Efficacy of Combination of Antiviral Therapy With Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies for Recurrent Persistent SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia in Patients With Lymphoma.

Despite the potential of neutralizing antibodies in the management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), clinical research on its efficacy in Chinese patients remains limited. This study is aimed at investigating the therapeutic effect of combination of antiviral therapy with neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for recurrent persistent SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in patients with lymphoma complicated by B cell depletion. A prospective study was conducted on Chinese patients who were treated with antiviral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir therapy and the neutralizing antibody tixagevimab-cilgavimab (tix-cil). The primary outcome was the rate of recurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Five patients with lymphoma experienced recurrent SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and received tix-cil treatment. All patients had a history of CD20 monoclonal antibody use within the year preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection, and two patients also had a history of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor use. These patients had notably low lymphocyte counts and exhibited near depletion of B cells. All five patients tested negative for serum SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies. None of the patients developed reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia after antiviral and tix-cil treatment during the 6-month follow-up period. In conclusion, the administration of antiviral and SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies showed encouraging therapeutic efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in patients with lymphoma complicated by B cell depletion, along with the potential preventive effect of neutralizing antibodies for up to 6 months.

Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (Paxlovid) Use Among Individuals at Risk of Severe COVID-19: An Analysis of the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C).

PURPOSE: Paxlovid is effective in reducing COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality. This study characterized Paxlovid use and evaluated racial/ethnic disparities over time among community-dwelling adults at high risk of progression to severe COVID-19 disease. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) data and included individuals aged 18 years or older diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2022 and December 2023. The study cohort included nonhospitalized individuals who were at high risk of COVID-19 progression, and selected the first COVID-19 episode in each quarter, including reinfection episodes. Paxlovid use was defined as receiving Paxlovid within ±5 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis. We used descriptive statistics to characterize Paxlovid use overall and by calendar quarter and race/ethnicity. We used a generalized estimating equations (GEE) models to quantify the association of race/ethnicity with Paxlovid use controlling for age, gender, and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1 264 215 individuals at high risk of disease progression (1 404 607 episodes), Paxlovid use increased from 1.2% in January-March 2022 to 35.1% in October-December 2023. Paxlovid use was more common among non-Hispanic White individuals (23.9%) than non-Hispanic Black (16.5%) and Latinx/e (16.7%) patients. After adjusting age, gender, and clinical characteristics, Paxlovid use was less likely among non-Hispanic Black (odds ratio [OR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.70) and Latinx/e (OR 0.72, CI 0.71-0.73) patients than non-Hispanic White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among a large, diverse cohort of community-dwelling individuals with COVID-19, nearly two out of three eligible individuals did not receive Paxlovid, and minoritized racial/ethnic groups were less likely to use Paxlovid than their non-Hispanic White individuals.

Saliva Is a Sensitive and Accessible Sample Both for SARS-CoV-2 Detection and for the Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness in Follow-Up Studies.

Despite emerging evidence indicating that molecular SARS-CoV-2 tests performed on saliva have diagnostic sensitivity and specificity comparable to those observed with nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs), most in vivo follow-up studies on the efficacy of drugs against SARS-CoV-2 have been performed on NPSs, not considering saliva as a possible alternative matrix. For this reason, in this study, we used, in parallel, saliva and NPS samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by real-time RT-PCR in patients receiving Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, or Sotrovimab as a treatment against SARS-CoV-2. Our results showed a good correlation between the NPS and saliva samples for each drug; moreover, comparable changes in the cycle threshold (Ct) levels in saliva and NPSs were observed both 7 days and 30 days after treatment, thus confirming that the saliva represents a good matrix for in vivo follow-up studies verifying the effectiveness of treatments against SARS-CoV-2.

Population pharmacokinetics of rifabutin among HIV/TB co-infected children on lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy.

