adverse events that led to study drug discontinuation were reported for no participants in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group versus five (2%) of 315 in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (study 1), and six (2%) of 320 in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus six (2%) of 325 in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group (study 2). In study 1, statistically significant differences were observed in median changes from baseline in fasting total cholesterol (14 mg/dL vs 10 mg/dL; p=0·034), direct LDL (21 mg/dL vs 14 mg/dL; p=0·004), and total cholesterol to HDL ratio (−0·1 vs −0·3; p=0·007) at week 144; no differences were observed between groups in study 2. Weight gain was seen across all treatment groups in both studies, with no differences in median changes from baseline in weight at week 144 for either study. Interpretation These long-term data support the use of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide as a safe, well tolerated, and durable treatment for people with HIV, with no emergent resistance. Funding Gilead Sciences.

Background We projected the clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of ibalizumab plus an optimized background regimen (OBR) for people with multidrug-resistant (MDR) HIV in the United States. Methods Using the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications microsimulation model and a health care sector perspective, we compared 2 treatment strategies for MDR HIV: (1) IBA + OBR-ibalizumab plus OBR and (2) OBR-OBR alone. Ibalizumab efficacy and cohort characteristics were from trial data: mean age 49 years, 85% male, and mean CD4 150/µL. Six-month viral suppression was 50% with IBA + OBR and 0% with OBR. The ibalizumab loading dose cost $10,500, and subsequent ibalizumab injections cost $8400/month; OBR cost $4500/month. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using discounted (3%/year) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs. ICERs ≤$100,000/QALY were considered cost-effective. We performed sensitivity analysis on key parameters and examined budget impact. Results In the base case, 5-year survival increased from 38% with OBR to 47% with IBA + OBR. Lifetime costs were $301,700/person with OBR and $661,800/person with IBA + OBR; the ICER for IBA + OBR compared with OBR was $260,900/QALY. IBA + OBR was not cost-effective even with 100% efficacy. IBA + OBR became cost-effective at base case efficacy if ibalizumab cost was reduced by ≥88%. For an estimated 12,000 people with MDR HIV in the United States, IBA + OBR increased care costs by $1.8 billion (1.5% of total treatment budget) over 5 years. Conclusions For people with MDR HIV lacking other treatment options, ibalizumab will substantially increase survival when effective. Although adding ibalizumab to OBR is not cost-effective, the low number of eligible patients in the United States makes the budget impact relatively small.

Multiclass high-level transmitted HIV drug resistance is uncommon, and the selection of the optimal initial antiretroviral drug regimen may be challenging. We report a case of extensive transmitted multiclass resistance successfully treated with dolutegravir, tenofovir, and emtricitabine even though the baseline genotype demonstrated full susceptibility to only 1 drug class, integrase strand transfer inhibitors. Our case highlights both the high resistance barrier of dolutegravir and the residual antiviral activity of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors despite extensive resistance on genotype.

Background The objective of this study was to characterize hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and describe their real-world treatment patterns and outcomes over time. Methods Adult patients hospitalized on May 1, 2020–December 31, 2020 with a discharge diagnosis of COVID-19 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patient and hospital characteristics, treatments, baseline severity based on oxygen support, length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, and mortality were examined. Results The study included 295657 patients (847 hospitals), with median age of 66 (interquartile range, 54–77) years. Among each set of demographic comparators, the majority were male, white, and over 65. Approximately 85% had no supplemental oxygen charges (NSOc) or low-flow oxygen (LFO) at baseline, whereas 75% received no more than NSOc or LFO as maximal oxygen support at any time during hospitalization. Remdesivir (RDV) and corticosteroid treatment utilization increased over time. By December, 50% were receiving RDV and 80% were receiving corticosteroids. A higher proportion initiated COVID-19 treatments within 2 days of hospitalization in December versus May (RDV, 87% vs 40%; corticosteroids, 93% vs 62%; convalescent plasma, 68% vs 26%). There was a shift toward initiating RDV in patients on NSOc or LFO (68.0% [May] vs 83.1% [December]). Median LOS decreased over time. Overall mortality was 13.5% and it was highest for severe patients (invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [IMV/ECMO], 53.7%; high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation [HFO/NIV], 32.2%; LFO, 11.7%; NSOc, 7.3%). The ICU use decreased, whereas mortality decreased for NSOc and LFO. Conclusions Clinical management of COVID-19 is rapidly evolving. This large observational study found that use of evidence-based treatments increased from May to December 2020, whereas improvement in outcomes occurred over this time-period.

