Long-term evolution in liver fibrosis and immune profile after direct-acting antivirals therapy in hepatitis C virus-human immunodeficiency virus co-infected patients.

OBJECTIVE: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy with direct-acting antivirals (DAA) achieves high rates of sustained virological response in people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PLWH). Information on its long-term clinical impact is scarce. The aim of this study was to analyse liver fibrosis and immune response evolution after DAA treatment. METHODS: Retrospective, single centre cohort study of HIV-HCV co-infected patients treated with DAA between June 2013 and June 2018. We analysed the changes during follow up in liver fibrosis (assessed by transient elastography (TE), aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (APRI) and FIB-4 scores) and immunity (CD4 and CD8 cells counts and CD4/CD8 ratio). RESULTS: We included 410 patients; 75% (308/407) men with a mean age of 50 years (SD 8); 78% (318/410) had long chronic HCV infection (median 21 years, interquartile range (IQR) 6-27 years) and 27% (107/393) had liver cirrhosis. Liver fibrosis improvement based on the decrease in TE value compared with the baseline occurred in 43% (131/302) of patients and 31% of patients based on biological scores (APRI: 124/398; FIB-4: 104/398) (p < 0.0001), being more frequent in those with advanced baseline fibrosis (83/144). The higher decrease was observed at 6 months after DAA therapy (-0.23; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.18), but a continuum in fibrosis regression of at least 30% from baseline value of TE was observed along the follow up (32% of patients at month 6, 51% at month 24 and 55% at month 48). Regarding the immunological profile, there was a significant decrease in CD8 counts at month 48 (-62.38; 95% CI -106.77 to -17.99; p 0.0001) and a progressive rise in the CD4/CD8 ratio after 24 months of follow up reaching an increment of +0.07 (95% CI 0.03-0.10, p 0.0001) at month 48. CONCLUSIONS: HCV treatment with DAA in PLWH is associated with significant progressive improvement in liver fibrosis and recovery of the immune system with an increase in the CD4/CD8 ratio in long-term follow up.

Impact of remdesivir according to the pre-admission symptom duration in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The use of remdesivir has demonstrated a significant reduction in the time to recovery in patients with COVID-19. However, the impact on mortality is still controversial. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate whether there is a specific subgroup of patients in whom an active antiviral therapy also reduces the mortality. METHODS: Patients admitted for >48 h in our hospital for a SARS-CoV-2 confirmed or suspected infection from February 2020 to February 2021 were retrospectively analysed. The primary outcome of the study was mortality at 30 days. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of mortality. RESULTS: In total, 2607 patients (438 receiving remdesivir and 2169 not) were included with a median (IQR) age of 65 (54-77) years and 58% were male. Four hundred and seventy-six were admitted to the ICU (18.3%) and 264 required invasive mechanical ventilation (10.1%). The global 30 day mortality rate was 10.7%. Pre-admission symptom duration of 4-6 days and ≤3 days was associated with a 1.5- and 2.5-fold increase in the mortality rate, respectively, in comparison with >6 days and treatment with remdesivir was independently associated with a lower mortality rate (OR = 0.382, 95% CI = 0.218-0.671). The analysis showed that the major difference was among patients with shorter pre-admission symptom duration (<6 days). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ≤3 days and 4-6 days from symptom onset to admission are associated with a 2.5- and 1.5-fold higher risk of death, respectively. Remdesivir was associated with 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care and its survival benefit increased with shorter duration of symptoms.

