Recurrence of Symptoms Following Cryptococcal Meningitis: Characterizing a Diagnostic Conundrum With Multiple Etiologies.

BACKGROUND: Cryptococcal meningitis is a common cause of AIDS-related mortality. Although symptom recurrence after initial treatment is common, the etiology is often difficult to decipher. We sought to summarize characteristics, etiologies, and outcomes among persons with second-episode symptomatic recurrence. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled Ugandans with cryptococcal meningitis and obtained patient characteristics, antiretroviral therapy (ART) and cryptococcosis histories, clinical outcomes, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis results. We independently adjudicated cases of second-episode meningitis to categorize patients as (1) microbiological relapse, (2) paradoxical immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS), (3) persistent elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) only, or (4) persistent symptoms only, along with controls of primary cryptococcal meningitis. We compared groups with chi-square or Kruskal-Wallis tests as appropriate. RESULTS: 724 participants were included (n = 607 primary episode, 81 relapse, 28 paradoxical IRIS, 2 persistently elevated ICP, 6 persistent symptoms). Participants with culture-positive relapse had lower CD4 (25 cells/µL; IQR: 9-76) and lower CSF white blood cell (WBC; 4 cells/µL; IQR: 4-85) counts than paradoxical IRIS (CD4: 78 cells/µL; IQR: 47-142; WBC: 45 cells/µL; IQR: 8-128). Among those with CSF WBC <5 cells/µL, 86% (43/50) had relapse. Among those with CD4 counts <50 cells/µL, 91% (39/43) had relapse. Eighteen-week mortality (from current symptom onset) was 47% among first episodes of cryptococcal meningitis, 31% in culture-positive relapses, and 14% in paradoxical IRIS. CONCLUSIONS: Poor immune reconstitution was noted more often in relapse than IRIS as evidenced by lower CSF WBC and blood CD4 counts. These easily obtained laboratory values should prompt initiation of antifungal treatment while awaiting culture results. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01802385.

A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) occurs after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For persons who are exposed, the standard of care is observation and quarantine. Whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent symptomatic infection after SARS-CoV-2 exposure is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was -2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -7.0 to 2.2; P = 0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668.).

Hydroxychloroquine as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Workers: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations. RESULTS: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was .72 (95% CI, .44-1.16; P = .18) and for twice-weekly was .74 (95% CI, .46-1.19; P = .22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19-compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467.

Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19 : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: No effective oral therapy exists for early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether hydroxychloroquine could reduce COVID-19 severity in adult outpatients. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 22 March through 20 May 2020. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04308668). SETTING: Internet-based trial across the United States and Canada (40 states and 3 provinces). PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic, nonhospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or probable COVID-19 and high-risk exposure within 4 days of symptom onset. INTERVENTION: Oral hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 more days) or masked placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Symptoms and severity at baseline and then at days 3, 5, 10, and 14 using a 10-point visual analogue scale. The primary end point was change in overall symptom severity over 14 days. RESULTS: Of 491 patients randomly assigned to a group, 423 contributed primary end point data. Of these, 341 (81%) had laboratory-confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or epidemiologically linked exposure to a person with laboratory-confirmed infection; 56% (236 of 423) were enrolled within 1 day of symptoms starting. Change in symptom severity over 14 days did not differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (difference in symptom severity: relative, 12%; absolute, -0.27 point [95% CI, -0.61 to 0.07 point]; P = 0.117). At 14 days, 24% (49 of 201) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine had ongoing symptoms compared with 30% (59 of 194) receiving placebo (P = 0.21). Medication adverse effects occurred in 43% (92 of 212) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine versus 22% (46 of 211) receiving placebo (P < 0.001). With placebo, 10 hospitalizations occurred (2 non-COVID-19-related), including 1 hospitalized death. With hydroxychloroquine, 4 hospitalizations occurred plus 1 nonhospitalized death (P = 0.29). LIMITATION: Only 58% of participants received SARS-CoV-2 testing because of severe U.S. testing shortages. CONCLUSION: Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Private donors.

Phase I EnACT Trial of the Safety and Tolerability of a Novel Oral Formulation of Amphotericin B.