Background Remdesivir (RDV) improved clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in randomized trials, but data from clinical practice are limited. Methods We examined survival outcomes for US patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between August and November 2020 and treated with RDV within 2 days of hospitalization vs those not receiving RDV during their hospitalization using the Premier Healthcare Database. Preferential within-hospital propensity score matching with replacement was used. Additionally, patients were also matched on baseline oxygenation level (no supplemental oxygen charges [NSO], low-flow oxygen [LFO], high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation [HFO/NIV], and invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [IMV/ECMO]) and 2-month admission window and excluded if discharged within 3 days of admission (to exclude anticipated discharges/transfers within 72 hours, consistent with the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial [ACTT-1] study). Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess time to 14-/28-day mortality overall and for patients on NSO, LFO, HFO/NIV, and IMV/ECMO. Results A total of 28855 RDV patients were matched to 16687 unique non-RDV patients. Overall, 10.6% and 15.4% RDV patients died within 14 and 28 days, respectively, compared with 15.4% and 19.1% non-RDV patients. Overall, RDV was associated with a reduction in mortality at 14 days (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.76 [0.70–0.83]) and 28 days (0.89 [0.82–0.96]). This mortality benefit was also seen for NSO, LFO, and IMV/ECMO at 14 days (NSO: 0.69 [0.57–0.83], LFO: 0.68 [0.80–0.77], IMV/ECMO: 0.70 [0.58–0.84]) and 28 days (NSO: 0.80 [0.68–0.94], LFO: 0.77 [0.68–0.86], IMV/ECMO: 0.81 [0.69–0.94]). Additionally, HFO/NIV RDV group had a lower risk of mortality at 14 days (0.81 [0.70–0.93]) but no statistical significance at 28 days. Conclusions RDV initiated upon hospital admission was associated with improved survival among patients with COVID-19. Our findings complement ACTT-1 and support RDV as a foundational treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Doravirine is a novel, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor that has shown non-inferior efficacy to ritonavir-boosted darunavir, with a superior lipid profile, in adults with HIV who were treatment naive at week 48 in the phase 3 DRIVE-FORWARD trial. Here we present the 96-week data for the study.This randomised, controlled, double-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 study was undertaken at 125 clinical centres in 15 countries. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) infected with HIV-1 who were naive to antiretroviral therapy, with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of 1000 copies per mL or higher at screening, and no known resistance to any of the study drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA concentration and background nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor therapy, to doravirine (100 mg per day) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (100 mg ritonavir and 800 mg darunavir per day), both with investigator-selected nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors: emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or abacavir and lamivudine. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment assignment until week 96. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants who had a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, which has been reported previously. Here we report the key secondary efficacy endpoint of the proportion of participants who achieved this concentration by week 96, assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of any study drug, regardless of whether it was their randomly assigned treatment. We used a US Food and Drug Administration snapshot approach and a margin of 10 percentage points to define the non-inferiority of doravirine to ritonavir-boosted darunavir at 96 weeks. Key safety endpoints were change in fasting serum lipid concentrations, the incidence of adverse events, and time to discontinuation due to an adverse event, assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of any study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02275780, and is closed to accrual.Between Dec 1, 2014, and Oct 20, 2015, 1027 individuals were screened, of whom 769 participants were randomly assigned to doravirine (n=385) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (n=384), and 383 in both groups were given at least one dose of their allocated treatment. Most participants were male (645 [84%] of 766) and white (560 [73%]), with a mean age of 35·2 years (SD 10·6). 292 participants in the doravirine group and 273 in the darunavir group completed 96 weeks of treatment. At week 96, a higher proportion of the doravirine group (277 [73%] of 383) achieved an HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL than did of the darunavir group (248 [66%] of 383; difference 7·1%, 95% CI 0·5-13·7). Responses were similar regardless of baseline characteristics. Treatment-emergent resistance to any study drug occurred in two (1%) of 383 participants in the doravirine group and one (1%) of 383 in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group. Significant differences were seen between treatment groups in mean changes from baseline in LDL cholesterol (-14·6 mg/dL, 95% CI -18·2 to -11·0) and non-HDL cholesterol (-18·4 mg/dL, -22·5 to -14·3). Frequencies of adverse events were similar between groups. No significant treatment difference (log-rank nominal p=0·063) through week 96 was observed in time to discontinuation due to an adverse event. The most common adverse events (week 0-96) were diarrhoea (65 [17%] in the doravirine group vs 91 [24%] in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group), nausea (45 [12%] vs 52 [14%]), headache (57 [15%] vs 46 [12%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (51 [13%] vs 30 [8%]). Two participants, one in each group, died during treatment; neither death was considered to be related to study medication.These results through 96 weeks support the efficacy and safety results reported previously for doravirine at 48 weeks, supporting the use of doravirine for the long-term treatment of adults with previously untreated HIV-1 infection.Merck.

