LINAS-Score: prognostic model for mortality assessment in patients with cirrhotic liver and infected ascites.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patients with liver cirrhosis often face a grave threat from infected ascites (IA). However, a well-established prognostic model for this complication has not been established in routine clinical practice. Therefore, we aimed to assess mortality risk in patients with liver cirrhosis and IA. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study across three tertiary hospitals, enrolling 534 adult patients with cirrhotic liver and IA, comprising 465 with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), 34 with bacterascites (BA), and 35 with secondary peritonitis (SP). To determine the attributable mortality risk linked to IA, these patients were matched with 122 patients with hydropic decompensated liver cirrhosis but without IA. Clinical, laboratory, and microbiological parameters were assessed for their relation to mortality using univariable analyses and a multivariable random forest model (RFM). Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) regression model was used to establish an easy-to-use mortality prediction score. RESULTS: The in-hospital mortality risk was highest for SP (39.0%), followed by SBP (26.0%) and BA (25.0%). Besides illness severity markers, microbiological parameters, such as Candida spp., were identified as the most significant indicators for mortality. The Lasso model determined 15 parameters with corresponding scores, yielding good discriminatory power (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve = 0.89). Counting from 0 to 83, scores of 20, 40, 60, and 80 corresponded to in-hospital mortalities of 3.3%, 30.8%, 85.2%, and 98.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: We developed a promising mortality prediction score for IA, highlighting the importance of microbiological parameters in conjunction with illness severity for assessing patient outcomes.

Low Spontaneous Clearance Rates of Recently Acquired Hepatitis C Virus in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Positive Men Who Have Sex With Men (PROBE-C Study).

BACKGROUND: Using direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for recently acquired hepatitis C virus (RAHCV) infections, particularly in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive men who have sex with men (MSM), dramatically reduced the incidence of hepatitis C. However, implementation into clinical practice is challenging. The aim of this study was to analyze spontaneous clearance (SC) rates of RAHCV and to identify predictors of SC. METHODS: The PROBE-C study is an observational European cohort on RAHCV infections in HIV-positive MSM. Between 2007 and 2017, RAHCV infections were documented with ≥12 months of follow-up. Fisher exact, χ2, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 464 RAHCV infections were documented; 457 of 464 patients (98%) were male, and the median age (interquartile range [IQR]) was 41 (38-46) years. The main risk group for hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission was MSM (98.9%). Most participants were infected with HCV genotype 1 (78.3%). The median baseline HCV RNA level (IQR) was 230 000 (135 000-474 432) IU/mL, and the median CD4+ T-cell count was 574/µL (547-604/µL. Of all cases, 92% received combination antiretroviral therapy, with 91% showing suppressed HIV RNA levels (<200 copies/mL). The median maximum alanine aminotransferase level (IQR) was 445 (402-522) U/L. SC of RAHCV infection occurred in 55 of 464 cases (11.9%). A >2-log decline in HCV RNA levels 4 weeks after diagnosis of RAHCV infection was the strongest predictor of SC (P < .001; sensitivity, 96.4%; specificity, 97.5%; positive predictive value, 84.1%; negative predictive value, 99.5%). CONCLUSIONS: SC of RAHCV in HIV-positive MSM is found in only 11.9% of cases and a <2-log drop in HCV RNA level at week 4 after diagnosis should prompt early DAA-based treatment. However, immediate DAA treatment for RAHCV infection may also be favored in patients with ongoing transmission risk behavior.

Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an RNA polymerase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity in vitro and efficacy in animal models of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial involving hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air, and radiologic evidence of pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous remdesivir for either 5 days or 10 days. All patients received 200 mg of remdesivir on day 1 and 100 mg once daily on subsequent days. The primary end point was clinical status on day 14, assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale. RESULTS: In total, 397 patients underwent randomization and began treatment (200 patients for 5 days and 197 for 10 days). The median duration of treatment was 5 days (interquartile range, 5 to 5) in the 5-day group and 9 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10) in the 10-day group. At baseline, patients randomly assigned to the 10-day group had significantly worse clinical status than those assigned to the 5-day group (P = 0.02). By day 14, a clinical improvement of 2 points or more on the ordinal scale occurred in 64% of patients in the 5-day group and in 54% in the 10-day group. After adjustment for baseline clinical status, patients in the 10-day group had a distribution in clinical status at day 14 that was similar to that among patients in the 5-day group (P = 0.14). The most common adverse events were nausea (9% of patients), worsening respiratory failure (8%), elevated alanine aminotransferase level (7%), and constipation (7%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe Covid-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, our trial did not show a significant difference between a 5-day course and a 10-day course of remdesivir. With no placebo control, however, the magnitude of benefit cannot be determined. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; GS-US-540-5773 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04292899.).