Amphotericin B deoxycholate (AMB) has substantial toxicities. A novel encochleated amphotericin B deoxycholate (cAMB) formulation has oral bioavailability, efficacy in an animal model, and minimal toxicity due to targeted drug delivery into macrophages, where intracellular fungi reside. We conducted a phase I, ascending-dose trial of cAMB administered at 1.0 g, 1.5 g, or 2.0 g per day in 4 to 6 divided doses among HIV-positive survivors of cryptococcosis (n = 9 per cohort). We assessed the tolerability of cAMB and the adverse events (AEs) associated with cAMB treatment over 3 days. A second trial (n = 9) assessed the tolerability of 1.5 g/day given for 7 days. In the single-ascending-dose study, all subjects received their full daily dose without vomiting (100% tolerability). The cohort receiving 1.0 g had 4 transient clinical AEs in 2 subjects within 48 h and 8 laboratory AEs (n = 6 grade 2, n = 2 grade 1). The cohort receiving 1.5 g had 7 clinical AEs in 1 subject attributed to acute gastroenteritis (n = 4 grade 2) and 5 laboratory AEs (n = 1 grade 2). The cohort receiving 2.0 g had 20 clinical AEs among 5 subjects within 48 h (n = 3 grade 2) and 11 laboratory AEs (n = 2 grade 2, n = 1 grade 3). From a qualitative survey, 26 of 27 subjects (96%) preferred their experience with oral cAMB over their prior experience with intravenous (i.v.) AMB. The second, multiple-dose cohort received 1.5 g/day for 1 week, with 98.4% (248/252) of the doses being taken. Overall, 5 clinical AEs (n = 5 grade 1) and 6 laboratory AEs (n = 6 grade 1) occurred without kidney toxicity. Oral cAMB was well tolerated when given in 4 to 6 divided daily doses without the toxicities commonly seen with i.v. AMB. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT04031833.).

Feasibility of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing in Remote Outpatient Trials.

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical trials necessitated rapid testing to be performed remotely. Dried blood spot (DBS) techniques have enabled remote HIV virologic testing globally, and more recently, antibody testing as well. We evaluated DBS testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody testing in outpatients to assess seropositivity. Methods: In 2020, we conducted 3 internet-based randomized clinical trials and offered serologic testing via self-collected DBS as a voluntary substudy. COVID-19 diagnosis was based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention case definition with epidemiological link to cases. A minority reported polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing at an outside facility. We tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin via antibody detection by agglutination-PCR (ADAP) and compared the results with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Results: Of 2727 participants in the primary studies, 60% (1648/2727) consented for serology testing; 56% (931/1648) returned a usable DBS sample. Of those who were asymptomatic, 5% (33/707) had positive ADAP serology. Of participants with a positive PCR, 67% (36/54) had positive SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. None of those who were PCR-positive and asymptomatic were seropositive (0/7). Of 77 specimens tested for concordance via ELISA, 83% (64/77) were concordant. The challenges of completing a remote testing program during a pandemic included sourcing and assembling collection kits, delivery and return of the kits, and troubleshooting testing. Self-collection was successful for >95% of participants. Delays in US mail with possible sample degradation and timing of DBS collection complicated the analysis. Conclusions: We found remote antibody testing during a global pandemic feasible although challenging. We identified an association between symptomatic COVID-19 and positive antibody results at a similar prevalence as other outpatient cohorts.

Symptoms of COVID-19 Outpatients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel pathogen causing the current worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Due to insufficient diagnostic testing in the United States, there is a need for clinical decision-making algorithms to guide testing prioritization. METHODS: We recruited participants nationwide for a randomized clinical trial. We categorized participants into 3 groups: (1) those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, (2) those with probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (pending test or not tested but with a confirmed COVID-19 contact), and (3) those with possible SARS-CoV-2 infection (pending test or not tested and with a contact for whom testing was pending or not performed). We compared the frequency of self-reported symptoms in each group and categorized those reporting symptoms in early infection (0-2 days), midinfection (3-5 days), and late infection (>5 days). RESULTS: Among 1252 symptomatic persons screened, 316 had confirmed, 393 had probable, and 543 had possible SARS-CoV-2 infection. In early infection, those with confirmed and probable SARS-CoV-2 infection shared similar symptom profiles, with fever most likely in confirmed cases (P = .002). Confirmed cases did not show any statistically significant differences compared with unconfirmed cases in symptom frequency at any time point. The most commonly reported symptoms in those with confirmed infection were cough (82%), fever (67%), fatigue (62%), and headache (60%), with only 52% reporting both fever and cough. CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic persons with probable SARS-CoV-2 infection present similarly to those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was no pattern of symptom frequency over time.

Baseline Serum C-Reactive Protein Level Predicts Mortality in Cryptococcal Meningitis.

BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP) is an acute phase protein produced by the liver in response to systemic inflammation. CRP is a helpful surrogate biomarker used for following the progression and resolution of infection. We aimed to determine the association of baseline CRP level and the temporal change in CRP over time with cryptococcal meningitis outcome. METHODS: We reviewed 168 prospectively enrolled HIV-infected Ugandans with confirmed first-episode cryptococcal meningitis. Baseline plasma CRP collected within 5 days of meningitis diagnosis was categorized into quartiles. We compared baseline CRP with 18-week survival using time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: Of 168 participants, the baseline first quartile of serum CRP was <29.0 mg/L, second quartile 29.0-49.5 mg/L, third quartile 49.6-83.6 mg/L, and fourth quartile >83.6 mg/L. Baseline CD4 count, HIV viral load, and cerebrospinal fluid results did not differ by CRP quartile. Participants with CRP >49.5 mg/L more likely presented with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) <15 (P = .03). The 18-week mortality rate was 55% (46/84) in the highest 2 quartile CRP groups (>49.5 mg/L), 41% (17/42) in the mid-range CRP group (29.0-49.5 mg/L), and 14% (6/42) in the low-CRP group (<29.0 mg/L; P < .001). After adjustment for possible confounding factors including GCS <15, CRP remained significantly associated with mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.084 per 10 mg/L; 95% CI, 1.031-1.139; P = .0016). CONCLUSIONS: Higher baseline CRP is associated with increased mortality in HIV-infected individuals with first-episode cryptococcal meningitis. CRP could be a surrogate marker for undiagnosed coinfections or may reflect immune dysregulation, leading to worse outcomes in persons with advanced AIDS and concomitant cryptococcal meningitis.

Hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare workers: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high-risk of exposure. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with Covid-19, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, Covid-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine 400mg once weekly or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable Covid-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole blood concentrations. RESULTS: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of which 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of Covid-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events per person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events per person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events per person-year with placebo. For once weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was 0.72 (95%CI 0.44 to 1.16; P=0.18) and for twice weekly was 0.74 (95%CI 0.46 to 1.19; P=0.22) as compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed Covid-19 (154 ng/mL) versus participants without Covid-19 (133 ng/mL; P=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or Covid-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers.

Safety of Hydroxychloroquine among Outpatient Clinical Trial Participants for COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, especially in combination with azithromycin, has raised safety concerns. Here, we report safety data from three outpatient randomized clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials investigating hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis, post-exposure prophylaxis and early treatment for COVID-19. We excluded individuals with contraindications to hydroxychloroquine. We collected side effects and serious adverse events. We report descriptive analyses of our findings. RESULTS: We enrolled 2,795 participants. The median age of research participants was 40 (IQR 34-49) years, and 59% (1633/2767) reported no chronic medical conditions. Overall 2,324 (84%) participants reported side effect data, and 638 (27%) reported at least one medication side effect. Side effects were reported in 29% with daily, 36% with twice weekly, 31% with once weekly hydroxychloroquine compared to 19% with placebo. The most common side effects were upset stomach or nausea (25% with daily, 18% with twice weekly, 16% with weekly, vs. 10% for placebo), followed by diarrhea, vomiting, or abdominal pain (23% for daily, 16% twice weekly, 12% weekly, vs. 6% for placebo). Two individuals were hospitalized for atrial arrhythmias, one on placebo and one on twice weekly hydroxychloroquine. No sudden deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: Data from three outpatient COVID-19 trials demonstrated that gastrointestinal side effects were common but mild with the use of hydroxychloroquine, while serious side effects were rare. No deaths occurred related to hydroxychloroquine. Randomized clinical trials can safely investigate whether hydroxychloroquine is efficacious for COVID-19.

Safety of Hydroxychloroquine Among Outpatient Clinical Trial Participants for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially in combination with azithromycin, has raised safety concerns. Here, we report safety data from 3 outpatient randomized clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials investigating hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis, postexposure prophylaxis, and early treatment for COVID-19 using an internet-based design. We excluded individuals with contraindications to hydroxychloroquine. We collected side effects and serious adverse events. We report descriptive analyses of our findings. RESULTS: We enrolled 2795 participants. The median age of research participants (interquartile range) was 40 (34-49) years, and 59% (1633/2767) reported no chronic medical conditions. Overall 2544 (91%) participants reported side effect data, and 748 (29%) reported at least 1 medication side effect. Side effects were reported in 40% with once-daily, 36% with twice-weekly, 31% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, compared with 19% with placebo. The most common side effects were upset stomach or nausea (25% with once-daily, 19% with twice-weekly, and 18% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 11% for placebo), followed by diarrhea, vomiting, or abdominal pain (23% for once-daily, 17% twice-weekly, and 13% once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 7% for placebo). Two individuals were hospitalized for atrial arrhythmias, 1 on placebo and 1 on twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine. No sudden deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Data from 3 outpatient COVID-19 trials demonstrated that gastrointestinal side effects were common but mild with the use of hydroxychloroquine, while serious side effects were rare. No deaths occurred related to hydroxychloroquine. Randomized clinical trials, in cohorts of healthy outpatients, can safely investigate whether hydroxychloroquine is efficacious for COVID-19. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04308668 for postexposure prophylaxis and early treatment trials; NCT04328467 for pre-exposure prophylaxis trial.