Background Despite low plasma human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA, HIV controllers have evidence of viral replication and elevated inflammation. We assessed the effect of antiretroviral therapy (ART) on HIV suppression, immune activation, and quality of life (QoL). Methods A5308 was a prospective, open-label study of rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in ART-naive HIV controllers (N = 35), defined as having HIV RNA Results Before ART, HIV controllers with undetectable residual viremia Conclusions ART in HIV controllers reduces T-cell activation and improves markers of immune exhaustion. These results support the possible clinical benefits of ART in this population.

Objectives To compare the gender distribution of clinical trial leadership in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical trials. Methods We searched https://clinicaltrials.gov/ and retrieved all clinical trials on COVID-19 from 1 January 2020 to 26 June 2020. As a comparator group, we have chosen two fields that are not related to emerging infections and infectious diseases: and considered not directly affected by the pandemic: breast cancer and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and included studies within the aforementioned study period as well as those registered in the preceding year (pre-study period: 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019). Gender of the investigator was predicted using the genderize.io application programming interface. The repository of the data sets used to collect and analyse the data are available at https://osf.io/k2r57/. Results Only 27.8% (430/1548) of principal investigators among COVID-19-related studies were women, which is significantly different compared with 54.9% (156/284) and 42.1% (56/133) for breast cancer (p 0.05). ConclusionWe demonstrate that less than one-third of COVID-19-related clinical trials are led by women, half the proportion observed in non-COVID-19 trials over the same period, which remained similar to the pre-study period. These gender disparities during the pandemic may not only indicate a lack of female leadership in international clinical trials and involvement in new projects but also reveal imbalances in women's access to research Postprint

BACKGROUND: The value of frequent, rapid testing to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To define performance standards and predict the clinical, epidemiologic, and economic outcomes of nationwide, home-based antigen testing. DESIGN: A simple compartmental epidemic model that estimated viral transmission, portrayed disease progression, and forecast resource use, with and without testing. DATA SOURCES: Parameter values and ranges as informed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance and published literature. TARGET POPULATION: U.S. population. TIME HORIZON: 60 days. PERSPECTIVE: Societal; costs included testing, inpatient care, and lost workdays. INTERVENTION: Home-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cumulative infections and deaths, number of persons isolated and hospitalized, and total costs. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Without a testing intervention, the model anticipates 11.6 million infections, 119 000 deaths, and $10.1 billion in costs ($6.5 billion in inpatient care and $3.5 billion in lost productivity) over a 60-day horizon. Weekly availability of testing would avert 2.8 million infections and 15 700 deaths, increasing costs by $22.3 billion. Lower inpatient outlays ($5.9 billion) would partially offset additional testing expenditures ($12.5 billion) and workdays lost ($14.0 billion), yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $7890 per infection averted and $1 430 000 per death averted. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Outcome estimates vary widely under different behavioral assumptions and testing frequencies. However, key findings persist across all scenarios, with large reductions in infections, mortality, and hospitalizations. Costs per death averted are roughly an order of magnitude lower than commonly accepted willingness-to-pay values per statistical life saved ($5 to $17 million). LIMITATIONS: Analysis was restricted to at-home testing. There are uncertainties concerning test performance. CONCLUSION: High-frequency home testing for SARS-CoV-2 with an inexpensive, imperfect test could contribute to pandemic control at justifiable cost and warrants consideration as part of a national containment strategy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