In adults requiring protease inhibitor (PI)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART), replacing rifampicin with rifabutin is a preferred option, but there is lack of evidence to guide rifabutin dosing in children, especially with PIs. We aimed to characterize the population pharmacokinetics of rifabutin and 25-O-desacetyl rifabutin (des-rifabutin) in children and optimize its dose. We included children from three age cohorts: (i) <1-year-old cohort and (ii) 1- to 3-year-old cohort, who were ART naïve and received 15- to 20-mg/kg/day rifabutin for 2 weeks followed by lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-based ART with 5.0- or 2.5 mg/kg/day rifabutin, respectively, while the (iii) >3-year-old cohort was ART-experienced and received 2.5-mg/kg/day rifabutin with LPV/r-based ART. Non-linear mixed-effects modeling was used to interpret the data. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to evaluate the study doses and optimize dosing using harmonized weight bands. Twenty-eight children were included, with a median age of 10 (range 0.67-15.0) years, a median weight of 11 (range 4.5-45) kg, and a median weight-for-age z score of -3.33 (range -5.15 to -1.32). A two-compartment disposition model, scaled allometrically by weight, was developed for rifabutin and des-rifabutin. LPV/r increased rifabutin bioavailability by 158% (95% confidence interval: 93.2%-246.0%) and reduced des-rifabutin clearance by 76.6% (74.4%-78.3%). Severely underweight children showed 26% (17.9%-33.7%) lower bioavailability. Compared to adult exposures, simulations resulted in higher median steady-state rifabutin and des-rifabutin exposures in 6-20 kg during tuberculosis-only treatment with 20 mg/kg/day. During LPV/r co-treatment, the 2.5-mg/kg/day dose achieved similar exposures to adults, while the 5-mg/kg/day dose resulted in higher exposures in children >7 kg. All study doses maintained a median Cmax of <900 µg/L. The suggested weight-band dosing matches adult exposures consistently across weights and simplifies dosing.

How I treat: Coronavirus disease 2019 in leukemic patients and hematopoietic cell transplant recipients.

Among immunocompromised hosts, leukemia patients, and hematopoietic cell transplant recipients are particularly vulnerable, facing challenges in balancing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management with their underlying conditions. In this How I Treat article, we discuss how we approach severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in daily clinical practice, considering the existing body of literature and for topics where the available data are not sufficient to provide adequate guidance, we provide our opinion based on our clinical expertise and experience. Diagnostic approaches include nasopharyngeal swabs for polymerase chain reaction testing and chest computed tomography scans for symptomatic patients at risk of disease progression. Preventive measures involve strict infection control protocols and prioritizing vaccination for both patients and their families. Decisions regarding chemotherapy or hematopoietic cell transplantation in leukemia patients with COVID-19 require careful consideration of factors such as COVID-19 severity and treatment urgency. Treatment protocols include early initiation of antiviral therapy, with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or remdesivir. For cases of prolonged viral shedding, distinguishing between viable and non-viable viruses remains challenging but is crucial for determining contagiousness and guiding management decisions. Overall, individualized approaches considering immune status, clinical presentation, and viral kinetics are essential for effectively managing COVID-19 in leukemia patients.

Pediatric Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Prescribing Patterns During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: This study seeks to identify demographic and clinical factors prompting clinician prescribing of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to pediatric patients for management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. METHODS: Patients aged 12 to 17 years with a COVID-19 infection and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription during an outpatient clinical encounter within a PEDSnet-affiliated institution between January 2022 and August 2023 were identified using electronic health record data. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to estimate odds of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription after adjusting for various factors. RESULTS: A total of 20 959 patients aged 12 to 17 years were diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection on the basis of an electronic health record-documented positive polymerase chain reaction or antigen test or diagnosis during an outpatient clinical visit. Of these patients, 408 received a nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription within 5 days of diagnosis. Higher odds of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment were associated with having chronic or complex chronic disease (chronic: odds ratio [OR] 2.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.83-3.38]; complex chronic: OR 2.21 [95% CI 1.58-3.08]). Among patients with chronic disease, each additional body system conferred 1.18 times higher odds of treatment (95% CI 1.10-1.26). Compared with non-Hispanic white patients, Hispanic patients (OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.44-0.83]) had lower odds of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Children with chronic conditions are more likely than those without to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescriptions. However, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescribing to children with chronic conditions remains infrequent. Pediatric data concerning nirmatrelvir/ritonavir safety and effectiveness in preventing severe disease and hospitalization are critical optimizing clinical decision-making and use among children.