Clinical characteristics of monkeypox virus infections among men with and without HIV: A large outbreak cohort in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Since May 2022, increasing numbers of monkeypox virus (MPXV) infections have been reported from across Europe and North America. Studies, mainly from Africa, have suggested a higher risk for severe MPXV cases in people living with HIV. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all confirmed MPXV infections observed in the participating centres since 19 May 2022. We conducted a chart review to evaluate clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and coinfections, including HIV, viral hepatitis, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). RESULTS: By 30 June 2022, a total of 546 MPXV infections were reported from 42 German centres. All patients were men who have sex with men (MSM), of whom 256 (46.9%) were living with HIV, mostly with a preserved immune system and with viral suppression. In total, 232 (42.5%) MSM were also taking HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and 58 (10.6%) MSM had no known HIV infection or PrEP use. The median age was 39 years (range 20-67), and comorbidities were rare. However, 52.4% and 29.4% of all patients had been diagnosed with at least one STI within the last 6 months or within the last 4 weeks, respectively. The most frequent localizations of MPXV infection were genital (49.9%) and anal (47.9%), whereas fever (53.2%) and lymphadenopathy (42.6%) were the most frequent general symptoms. The hospitalization rate was low (4.0%), and no fatal course was observed. The clinical picture showed no apparent differences between MSM with or without HIV. CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary cohort analysis from a current large outbreak among MSM in Germany, the clinical picture of MPXV infection did not differ between MSM with and without HIV infection. Severe courses were rare and hospitalization rates were low. However, most patients were relatively healthy, and only a few people living with HIV were viremic or severely immunosuppressed.

Clinical and virological features of first human monkeypox cases in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Monkeypox is a zoonotic orthopoxvirus infection endemic in central and western Africa. In May 2022, human monkeypox infections including human-to-human transmission were reported in a multi-country outbreak in Europe and North America. CASE PRESENTATIONS: Here we present the first two cases of monkeypox infection in humans diagnosed in Germany. We present clinical and virological findings, including the detection of monkeypox virus DNA in blood and semen. The clinical presentation and medical history of our patients suggest close physical contact during sexual interactions as the route of infection. CONCLUSION: Monkeypox requires rapid diagnosis and prompt public health response. The disease should be considered in the current situation especially the differential diagnosis of vesicular or pustular rash, particularly in patients with frequent sexual contacts. Most importantly, it is essential to raise awareness among all health professionals for the rapid and correct recognition and diagnosis of this disease, which is probably still underreported in Europe (Adler et al. in Lancet Infect Dis https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00228-6 , 2022).

Use and effectiveness of remdesivir for the treatment of patients with covid-19 using data from the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (LEOSS): a multicentre cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The use of remdesivir (RDV) as the first drug approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains controversial. Based on the Lean European Open Survey on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected patients (LEOSS), we aim to contribute timing-focused complementary real-world insights to its evaluation. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 infected patients between January 2020 and December 2021 treated with RDV were matched 1:1 to controls considering sociodemographics, comorbidities and clinical status. Multiple imputations were used to account for missing data. Effects on fatal outcome were estimated using uni- and multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: We included 9,687 patients. For those starting RDV administration in the complicated phase, Cox regression for fatal outcome showed an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 0.59 (95%CI 0.41-0.83). Positive trends could be obtained for further scenarios: an aHR of 0.51 (95%CI 0.16-1.68) when RDV was initiated in uncomplicated and of 0.76 (95% CI 0.55-1.04) in a critical phase of disease. Patients receiving RDV with concomitant steroids exhibited a further reduction in aHR in both, the complicated (aHR 0.50, 95%CI 0.29-0.88) and critical phase (aHR 0.63, 95%CI 0.39-1.02). CONCLUSION: Our study results elucidate that RDV use, in particular when initiated in the complicated phase and accompanied by steroids is associated with improved mortality. However, given the limitations of non-randomized trials in estimating the magnitude of the benefit of an intervention, further randomized trials focusing on the timing of therapy initiation seem warranted.