BackgroundThe value of frequent, rapid testing to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is poorly understood.ObjectiveTo define performance standards and predict the clinical, epidemiological, and economic outcomes of nationwide, home-based, antigen testing.DesignA simple compartmental epidemic model estimated viral transmission, clinical history, and resource use, with and without testing.Data SourcesParameter values and ranges informed by Centers for Disease Control guidance and published literature.Target PopulationUnited States population.Time Horizon60 days.PerspectiveSocietal.Costs include: testing, inpatient care, and lost workdays.InterventionHome-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing.Outcome MeasuresCumulative infections and deaths, numbers isolated and/or hospitalized, and total costs.Results of Base-Case AnalysisWithout a testing intervention, the model anticipates 15 million infections, 125,000 deaths, and $10.4 billion in costs ($6.5 billion inpatient; $3.9 billion lost productivity) over a 60-day horizon. Weekly availability of testing may avert 4 million infections and 19,000 deaths, raising costs by $21.5 billion. Lower inpatient outlays ($5.9 billion) would partially offset additional testing expenditures ($12.0 billion) and workdays lost ($13.9 billion), yielding incremental costs per infection (death) averted of $5,400 ($1,100,000).Results of Sensitivity AnalysisOutcome estimates vary widely under different behavioral assumptions and testing frequencies. However, key findings persist across all scenarios: large reductions in infections, mortality, and hospitalizations; and costs per death averted roughly an order of magnitude lower than commonly accepted willingness-to-pay values per statistical life saved ($5-17 million).LimitationsAnalysis restricted to at-home testing and limited by uncertainties about test performance.ConclusionHigh-frequency home testing for SARS-CoV-2 using an inexpensive, imperfect test could contribute to pandemic control at justifiable cost and warrants consideration as part of a national containment strategy.Primary Funding SourcesDr. Paltiel was supported by grant R37DA015612 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.Dr. Sax was supported by grant R01AI042006 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

BackgroundPeople living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) may have numerous risk factors for acquiring coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and developing severe outcomes, but current data are conflicting.MethodsHealth-care providers enrolled consecutively, by nonrandom sampling, people living with HIV (PWH) with lab-confirmed COVID-19, diagnosed at their facilities between 1 April and 1 July 2020. Deidentified data were entered into an electronic Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system. The primary endpoint was a severe outcome, defined as a composite endpoint of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, or death. The secondary outcome was the need for hospitalization.ResultsThere were 286 patients included; the mean age was 51.4 years (standard deviation, 14.4), 25.9% were female, and 75.4% were African American or Hispanic. Most patients (94.3%) were on antiretroviral therapy, 88.7% had HIV virologic suppression, and 80.8% had comorbidities. Within 30 days of testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), 164 (57.3%) patients were hospitalized, and 47 (16.5%) required ICU admission. Mortality rates were 9.4% (27/286) overall, 16.5% (27/164) among those hospitalized, and 51.5% (24/47) among those admitted to an ICU. The primary composite endpoint occurred in 17.5% (50/286) of all patients and 30.5% (50/164) of hospitalized patients. Older age, chronic lung disease, and hypertension were associated with severe outcomes. A lower CD4 count (ConclusionsSevere clinical outcomes occurred commonly in PWH with COVID-19. The risks for poor outcomes were higher in those with comorbidities and lower CD4 cell counts, despite HIV viral suppression.Clinical Trials RegistrationNCT04333953.