Azvudine versus Paxlovid in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of azvudine versus nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The researchers conducted searches on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar until January 2024. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilised to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and data analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Thirteen studies, including 4949 patients, were analysed. The meta-analysis results showed no significant difference between the azvudine and Paxlovid groups in terms of mortality rate (odds rate [OR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.21), negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conversion time (standard mean difference [SMD] = 1.52, 95% CI: -1.07-4.11), and hospital stay (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI: -1.12-0.33). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.23-0.75) and the need for mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.44-0.86) in favour of azvudine. The incidence of adverse events in the azvudine group was significantly lower (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.43-0.99). The certainty of evidence was rated as low and moderate. Azvudine and Paxlovid demonstrated similar effectiveness in reducing mortality rates, negative PCR conversion time and hospital stay. However, azvudine showed better effectiveness in improving other outcomes. Regarding the level of certainty of evidence, further research is needed to validate or challenge these results.

Quality assessment of oral antimalarial and antiretroviral medicines used by public health systems in Sahel countries.

Malaria and Human Immunodeficiency Virus infections are among the top 10 causes of death in low income countries. Furthermore, many medicines used in these treatment areas are substandard, which contributes to the high death rate. Using a monitoring system to identify substandard and falsified medicines, the study aims to evaluate the quality of antimalarial and antiretroviral medicines in Sahel countries, assessing site conditions, compliance of medicines with pharmacopoeia tests, formulation equivalence with a reference medicine, and the influence of climate on quality attributes. Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography methods for eight active pharmaceutical ingredients were validated following the International Conference for Harmonization guideline for its detection and quantification. Quality control consists of visual inspections to detect any misinformation or imperfections and pharmacopeial testing to determine the quality of pharmaceutical products. Medicines which complied with uniformity dosage units and dissolution tests were stored under accelerated conditions for 6 months. Artemether/Lumefantrine and Lopinavir/Ritonavir formulations failed uniformity dosage units and disintegration tests respectively, detecting a total of 28.6% substandard medicines. After 6 months stored under accelerated conditions (40 °C // 75% relative humidity) simulating climatic conditions in Sahel countries, some medicines failed pharmacopeia tests. It demonstrated the influence of these two factors in their quality attributes. This study emphasizes the need of certified quality control laboratories as well as the need for regulatory systems to maintain standards in pharmaceutical manufacturing and distribution in these countries, especially when medicines are transported to rural areas where these climatic conditions are harsher.

