Search

COVID-19 has overwhelmed health services globally. Oral antiviral therapies are licensed worldwide, but indications and efficacy rates vary. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral favipiravir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.We conducted a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of oral favipiravir in adult patients who were newly admitted to hospital with proven or suspected COVID-19 across five sites in the UK (n=2), Brazil (n=2) and Mexico (n=1). Using a permuted block design, eligible and consenting participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral favipiravir (1800 mg twice daily for 1 day; 800 mg twice daily for 9 days) plus standard care, or standard care alone. All caregivers and patients were aware of allocation and those analysing data were aware of the treatment groups. The prespecified primary outcome was the time from randomisation to recovery, censored at 28 days, which was assessed using an intention-to-treat approach. Post-hoc analyses were used to assess the efficacy of favipiravir in patients aged younger than 60 years, and in patients aged 60 years and older. The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04373733.Between May 5, 2020 and May 26, 2021, we assessed 503 patients for eligibility, of whom 499 were randomly assigned to favipiravir and standard care (n=251) or standard care alone (n=248). There was no significant difference between those who received favipiravir and standard care, relative to those who received standard care alone in time to recovery in the overall study population (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06 [95% CI 0·89-1·27]; n=499; p=0·52). Post-hoc analyses showed a faster rate of recovery in patients younger than 60 years who received favipiravir and standard care versus those who had standard care alone (HR 1·35 [1·06-1·72]; n=247; p=0·01). 36 serious adverse events were observed in 27 (11%) of 251 patients administered favipiravir and standard care, and 33 events were observed in 27 (11%) of 248 patients receiving standard care alone, with infectious, respiratory, and cardiovascular events being the most numerous. There was no significant between-group difference in serious adverse events per patient (p=0·87).Favipiravir does not improve clinical outcomes in all patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, however, patients younger than 60 years might have a beneficial clinical response. The indiscriminate use of favipiravir globally should be cautioned, and further high-quality studies of antiviral agents, and their potential treatment combinations, are warranted in COVID-19.LifeArc and CW+.

Objective : The objective of the study was to evaluate the immune response to measles vaccine of HIV-infected adults in comparison to HIV non-infected adults. Design We conducted a cross-sectional study to identify adults lacking measles antibodies. 26 HIV-infected patients and 22 controls found to be measles seronegative in the cross-sectional study, received the MMR vaccine. We prospectively followed patients and measured measles antibodies, and cellular proliferative responses against measles antigens. We registered all adverse events at baseline, 3 and 12 months after vaccination. Methods We determined measles antibodies by ELISA and cellular proliferative response in PBMC's at baseline, and repeated measurements at 3 and 12 months after vaccination. Results The humoral immune response to the vaccine between HIV-infected adults and the HIV-uninfected group was not statistically different at 3 months (81% vs. 86% respectively). One year after vaccination, a higher proportion of HIV-infected adults had lost measles antibodies in contrast to controls. The cellular response was not statistically different between the groups at baseline, 3 and 12 months after immunization despite the waning of antibodies at 12 months. No severe adverse events were observed. Most patients were receiving HAART and had a mean CD4+ cell count of 496 cells/mL. Conclusions The initial humoral immune response to measles vaccine was not different between HIV-infected adults and HIV-uninfected adults. However, HIV-infected adults have a rapid decline of measles antibodies despite their high CD4+ cell count and sustained cellular proliferative response.

Preemptive therapy reduces the risk of cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk kidney transplant patients. The advantage of this strategy is that only a fraction of patients receive antiviral drugs for a limited time, which decreases costs and toxicity but requires frequent monitoring and may not prevent complications of asymptomatic cytomegalovirus replication.Long-term graft-function and patient survival of high-risk kidney transplant patients who received preemptive therapy guided by pp65 antigenemia was compared to those whose assay remained negative throughout the first post-transplant year.Between August 1997 and March 2005, 24 of 272 patients were CMV D+/R-. Thirteen of the 24 (54.2%) developed a positive CMV assay during follow-up; the time between transplant and first positive antigenemia was 66.7 +/- 58.3 days (range 29-251 days). Four patients developed symptoms associated with CMV, one of whom succumbed from complications of CMV neumonitis. Overall, no significant differences were observed in SCr, eGFR, delta SCr, and delta eGFR during a 60-month followup between patients who developed CMV infection or disease and those who remained pp65 antigenemia-negative throughout the first 12 post-transplant months. Additionally, no deaths or graft loss occurred during the long-term follow up of this cohort.Our results suggest that in this high risk group of kidney transplant recipients, treating CMV replication using a preemptive strategy during the first posttransplant year is associated with a low rate of CMV complications and probably interferes with the alleged long-term negative indirect effects of CMV on kidney function and survival.

Current management of renal transplant recipients who are CMV seronegative (R-) and receive an organ from a seropositive donor (D+) is controversial. These patients are at high risk for CMV disease and are usually treated with ganciclovir prophylaxis at variable dose and duration. An alternative to this approach is to administer ganciclovir only to those patients who are identified by virological markers to be at the highest risk to develop the disease (preemptive therapy). This prospective trial was conducted to asses the value of preemptive therapy to prevent CMV disease in R-/D+ kidney transplant recipients on triple drug immunosuppression without antilymphocyte induction. Sixteen adults receiving their first kidney transplant were enrolled and followed with pp65 antigenemia assay performed biweekly for the first 16 postransplant weeks, and then monthly to complete 12 months. Ganciclovir (5 mg/kg/day i.v., for 15 days) was administered as preemptive therapy upon detection of one or more antigen-positive cells per 150 x 10(3) peripheral blood leucocytes examined. For those receiving preemptive therapy, pp65 antigenemia was also repeated after completion of the regimen. CMV antigenemia was detected in 7/16 patients. At mean follow-up of 9 months (4-12 m) none of the 16 patients developed CMV disease. CMV serology (IgM) became positive in all patients after the first antigenemia result. The last follow-up mean serum creatinine (SCr) level was similar in both groups (1.35 mg/dL). In CMV R-/D+, the use of preemptive therapy guided by pp65 antigenemia is effective in preventing CMV disease. By using this strategy, 9 of 16 patients were spared ganciclovir prophylaxis with no effect on rejection or CMV disease. The clinical benefit and cost/effectiveness of this strategy should be evaluated against universal prophylaxis in these high-risk patients.