BackgroundAntiretroviral therapy (ART) during pregnancy is important for both maternal health and prevention of perinatal HIV-1 transmission; however adequate data on the safety and efficacy of different ART regimens that are likely to be used by pregnant women are scarce. In this trial we compared the safety and efficacy of three antiretroviral regimens started in pregnancy: dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate; dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; and efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.MethodsThis multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 22 clinical research sites in nine countries (Botswana, Brazil, India, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, the USA, and Zimbabwe). Pregnant women (aged ≥18 years) with confirmed HIV-1 infection and at 14-28 weeks' gestation were eligible. Women who had previously taken antiretrovirals in the past were excluded (up to 14 days of ART during the current pregnancy was permitted), as were women known to be pregnant with multiple fetuses, or those with known fetal anomaly or a history of psychiatric illness. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using a central computerised randomisation system. Randomisation was done using permuted blocks (size six) stratified by gestational age (14-18, 19-23, and 24-28 weeks' gestation) and country. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg, and once-daily oral fixed-dose combination emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate 25 mg; once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg, and once-daily oral fixed-dose combination emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg; or once-daily oral fixed-dose combination of efavirenz 600 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of participants with viral suppression, defined as an HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 200 copies per mL, at or within 14 days of delivery, assessed in all participants with an HIV-1 RNA result available from the delivery visit, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -10% in the combined dolutegravir-containing groups versus the efavirenz-containing group (superiority was tested in a pre-planned secondary analysis). Primary safety outcomes, compared pairwise among treatment groups, were the occurrence of a composite adverse pregnancy outcome (ie, either preterm delivery, the infant being born small for gestational age, stillbirth, or spontaneous abortion) in all participants with a pregnancy outcome, and the occurrence of grade 3 or higher maternal and infant adverse events in all randomised participants. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03048422.FindingsBetween Jan 19, 2018, and Feb 8, 2019, we enrolled and randomly assigned 643 pregnant women: 217 to the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate group, 215 to the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group, and 211 to the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. At enrolment, median gestational age was 21·9 weeks (IQR 18·3-25·3), the median HIV-1 RNA concentration among participants was 902·5 copies per mL (152·0-5182·5; 181 [28%] of 643 participants had HIV-1 RNA concentrations of

Importance Data on the use of antiretroviral drugs, including new drugs and formulations, for the treatment and prevention of HIV infection continue to guide optimal practices. Objective To evaluate new data and incorporate them into current recommendations for initiating HIV therapy, monitoring individuals starting on therapy, changing regimens, preventing HIV infection for those at risk, and special considerations for older people with HIV. Evidence Review New evidence was collected since the previous International Antiviral (formerly AIDS) Society–USA recommendations in 2018, including data published or presented at peer-reviewed scientific conferences through August 22, 2020. A volunteer panel of 15 experts in HIV research and patient care considered these data and updated previous recommendations. Findings From 5316 citations about antiretroviral drugs identified, 549 were included to form the evidence basis for these recommendations. Antiretroviral therapy is recommended as soon as possible for all individuals with HIV who have detectable viremia. Most patients can start with a 3-drug regimen or now a 2-drug regimen, which includes an integrase strand transfer inhibitor. Effective options are available for patients who may be pregnant, those who have specific clinical conditions, such as kidney, liver, or cardiovascular disease, those who have opportunistic diseases, or those who have health care access issues. Recommended for the first time, a long-acting antiretroviral regimen injected once every 4 weeks for treatment or every 8 weeks pending approval by regulatory bodies and availability. For individuals at risk for HIV, preexposure prophylaxis with an oral regimen is recommended or, pending approval by regulatory bodies and availability, with a long-acting injection given every 8 weeks. Monitoring before and during therapy for effectiveness and safety is recommended. Switching therapy for virological failure is relatively rare at this time, and the recommendations for switching therapies for convenience and for other reasons are included. With the survival benefits provided by therapy, recommendations are made for older individuals with HIV. The current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic poses particular challenges for HIV research, care, and efforts to end the HIV epidemic. Conclusion and Relevance Advances in HIV prevention and management with antiretroviral drugs continue to improve clinical care and outcomes among individuals at risk for and with HIV.

Background Omadacycline is an aminomethylcycline antimicrobial approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. It has in vitro activity against nontuberculous mycobacteria, including Mycobacterium abscessus complex, but clinical data for this indication are lacking. Methods Omadacycline use was reviewed at an 804-bed academic medical center. Patients were included if they received omadacycline for culture-proven M abscessus disease in 2019. Results Four patients received omadacycline for the treatment of culture-positive M abscessus disease in 2019. Two patients had cutaneous disease, 1 had pulmonary disease, and 1 had osteomyelitis and bacteremia. The patients received omadacycline for a median duration of 166 days (range, 104–227) along with a combination of other antimicrobial agents. Omadacycline-containing regimens were associated with a clinical cure in 3 of 4 patients, with 1 patient improving on ongoing treatment. Omadacycline’s tolerability was acceptable for patients with M abscessus disease, with 1 patient discontinuing therapy in month 6 due to nausea. Conclusions Omadacycline is a novel oral option for the treatment of M abscessus disease, for which safe and effective options are needed. Although this case series is promising, further data are required to determine omadacycline’s definitive role in the treatment of M abscessus disease.