Efficacy and safety of three antiretroviral therapy regimens for treatment-naive African adults living with HIV-2 (FIT-2): a pilot, phase 2, non-comparative, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Due to the low number of individuals with HIV-2, no randomised trials of HIV-2 treatment have ever been done. We hypothesised that a non-comparative study describing the outcomes of several antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens in parallel groups would improve understanding of how differences between HIV-1 and HIV-2 might lead to different therapeutic approaches. METHODS: This pilot, phase 2, non-comparative, open-label, randomised controlled trial was done in Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal, and Togo. Adults with HIV-2 who were ART naive with CD4 counts of 200 cells per µL or greater were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to one of three treatment groups. A computer-generated sequentially numbered block randomisation list stratified by country was used for online allocation to the next available treatment group. In all groups, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (henceforth tenofovir) was dosed at 245 mg once daily with either emtricitabine at 200 mg once daily or lamivudine at 300 mg once daily. The triple nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) group received zidovudine at 250 mg twice daily. The ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group received lopinavir at 400 mg twice daily boosted with ritonavir at 100 mg twice daily. The raltegravir group received raltegravir at 400 mg twice daily. The primary outcome was the rate of treatment success at week 96, defined as an absence of serious morbidity event during follow-up, plasma HIV-2 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 96, and a substantial increase in CD4 cells between baseline and week 96. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02150993, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Jan 26, 2016, and June 29, 2017, 210 participants were randomly assigned to treatment groups. Five participants died during the 96 weeks of follow-up (triple NRTI group, n=2; ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group, n=2; and raltegravir group, n=1), eight had a serious morbidity event (triple NRTI group, n=4; ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group, n=3; and raltegravir group, n=1), 17 had plasma HIV-2 RNA of 50 copies per mL or greater at least once (triple NRTI group, n=11; ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group, n=4; and raltegravir group, n=2), 32 (all in the triple NRTI group) switched to another ART regimen, and 18 permanently discontinued ART (triple NRTI group, n=5; ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group, n=7; and raltegravir group, n=6). The Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended premature termination of the triple NRTI regimen for safety reasons. The overall treatment success rate was 57% (95% CI 47-66) in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group and 59% (49-68) in the raltegravir group. INTERPRETATION: The raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir regimens were efficient and safe in adults with HIV-2. Both regimens could be compared in future phase 3 trials. The results of this pilot study suggest a trend towards better virological and immunological efficacy in the raltegravir-based regimen. FUNDING: ANRS MIE.

Favipiravir, remdesivir, and lopinavir: metabolites, degradation products and their analytical methods.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic all over the world. Several studies have suggested that antiviral drugs such as favipiravir (FAV), remdesivir (RDV), and lopinavir (LPV) may potentially prevent the spread of the virus in the host cells and person-to-person transmission. Simultaneously with the widespread use of these drugs, their stability and action mechanism studies have also attracted the attention of many researchers. This review focuses on the action mechanism, metabolites and degradation products of these antiviral drugs (FAV, RDV and LPV) and demonstrates various methods for their quantification and discrimination in the different biological samples. Herein, the instrumental methods for analysis of the main form of drugs or their metabolite and degradation products are classified into two types: optical and chromatography methods which the last one in combination with various detectors provides a powerful method for routine and stability analyses. Some representative studies are reported in this review and the details of them are carefully explained. It is hoped that this review will be a good guideline study and provide a better understanding of these drugs from the aspects investigated in this study.

Systemic inflammation in pregnant women with HIV: relationship with HIV treatment regimen and preterm delivery.

OBJECTIVE: HIV treatment regimen during pregnancy was associated with preterm delivery (PTD) in the PROMISE 1077 BF trial. Systemic inflammation among pregnant women with HIV could help explain differences in PTD by treatment regimen. We assessed associations between inflammation, treatment regimen, and PTD. DESIGN/METHODS: A nested 1 : 1 case-control study ( N  = 362) was conducted within a multicountry randomized trial comparing three HIV regimens in pregnant women: zidovudine alone, or combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) with lopinavir/ritonavir and either zidovudine or tenofovir. Cases were women with PTD (<37 weeks of gestational age). The following inflammatory biomarkers were measured in plasma samples using immunoassays: soluble CD14 (sCD14) and sCD163, intestinal fatty acid-binding protein, interleukin (IL)-6, interferon γ, and tumor necrosis factor α. We fit regression models to assess associations between second trimester biomarkers (measured before ART initiation at 13-23 weeks of gestational age and 4 weeks later), treatment regimen, and PTD. We also assessed whether inflammation was a mediator in the relationship between ART regimen and PTD. RESULTS: Persistently high interleukin-6 was associated with increased PTD. Compared with zidovudine alone, the difference in biomarker concentration between week 0 and week 4 was significantly higher ( P  < 0.05) for both protease inhibitor-based regimens. However, the estimated proportion of the ART effect on increased PTD mediated by persistently high biomarker levels was 5% or less for all biomarkers. CONCLUSION: Persistently high IL-6 during pregnancy was associated with PTD. Although protease inhibitor-based ART was associated with increases in inflammation, factors other than inflammation likely explain the increased PTD in ART-based regimens compared with zidovudine alone.