A randomized clinical trial comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus raltegravir each with tenofovir plus emtricitabine for post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) non-completion at day 28, comparing two regimens. METHODS: A prospective, open, randomized clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Individuals attending the emergency room because of potential sexual exposure to HIV were randomized to tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (245/200 mg) plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (400/100 mg) or raltegravir (400 mg). The primary endpoint was PEP non-completion at day 28. Secondary endpoints were adherence, adverse events and rate of seroconversions. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01576731. RESULTS: One-hundred-and-twenty-one individuals were randomized to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and 122 to raltegravir (n = 243). PEP non-completion at day 28 was 43% with no significant difference between arms. We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended on day 1 (n = 191). PEP non-completion in this subgroup was higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm than in the raltegravir arm (34.6% versus 20.4%, P = 0.04), as was the number of patients lost to follow-up at day 28 (32.6% versus 21.6%, P = 0.08) and the proportion of patients with low adherence (49.2% versus 30.8%, P = 0.03). Adverse events were significantly more common in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (73.4% versus 60.2%, P = 0.007). There was an HIV seroconversion at day 90 in the raltegravir arm in a patient who had multiple potential sexual risk exposures before and after receiving PEP. CONCLUSIONS: Although we found no differences between arms regarding PEP non-completion, poor adherence and adverse events were significantly higher in patients allocated to tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine plus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. These data support the use of raltegravir as the preferred third drug in current PEP recommendations.

A randomized clinical trial comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus maraviroc each with tenofovir plus emtricitabine for post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) non-completion at day 28, comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus maraviroc, both with tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine as the backbone. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, open, randomized clinical trial. Individuals attending the emergency room because of potential sexual exposure to HIV and who met criteria for receiving PEP were randomized to one of two groups: tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (245/200 mg) once daily plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (400/100 mg) or maraviroc (300 mg) twice daily. Five follow-up visits were scheduled for days 1, 10, 28, 90 and 180. The primary endpoint was PEP non-completion at day 28. Secondary endpoints were adherence, adverse events and rate of seroconversions. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01533272. RESULTS: One-hundred-and-seventeen individuals were randomized to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and 120 to maraviroc (n = 237). PEP non-completion at day 28 was 38% (n = 89), with significant differences between arms [ritonavir-boosted lopinavir 44% (n = 51) versus maraviroc 32% (n = 38), P = 0.05]. We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended on day 1 (n = 182). PEP non-completion in this subgroup was also significantly higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (27% versus 13%, P = 0.004). The proportion of patients with low adherence was similar between arms (52% versus 47%, P = 0.56). Adverse events were reported by 111 patients and were significantly more common in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (72% versus 51%, P = 0.003). No seroconversions were observed during the study. CONCLUSIONS: PEP non-completion and adverse events were both significantly higher in patients allocated to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. These data suggest that maraviroc is a well-tolerated antiretroviral that can be used in this setting.

Factors Associated with Hospitalization among Emergency Department Patients Referred for Quick Investigation of Iron-Deficiency Anemia.

BACKGROUND: Although patients with anemia are frequently seen in emergency departments (EDs), studies on patients presenting there with symptomatic chronic anemia--usually iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) caused by occult gastrointestinal bleeding--are lacking. Awareness of predictors of hospitalization could direct the ED triage to the appropriate diagnostic setting. OBJECTIVE: Based on initial observations that some patients with IDA were hospitalized after ED referral and initial evaluation at a quick diagnosis unit (QDU), a new cost-effective alternative to hospitalization for diagnostic workup, this study aimed to determine the patient factors associated with hospitalization after the first QDU visit. METHODS: An 8-year prospective cohort study of patients with IDA referred from the ED to the QDU of a third-level university hospital was conducted. Patients with a baseline hemoglobin level of <9 g/dL in the ED, proven iron deficiency, and no overt bleeding were included. The primary outcome was hospitalization after the initial QDU assessment. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-four (7.7%) of 3692 patients were hospitalized. Inter-rater agreement of appropriateness of admissions was 90.6% (κ = 0.82). Overall, 90% of study patients presented to the ED with symptomatic anemia, and 87% were transfused there. On multivariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years, living alone, a post-transfusion hemoglobin level of <9 g/dL, higher age-adjusted overall comorbidity, heart failure, and poor physical health-related quality of life at first QDU visit independently predicted hospitalization. CONCLUSION: While these predictors do not necessarily reflect the need for hospitalization, they are easily evaluated during the initial ED visit and can guide the triage of similar IDA patients to the suitable setting for timely investigation.