This review summarizes current knowledge about the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Evidence-based policies and practices should incorporate the accumulating knowledge regarding SARS-CoV-2 transmission to help educate the public and slow spread of this virus., Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiologic agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has spread globally in a few short months. Substantial evidence now supports preliminary conclusions about transmission that can inform rational, evidence-based policies and reduce misinformation on this critical topic. This article presents a comprehensive review of the evidence on transmission of this virus. Although several experimental studies have cultured live virus from aerosols and surfaces hours after inoculation, the real-world studies that detect viral RNA in the environment report very low levels, and few have isolated viable virus. Strong evidence from case and cluster reports indicates that respiratory transmission is dominant, with proximity and ventilation being key determinants of transmission risk. In the few cases where direct contact or fomite transmission is presumed, respiratory transmission has not been completely excluded. Infectiousness peaks around a day before symptom onset and declines within a week of symptom onset, and no late linked transmissions (after a patient has had symptoms for about a week) have been documented. The virus has heterogeneous transmission dynamics: Most persons do not transmit virus, whereas some cause many secondary cases in transmission clusters called “superspreading events.” Evidence-based policies and practices should incorporate the accumulating knowledge about transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to help educate the public and slow the spread of this virus.

Background Omadacycline is an aminomethylcycline antimicrobial approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. It has in vitro activity against nontuberculous mycobacteria, including Mycobacterium abscessus complex, but clinical data for this indication are lacking. Methods Omadacycline use was reviewed at an 804-bed academic medical center. Patients were included if they received omadacycline for culture-proven M abscessus disease in 2019. Results Four patients received omadacycline for the treatment of culture-positive M abscessus disease in 2019. Two patients had cutaneous disease, 1 had pulmonary disease, and 1 had osteomyelitis and bacteremia. The patients received omadacycline for a median duration of 166 days (range, 104–227) along with a combination of other antimicrobial agents. Omadacycline-containing regimens were associated with a clinical cure in 3 of 4 patients, with 1 patient improving on ongoing treatment. Omadacycline’s tolerability was acceptable for patients with M abscessus disease, with 1 patient discontinuing therapy in month 6 due to nausea. Conclusions Omadacycline is a novel oral option for the treatment of M abscessus disease, for which safe and effective options are needed. Although this case series is promising, further data are required to determine omadacycline’s definitive role in the treatment of M abscessus disease., We describe longer-term use of omadacycline as part of a treatment regimen for 4 patients with Mycobacterium abscessus disease and summarize the evidence to-date for the use of omadacycline in mycobacterial diseases.

Emerging data suggest that despite an increased number of peer-reviewed articles submitted to journals during the pandemic, women have published fewer papers than men thus far this year. In this study, we provide timely analysis to compare the gender distribution of clinical trial leadership in COVID-19 clinical trials. We demonstrate that less than one-third of COVID-19-related clinical trials are led by principal investigators who were predicted to be women, half the proportion observed in non-COVID-19 (breast cancer and T2DM) trials over the same period. These gender disparities during the pandemic may indicate not only a lack of women9s leadership in international clinical trials and involvement in new projects but also may reveal imbalances in women9s access to research activities and funding during health emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic offers numerous opportunities for research and leadership that could equalize opportunity in a new field, but our results suggest the opposite. Our demonstration of gender differences in trial leadership and grant allocation argue for revised policies and strategies that encourage the participation of women in pandemic research. Not only can these women drive discovery and innovation, but they can act to address health disparities and provide role models for the next generation of women scientists.

AIDS Clinical Trials Group study A5308 found reduced T-cell activation and exhaustion in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) controllers start antiretroviral therapy (ART). We further assessed HIV-specific T-cell responses and post-ART viral loads. Before ART, the 31% of participants with persistently undetectable viremia had more robust HIV-specific T-cell responses. During ART, significant decreases were observed in a broad range of T-cell responses. Eight controllers in A5308 and the Study of the Consequences of the Protease Inhibitor Era (SCOPE) cohort showed no viremia above the level of quantification in the first 12 weeks after ART discontinuation. ART significantly reduced HIV-specific T-cell responses in HIV controllers but did not adversely affect controller status after ART discontinuation.