Favipiravir for treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and societies worldwide. Favipiravir was suggested by some experts to be effective and safe to use in COVID-19. Although this drug has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is still unclear if it has a definite role in the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty-two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all-cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in-hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2-point reduction in patients' admission status on the WHO's ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The low- to very low-certainty evidence means that we do not know whether favipiravir is efficacious in people with COVID-19 illness, irrespective of severity or admission status. Treatment with favipiravir may result in an overall increase in the incidence of adverse events but may not result in serious adverse events.

Paediatric abacavir-lamivudine fixed-dose dispersible tablets and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir granules in neonates exposed to HIV (PETITE study): an open-label, two-stage, single-arm, phase 1/2, pharmacokinetic and safety trial.

BACKGROUND: Existing solid antiretroviral fixed-dose combination formulations are preferred over liquid formulations in children, but their suitability for neonates is unknown. We evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of paediatric abacavir-lamivudine fixed-dose dispersible tablets and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir granules in neonates. METHODS: In this open-label, two-stage, single-arm, phase 1/2, pharmacokinetic and safety trial, generic abacavir- lamivudine (120:60 mg) double-scored dispersible tablets and lopinavir boosted with ritonavir (40:10 mg) granules were studied. Neonates exposed to HIV (≥37 weeks gestational age) of no more than 3 days of age with birthweights of 2000-4000 g were identified through routine care in a tertiary hospital in Cape Town, South Africa. In stage 1, the pharmacokinetics and safety of two single doses were assessed to select the multidose strategy for stage 2. Neonates received a single dose of abacavir-lamivudine (30:15 mg, a quarter of a tablet) and lopinavir boosted with ritonavir (40:10 mg - one sachet) orally between 3 days and 14 days of age, and a second dose of a quarter tablet of abacavir-lamivudine and lopinavir boosted with ritonavir (80:20 mg, two sachets) 10-14 days later in stage 1. The multidose strategy selected in stage 2 was a quarter of the abacavir-lamivudine (30:15 mg) fixed-dose dispersible tablet once per day and two sachets of the lopinavir boosted with ritonavir (80:20 mg) granules twice per day from birth to age 28 days. In both stages two intensive pharmacokinetic visits were done, one at less than 14 days of life (pharmacokinetics 1) and another 10-14 days later (pharmacokinetics 2). Safety visits were done 1-2 weeks after each pharmacokinetic visit. Primary objectives were to assess pharmacokinetics and safety of abacavir, lamivudine, and lopinavir. Pharmacokinetic endpoints were area under the concentration time curve (AUC), maximum concentration, and concentration at end of dosing interval in all participants with at least one evaluable pharmacokinetic visit. Safety endpoints included grade 3 or worse adverse events, and grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events, occurring between study drug initiation and end of study. This completed trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR202007806554538). FINDINGS: Between Aug 18, 2021, and Aug 18, 2022, 24 neonates were enrolled into the trial and received study drugs. Eight neonates completed stage 1, meeting interim pharmacokinetic and safety criteria. In stage 2, 16 neonates received study drugs. Geometric mean abacavir and lamivudine exposures (AUC0-24) were higher at 6-14 days (51·7 mg × h/L for abacavir and 17·2 mg × h/L for lamivudine) than at 19-24 days of age (25·0 mg × h/L and 11·3 mg × h/L), whereas they were similar for lopinavir over this period (AUC 0-12 58·5 mg × h/L vs 46·4 mg × h/L). Abacavir geometric mean AUC0-24 crossed the upper reference range at pharmacokinetics 1, but rapidly decreased. Lamivudine and lopinavir AUC0-tau were within range. No grade 2 or worse adverse events were related to study drugs. One neonate had a grade 1 prolonged corrected QT interval using the Fridericia method that spontaneously resolved. INTERPRETATION: Abacavir-lamivudine dispersible tablets and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir granules in neonates were safe and provided drug exposures similar to those in young infants. Although further safety data are needed, this regimen presents a new option for HIV prevention and treatment from birth. Accelerating neonatal pharmacokinetic studies of novel antiretroviral therapies is essential for neonates to also benefit from state-of-the-art treatments. FUNDING: Unitaid.