Disease severity in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: comparing routine surveillance with cohort data from the LEOSS study in 2020 in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Studies investigating risk factors for severe COVID-19 often lack information on the representativeness of the study population. Here, we investigate factors associated with severe COVID-19 and compare the representativeness of the dataset to the general population. METHODS: We used data from the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (LEOSS) of hospitalized COVID-19 patients diagnosed in 2020 in Germany to identify associated factors for severe COVID-19, defined as progressing to a critical disease stage or death. To assess the representativeness, we compared the LEOSS cohort to cases of hospitalized patients in the German statutory notification data of the same time period. Descriptive methods and Poisson regression models were used. RESULTS: Overall, 6672 hospitalized patients from LEOSS and 132,943 hospitalized cases from the German statutory notification data were included. In LEOSS, patients above 76 years were less likely represented (34.3% vs. 44.1%). Moreover, mortality was lower (14.3% vs. 21.5%) especially among age groups above 66 years. Factors associated with a severe COVID-19 disease course in LEOSS included increasing age, male sex (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53-1.86), prior stem cell transplantation (aRR 2.27, 95% CI 1.53-3.38), and an elevated C-reactive protein at day of diagnosis (aRR 2.30, 95% CI 2.03-2.62). CONCLUSION: We identified a broad range of factors associated with severe COVID-19 progression. However, the results may be less applicable for persons above 66 years since they experienced lower mortality in the LEOSS dataset compared to the statutory notification data.

[Measures and Recommendations for Ensuring Adequate Inpatient Care Capacities for Pandemic Management within a Region: Results of a Hybrid Delphi Method]. / Maßnahmen und Empfehlungen für die Sicherstellung adäquater stationärer Versorgungskapazitäten für das Pandemiemanagement innerhalb einer Region ­ Ergebnisse eines hybriden Delphi-Verfahrens.

INTRODUCTION: Since the beginning of the pandemic in spring 2020, inpatient healthcare has been under enormous burden, which is reflected especially in overworked staff, imprecise bed planning and/or data transfer. According to the recommendation of the Science Council, university clinics should play a controlling role in regional healthcare and act in conjunction with surrounding hospitals and practices. METHODS: In September 2021, 31 representatives from 18 university hospitals were invited to a hybrid Delphi study with a total of 4 survey rounds to discuss criteria for effective inpatient care in a pandemic situation, which were extracted from previous expert interviews. Criteria that were classified as very important/relevant by≥75% of the participants in the first round of the survey (consensus definition) were then further summarized in 4 different small groups. In a third Delphi round, all participants came together again to discuss the results of the small group discussions. Subsequently, these were prioritized as Optional ("can"), Desirable ("should") or Necessary ("must") recommendations. RESULTS: Of the invited clinical experts, 21 (67.7%) participated in at least one Delphi round. In an online survey (1st Delphi round), 233 criteria were agreed upon and reduced to 84 criteria for future pandemic management in four thematic small group discussions (2nd Delphi round) and divided into the small groups as follows: "Crisis Management and Crisis Plans" (n=20), "Human Resources Management and Internal Communication" (n=16), "Regional Integration and External Communication" (n=24) and "Capacity Management and Case & Care" (n=24). In the following group discussion (3rd Delphi round), the criteria were further modified and agreed upon by the experts, so that in the end result, there were 23 essential requirements and recommendations for effective inpatient care in a pandemic situation. CONCLUSION: The results draw attention to key demands of clinical representatives, for example, comprehensive digitization, standardization of processes and better (supra) regional networking in order to be able to guarantee needs-based care even under pandemic conditions. The present consensus recommendations can serve as guidelines for future pandemic management in the inpatient care sector.

Phase IIa Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of the Antiviral Efficacy, Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of the Next-Generation Maturation Inhibitor GSK3640254.

BACKGROUND: GSK3640254 (GSK'254) is a next-generation human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) maturation inhibitor with pharmacokinetics (PK) supporting once-daily therapy. METHODS: This phase IIa double-blind (sponsor-unblinded), randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive study evaluated antiviral effect, safety, tolerability, and PK of once-daily GSK'254 monotherapy administered with food (moderate-fat meal) in HIV-1-positive, treatment-naive adults. In part 1, participants received GSK'254 10 or 200 mg for 10 days. In part 2, participants received GSK'254 40, 80, or 140 mg for 7 days, modified from 10 days by a protocol amendment to decrease potential for resistance-associated mutations (RAMs). The primary endpoint was maximum change from baseline in HIV-1 RNA. RESULTS: Maximum changes in HIV-1 RNA of -0.4, -1.2, -1.0, -1.5, and -2.0 log10 occurred with GSK'254 10, 40, 80, 140, and 200 mg, respectively. Regardless of dosing duration, doses ≥40 mg resulted in ≥1-log10 declines in HIV-1 RNA. Plasma PK was generally dose proportional to 140 mg but non-proportional between 140 and 200 mg. Four participants in the 200-mg group developed RAMs on day 11 in part 1, 1 with phenotypic resistance. No RAMs occurred in part 2. Adverse events (AEs) were reported by 22 (65%) participants; headache was the most common (n = 4). Two non-drug-related serious AEs occurred. All AEs were of mild-to-moderate intensity, except for 2 grade 3 non-drug-related AEs in 1 participant. CONCLUSIONS: This monotherapy study established a dose-antiviral response relationship for GSK'254. No safety or tolerability concerns were noted. These results supported dose selection for the ongoing phase IIb study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04493216). CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03784079.