Zika virus (ZIKV) is a mosquito-borne pathogen with increasing public health significance. To characterize immune responses to ZIKV, here we examine transcriptional signatures of CD4 T, CD8 T, B, and NK cells, monocytes, myeloid dendritic cells (mDCs), and plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) from three individuals with ZIKV infection. While gene expression patterns from most cell subsets display signs of impaired antiviral immune activity, pDCs from infected host have distinct transcriptional response associated with activation of innate immune recognition and type I interferon signaling pathways, but downregulation of key host factors known to support ZIKV replication steps; meanwhile, pDCs exhibit a unique expression pattern of gene modules that are correlated with alternative cell populations, suggesting collaborative interactions between pDCs and other immune cells, particularly B cells. Together, these results point towards a discrete but integrative function of pDCs in the human immune responses to ZIKV infection., Zika virus (ZIKV) poses a significant public health threat, but the immune landscape changes following ZIKV infection is still unclear. Here, the authors show, using flow cytometry and transcriptomic data, that ZIKV induces a multitude of immune responses, with plasmacytoid dendritic cells poised centrally to interact with other immune cell types.

Background Bictegravir (B)/emtricitabine (F)/tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is guideline-recommended treatment for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). We evaluated whether people receiving dolutegravir (DTG) plus F/TAF or F/TDF (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) with viral suppression can switch to B/F/TAF without compromising safety or efficacy, regardless of preexisting nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) resistance. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, active-controlled, noninferiority trial, we enrolled adults who were virologically suppressed for ≥6 months before screening (with documented/suspected NRTI resistance) or ≥3 months before screening (with no documented/suspected NRTI resistance) on DTG plus either F/TDF or F/TAF. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants to switch to B/F/TAF or DTG + F/TAF once daily for 48 weeks, each with matching placebo. The primary endpoint was proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL at week 48 (snapshot algorithm); the prespecified noninferiority margin was 4%. Results Five hundred sixty-seven adults were randomized; 565 were treated (284 B/F/TAF, 281 DTG + F/TAF). At week 48, B/F/TAF was noninferior to DTG + F/TAF, as 0.4% (1/284) vs 1.1% (3/281) had HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL (difference, −0.7% [95.001% confidence interval {CI}, −2.8% to 1.0%]). There were no significant differences in efficacy among participants with suspected or confirmed prior NRTI resistance (n = 138). No participant had treatment-emergent drug resistance. Median weight change from baseline at week 48 was +1.3 kg (B/F/TAF) vs +1.1 kg (DTG + F/TAF) (P = .46). Weight change differed by baseline NRTIs (+2.2 kg [F/TDF] and +0.6 kg [F/TAF], P < .001), with no differences between B/F/TAF and DTG + F/TAF. Conclusions The single-tablet regimen B/F/TAF is a safe, effective option for people virologically suppressed on DTG plus either F/TDF or F/TAF, including in individuals with preexisting resistance to NRTIs. Clinical Trials Registration NCT03110380., Switching to bictegravir (B)/emtricitabine (F)/tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) was noninferior to dolutegravir (DTG) plus F/TAF at week 48, with high rates of virologic suppression. B/F/TAF is a safe, effective option for people virologically suppressed on DTG + F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or F/TAF, including individuals with preexisting resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., Background: Raltegravir 1200mg (2×600mg tablets) once daily (QD) demonstrated noninferior efficacy and similar safety to raltegravir 400mg twice daily (BID) at week 48 of the ONCEMRK trial. Here, we report the week 96 results from this study. Methods: ONCEMRK is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, noninferiority trial comparing raltegravir 1200mg QD with raltegravir 400mg BID in treatment-naive HIV-1–infected adults. Participants were assigned (2:1) to raltegravir 2×600mg QD or 400mg BID, both with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF) for 96 weeks. Randomization was stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA and hepatitis B/C status. Efficacy was assessed as the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA 260 cells/mm3 from baseline in both groups. Resistance to raltegravir was infrequent, occurring in 0.8% of each treatment group through week 96. Adverse event rates were similar for the 2 regimens. Conclusions: In HIV-1–infected treatment-naive adults receiving FTC/TDF, raltegravir 1200mg QD demonstrated noninferior efficacy to raltegravir 400mg BID that was durable to week 96, with a safety profile similar to raltegravir 400mg BID.