Factors associated with the acceptability of Lopinavir/Ritonavir formulations among children living with HIV/AIDS attending care and treatment clinics in Mbeya and Mwanza, Tanzania.

INTRODUCTION: Children living with chronic illnesses are offered formulations based on manufacturer and distributor research. The aim of this study is to better understand the perspectives of children and their caregivers in accepting Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) formulations. METHODS: 362 participants were recruited from two pediatric HIV/AIDS clinics in Mbeya and Mwanza, Tanzania, from December 2021 to May 2022. A translated questionnaire was piloted and validated at both clinics, followed by the implementation of a cross-sectional study. RESULTS: 169 participants (47.1%) reported general difficulties in swallowing, regardless of formulation, while 34.3% and 38.5% reported vomiting tablets and syrups, respectively. Statistical significance is shown to support that children can swallow medications if they can eat stiffened porridge (Ugali). This correlated with the lower incidence of younger children being able to swallow compared to older children (above six years of age). Children older than six years preferred taking tablets (independent of daily dosage) better than other formulations. Significantly, older children who attend school were associated with high odds of swallowing medicine (AOR = 3.06, 95%CI; 1.32-7.05); however, age was not found to be statistically related to ease of administration for Lopinavir/Ritonavir in this study. CONCLUSIONS: Lopinavir/Ritonavir tablets remain the most accepted formulation among children and adolescents with HIV/AIDS. This study highlights the impact of various factors affecting the acceptability of pediatric formulation, suggesting that children younger than six years, unable to eat Ugali and not attending schools may be most vulnerable regarding their ability to accept Lopinavir/Ritonavir formulations. Further studies are needed to assess the acceptability of other medications in chronically ill children.

A detailed characterization of drug resistance during darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy highlights a high barrier to the emergence of resistance mutations in protease but identifies alternative pathways of resistance.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance monotherapy with ritonavir-boosted darunavir has yielded variable outcomes and is not recommended. Trial samples offer valuable opportunities for detailed studies. We analysed samples from a 48 week trial in Cameroon to obtain a detailed characterization of drug resistance. METHODS: Following failure of NNRTI-based therapy and virological suppression on PI-based therapy, participants were randomized to ritonavir-boosted darunavir (n = 81) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/lamivudine +ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (n = 39). At study entry, PBMC-derived HIV-1 DNA underwent bulk Protease and Reverse Transcriptase (RT) sequencing. At virological rebound (confirmed or last available HIV-1 RNA ≥ 60 copies/mL), plasma HIV-1 RNA underwent ultradeep Protease and RT sequencing and bulk Gag-Protease sequencing. The site-directed mutant T375A (p2/p7) was characterized phenotypically using a single-cycle assay. RESULTS: NRTI and NNRTI resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were detected in 52/90 (57.8%) and 53/90 (58.9%) HIV-1 DNA samples, respectively. Prevalence in rebound HIV-1 RNA (ritonavir-boosted darunavir, n = 21; ritonavir-boosted lopinavir, n = 2) was 9/23 (39.1%) and 10/23 (43.5%), respectively, with most RAMs detected at frequencies ≥15%. The resistance patterns of paired HIV-1 DNA and RNA sequences were partially consistent. No darunavir RAMs were found. Among eight participants experiencing virological rebound on ritonavir-boosted darunavir (n = 12 samples), all had Gag mutations associated with PI exposure, including T375N, T375A (p2/p7), K436R (p7/p1) and substitutions in p17, p24, p2 and p6. T375A conferred 10-fold darunavir resistance and increased replication capacity. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the high resistance barrier of ritonavir-boosted darunavir while identifying alternative pathways of resistance through Gag substitutions. During virological suppression, resistance patterns in HIV-1 DNA reflect treatment history, but due to technical and biological considerations, cautious interpretation is warranted.

