Switching to dolutegravir plus rilpivirine versus maintaining current antiretroviral therapy regimen in virologically suppressed people with HIV-1 and the Lys103Asn (K103N) mutation: 48-week results from a randomised, open-label pilot clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of dolutegravir plus rilpivirine has been studied in people with virologically suppressed HIV with no previous history of treatment failure or resistance. We investigated the potential to maintain viral suppression with dolutegravir plus rilpivirine in people with Lys103Asn mutations whose HIV was previously managed with other treatment regimens. METHODS: In this open-label pilot trial at 32 clinical sites in seven European countries, virologically suppressed, HBsAg-negative adults aged 18 years or older with HIV-1 and Lys103Asn mutations were randomly assigned (2:1) to switch to 50 mg dolutegravir plus 25 mg rilpivirine (given as a single tablet) once daily or to continue their current antiretroviral therapy regimen (control group). After 48 weeks, participants in the control group also switched to dolutegravir plus rilpivirine. Randomisation was stratified by country, and a computer-generated randomisation list with permuted blocks within strata was used to assign participants to treatment groups. The primary endpoints were virological failure (ie, two consecutive measurements of 50 copies or more of HIV RNA per mL at least 2 weeks apart) and virological suppression (the proportion of participants with fewer than 50 copies of HIV RNA per mL) at week 48 (week 96 data will be reported separately). Analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all participants who received at least one dose of the study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05349838, and EudraCT, 2017-004040-38. FINDINGS: Between Nov 5, 2018, and Dec 9, 2020, 140 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned, 95 to the dolutegravir plus rilpivirine group and 45 to the control group. Virological failure was recorded in three participants (3·2%, 95% CI 0·7 to 9·0) in the the dolutegravir plus rilpivirine group and one (2·2%, 0·1 to 11·8) in the control group. The proportion of participants in whom virological suppression was maintained at week 48 was 88·4% (80·2 to 94·1) in the dolutegravir plus rilpivirine group versus 88·9% (75·9 to 96·3) in the control group (difference -0·5, -11·7 to 10·7). Significantly more adverse events were recorded in the dolutegravir plus rilpivirine group than in the control group (234 vs 72; p=0·0034), but the proportion of participants who reported at least one adverse event was similar between groups (76 [80%] of 95 vs 33 [73%] of 45; p=0·39). The frequency of serious adverse events was low and similar between groups. INTERPRETATION: Virological suppression was maintained at week 48 in most participants with Lys103Asn mutations when they switched from standard regimens to dolutegravir plus rilpivirine. The results of this pilot study, if maintained when the week 96 data are reported, support conduct of a large, well-powered trial of dolutegravir plus rilpivirine. FUNDING: ViiV Healthcare.

HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis services, provision, and delivery in the European treatment network of HIV, hepatitis and global emerging infectious diseases (NEAT ID).

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a survey to evaluate HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) practices in a European clinical research network on HIV, hepatitis, and global infectious diseases (NEAT ID). METHODS: An online survey comprising 22 questions was sent via a secure electronic tool to the investigating physician of each of the 342 NEAT ID study centres across 15 European countries in November 2020. RESULTS: In total, 50 sites from 12 countries responded (15% response rate). Most sites were in Western Europe, two were in Poland, and one was in Hungary. Of the responding sites, 45 provided PrEP services for a total of 27 416 PrEP users, with 1361 new PrEP initiators each month. These centres supplied PrEP for men who have sex with men (100%), people who inject drugs (84%), sex workers (84%), women (62%), and transgender women (31%). PrEP persistence after 1 year was >90%, 75%-90%, and 40%-75% in 17, 24, and 4 centres, respectively. In total, 32/45 (71%) centres reported strong community-based organization commitment at their site, and 15/45 (33%) centres developed task-shifting processes to deliver PrEP through nurses (11/15), pharmacists (5/15), and key-population peers (2/15). The biggest barriers to implementation of PrEP were low awareness of and knowledge about PrEP (47%), unwillingness to disclose sexual identity or at-risk behaviour (36%), and lack of administrative support (29%). Of the 45 centres, 32 (71%) have already been involved in PrEP research and 43 (96%) were interested in participating in such studies. CONCLUSIONS: The few NEAT ID centres that responded to the survey showed disparities in PrEP deployment and practices despite a common interest in participating in research in this field.

Clinical outcomes by supplemental oxygen use in remdesivir-treated, hospitalised adults with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials show different effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes relative to COVID-19 severity at hospital admission; in Europe, there are few real-world data. METHODS: A multicentre, multinational retrospective cohort study in adult patients hospitalised with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 was conducted to understand remdesivir clinical use in different countries and to describe outcomes for patients receiving remdesivir stratified by oxygen use. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality at day 28 and hospitalisation duration. Patients were categorised by baseline disease severity: no supplemental oxygen (NSO); low flow oxygen ≤ 6 litres (l)/minute (LFO); high flow oxygen > 6 l/minute (HFO). RESULTS: Four hundred and forty-eight (448) patients (72 [16.1%] HFO; 295 [65.8%] LFO; 81 (18.1%] NSO) were included; median age was 65 years and 64% were male. Mortality was higher in patients on HFO (rate 23.6%) compared to LFO (10.2%; p = 0.001) or NSO (6.2%; p = 0.002). Duration of hospitalisation was longer in patients on HFO (13 days) compared to LFO (9 days; p = 0.003) and NSO (9 days; p = 0.021). Patients who initiated remdesivir ≥ 2 days compared to within a day of hospitalisation had a 4.2 times higher risk of death, irrespective of age, sex, comorbidities, and oxygen support at baseline. Requirement for mechanical ventilation/ECMO and readmission within 28 days of discharge was similar across groups. Remdesivir use and outcomes differed by country. CONCLUSIONS: A higher mortality rate and duration of hospitalisation was seen in remdesivir-treated COVID-19 patients on HFO compared to LFO and NSO. Initiation of remdesivir upon admission as opposed to delayed initiation has a mortality benefit. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04847622.

The Mersey Burns App: evolving a model of validation.

INTRODUCTION: 'Mersey Burns App' is a smartphone/tablet application that aids in the assessment of total burn surface area (TBSA) and calculation of fluid resuscitation protocols in burns. This paper presents two studies assessing the speed and accuracy of calculations using Mersey Burns (App) in comparison with a Lund and Browder chart (paper) when a burn is assessed by medical students and clinicians. METHODS: The first study compared the speed and accuracy of TBSA and resuscitation calculation for a photograph of a burn with App and paper using burns and plastics and emergency medicine trainees and consultants. Developing on some of the feedback and results of that study, a second study was then carried out using burns-naive medical students assessing a fully simulated burn with both modalities. Preference and ease of use of each modality were assessed anonymously. RESULTS: The clinician study showed a lower variance in TBSA and fluid calculations using the App (p<0.05). The student study showed no difference in mean TBSA estimations (p=0.7). Mean time to completion of calculations was faster and calculations were more likely to be correct with the App (p<0.001). Students favoured the App in the following categories: preference in emergency setting, confidence in output, accuracy, speed, ease of calculation, overall use and shading (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Mersey Burns App can facilitate quicker and more accurate calculations than Lund and Browder charts. Students also preferred the App. This suggests a useful role for the App in the care of patients with burns by inexperienced staff.