Modern antiretroviral regimens in pregnant women: virologic outcomes and durability.

OBJECTIVES: Data are lacking on the virologic efficacy and durability of modern antiretroviral treatment (ART) regimens during pregnancy. We compared virologic outcomes at delivery among women receiving dolutegravir versus other ART and the rate of change of the initial pregnancy regimen. DESIGN: Single-site retrospective cohort between 2009 and 2019. METHODS: We used univariable and multivariable generalized estimating equations to model the relationship between the maternal ART anchor and the proportion of women with a detectable viral load (greater than or equal to 20 HIV RNA copies/mL of plasma) closest to delivery (suboptimal virologic control) and with a detectable viral load at any time in the third trimester. We also compared changes in ART during pregnancy. RESULTS: We evaluated 230 pregnancies in 173 mothers. Rates of optimal virologic control at delivery did not significantly differ in mothers who received dolutegravir (93.1%), rilpivirine (92.1%), boosted darunavir (82.6%), or efavirenz (76.9%) but were significantly lower among mothers receiving atazanavir (49.0%) or lopinavir (40.9%). The odds of having a detectable viral load at any time in the third trimester was also higher for atazanavir and lopinavir. Raltegravir, elvitegravir, or bictegravir were used in less than 10 mothers at delivery, which precluded statistical analyses. The frequency of change in ART was significantly higher in mothers who initially received elvitegravir (68%) or efavirenz (47%) than dolutegravir (18%). CONCLUSION: Dolutegravir-containing, rilpivirine-containing, and boosted darunavir-containing regimens conferred excellent virologic control in pregnancy. Atazanavir and lopinavir, elvitegravir, and efavirenz were associated with either high rates of virologic failure or regimen change during pregnancy.

Clinical outcomes with second-line dolutegravir in people with virological failure on first-line non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based regimens in South Africa: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Dolutegravir (DTG) is recommended for second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) after virological failure on first-line non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimens in people living with HIV in low-income and middle-income countries. We compared the effectiveness of DTG versus the previously recommended ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) regimen for second-line treatment in South Africa. METHODS: In this retrospective observational cohort study, we used routinely collected, de-identified data from 59 primary health-care facilities in eThekwini Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. We included people living with HIV aged 15 years or older with virological failure (defined as two consecutive viral loads of ≥1000 copies per mL at least 56 days apart) on first-line NNRTI-based ART containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and who switched to second-line ART. Our primary outcomes were retention in care and viral suppression (<50 copies per mL) at 12 months after starting second-line treatment. We used modified Poisson regression models to compare these outcomes between second-line regimens (zidovudine [AZT]/emtricitabine or lamivudine [XTC]/DTG; TDF/XTC/DTG; and AZT/XTC/LPV/r). FINDINGS: We included 1214 participants in our study, of whom 729 (60%) were female and 485 (40%) were male, and whose median age was 36 years (IQR 30-42). 689 (57%) were switched to AZT/XTC/LPV/r, 217 (18%) to AZT/XTC/DTG, and 308 (25%) to TDF/XTC/DTG. Compared with AZT/XTC/LPV/r (75%), retention in care was higher with AZT/XTC/DTG (86%, adjusted risk ratio [aRR]=1·14, 95% CI 1·03-1·27; adjusted risk difference [aRD]=10·89%, 95% CI 2·01 to 19·78) but similar with TDF/XTC/DTG (77%, aRR=1·01, 0·94-1·10; aRD=1·04%, -5·03 to 7·12). Observed retention in care was lower with TDF/XTC/DTG than with AZT/XTC/DTG, although in multivariable analysis evidence for a difference was weak (aRR=0·89, 0·78-1·01, p=0·060; aRD=-9·85%, -20·33 to 0·63, p=0·066). Of 799 participants who were retained in care with a 12-month viral load test done, viral suppression was higher with AZT/XTC/DTG (59%; aRR=1·25, 1·06-1·47; aRD=11·57%, 2·37 to 20·76) and higher with TDF/XTC/DTG (61%; aRR=1·30, 1·14-1·48; aRD=14·16%, 7·14 to 21·18) than with AZT/XTC/LPV/r (47%). INTERPRETATION: These findings from routine care support further implementation of WHO's recommendation to use DTG instead of LPV/r in people living with HIV who experience virological failure while receiving first-line NNRTI-based ART. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. TRANSLATION: For the isiZulu translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline - 16 September 2022

The WHO Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline contains the Organization's most up-to-date recommendations for the use of therapeutics in the treatment of COVID-19. The latest version of this living guideline is available in pdf format (via the 'Download' button) and via an online platform, and is updated regularly as new evidence emerges. This twelfth version of the WHO living guideline now contains 19 recommendations. This latest update provides updated recommendations for remdesivir, addresses the use of combination therapy with corticosteroids, interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor blockers and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in patients with severe or critical COVID-19, and modifies previous recommendations for the neutralizing monoclonal antibodies sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab in patients with non-severe COVID-19.

Diretrizes Brasileiras para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19: Diretriz conjunta da Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia e Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia / Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Joint guideline of Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia

Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas ou propostas para a COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é elaborar recomendações para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 no Brasil. Métodos: Um grupo de 27 membros, formado por especialistas, representantes do Ministério da Saúde e metodologistas, integra essa diretriz. Foi utilizado o método de elaboração de diretrizes rápidas, tomando por base a adoção e/ou a adaptação de recomendações a partir de diretrizes internacionais existentes (GRADE ADOLOPMENT), apoiadas pela plataforma e-COVID-19 RecMap. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o método GRADE. Resultados: Foram geradas 16 recomendações. Entre elas, estão recomendações fortes para o uso de corticosteroides em pacientes em uso de oxigênio suplementar, para o uso de anticoagulantes em doses de profilaxia para tromboembolismo e para não uso de antibacterianos nos pacientes sem suspeita de infecção bacteriana. Não foi possível fazer uma recomendação quanto à utilização do tocilizumabe em pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 em uso de oxigênio, pelas incertezas na disponibilidade e de acesso ao medicamento. Foi feita recomendação para não usar azitromicina, casirivimabe + imdevimabe, cloroquina, colchicina, hidroxicloroquina, ivermectina, lopinavir/ ritonavir, plasma convalescente e rendesivir. Conclusão: Até o momento, poucas terapias se provaram efetivas no tratamento do paciente hospitalizado com COVID-19, sendo recomendados apenas corticosteroides e profilaxia para tromboembolismo. Diversos medicamentos foram considerados ineficazes, devendo ser descartados, de forma a oferecer o melhor tratamento pelos princípios da medicina baseada em evidências e promover economia de recursos não eficazes.

Several therapies are being used or proposed for COVID-19, and many lack appropriate evaluations of their effectiveness and safety. The purpose of this document is to develop recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: A group of 27 experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. Results: Sixteen recommendations were generated. They include strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen, the use of anticoagulants at prophylactic doses to prevent thromboembolism and the nonuse of antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection. It was not possible to make a recommendation regarding the use of tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 using oxygen due to uncertainties regarding the availability of and access to the drug. Strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, lopinavir + ritonavir and antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection and also conditional recommendations against the use of casirivimab + imdevimab, ivermectin and rendesivir were made. Conclusion: To date, few therapies have proven effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and only corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are recommended. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and promote economical resource use.