Infection Control Measures and Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG among 4,554 University Hospital Employees, Munich, Germany.

Hospital staff are at high risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. This cross-sectional study aimed to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospital staff at the University Hospital rechts der Isar in Munich, Germany, and identify modulating factors. Overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-IgG in 4,554 participants was 2.4%. Staff engaged in direct patient care, including those working in COVID-19 units, had a similar probability of being seropositive as non-patient-facing staff. Increased probability of infection was observed in staff reporting interactions with SARS-CoV-2‒infected coworkers or private contacts or exposure to COVID-19 patients without appropriate personal protective equipment. Analysis of spatiotemporal trajectories identified that distinct hotspots for SARS-CoV-2‒positive staff and patients only partially overlap. Patient-facing work in a healthcare facility during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic might be safe as long as adequate personal protective equipment is used and infection prevention practices are followed inside and outside the hospital.

All-cause mortality and disease progression in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with or without antibiotic therapy: an analysis of the LEOSS cohort.

PURPOSE: Reported antibiotic use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is far higher than the actual rate of reported bacterial co- and superinfection. A better understanding of antibiotic therapy in COVID-19 is necessary. METHODS: 6457 SARS-CoV-2-infected cases, documented from March 18, 2020, until February 16, 2021, in the LEOSS cohort were analyzed. As primary endpoint, the correlation between any antibiotic treatment and all-cause mortality/progression to the next more advanced phase of disease was calculated for adult patients in the complicated phase of disease and procalcitonin (PCT) ≤ 0.5 ng/ml. The analysis took the confounders gender, age, and comorbidities into account. RESULTS: Three thousand, six hundred twenty-seven cases matched all inclusion criteria for analyses. For the primary endpoint, antibiotic treatment was not correlated with lower all-cause mortality or progression to the next more advanced (critical) phase (n = 996) (both p > 0.05). For the secondary endpoints, patients in the uncomplicated phase (n = 1195), regardless of PCT level, had no lower all-cause mortality and did not progress less to the next more advanced (complicated) phase when treated with antibiotics (p > 0.05). Patients in the complicated phase with PCT > 0.5 ng/ml and antibiotic treatment (n = 286) had a significantly increased all-cause mortality (p = 0.029) but no significantly different probability of progression to the critical phase (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this cohort, antibiotics in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients were not associated with positive effects on all-cause mortality or disease progression. Additional studies are needed. Advice of local antibiotic stewardship- (ABS-) teams and local educational campaigns should be sought to improve rational antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients.

Key summary of German national treatment guidance for hospitalized COVID-19 patients : Key pharmacologic recommendations from a national German living guideline using an Evidence to Decision Framework (last updated 17.05.2021).

PURPOSE: This executive summary of a national living guideline aims to provide rapid evidence based recommendations on the role of drug interventions in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The guideline makes use of a systematic assessment and decision process using an evidence to decision framework (GRADE) as recommended standard WHO (2021). Recommendations are consented by an interdisciplinary panel. Evidence analysis and interpretation is supported by the CEOsys project providing extensive literature searches and living (meta-) analyses. For this executive summary, selected key recommendations on drug therapy are presented including the quality of the evidence and rationale for the level of recommendation. RESULTS: The guideline contains 11 key recommendations for COVID-19 drug therapy, eight of which are based on systematic review and/or meta-analysis, while three recommendations represent consensus expert opinion. Based on current evidence, the panel makes strong recommendations for corticosteroids (WHO scale 5-9) and prophylactic anticoagulation (all hospitalized patients with COVID-19) as standard of care. Intensified anticoagulation may be considered for patients with additional risk factors for venous thromboembolisms (VTE) and a low bleeding risk. The IL-6 antagonist tocilizumab may be added in case of high supplemental oxygen requirement and progressive disease (WHO scale 5-6). Treatment with nMABs may be considered for selected inpatients with an early SARS-CoV-2 infection that are not hospitalized for COVID-19. Convalescent plasma, azithromycin, ivermectin or vitamin D3 should not be used in COVID-19 routine care. CONCLUSION: For COVID-19 drug therapy, there are several options that are sufficiently supported by evidence. The living guidance will be updated as new evidence emerges.

Prediction of COVID-19 deterioration in high-risk patients at diagnosis: an early warning score for advanced COVID-19 developed by machine learning.

PURPOSE: While more advanced COVID-19 necessitates medical interventions and hospitalization, patients with mild COVID-19 do not require this. Identifying patients at risk of progressing to advanced COVID-19 might guide treatment decisions, particularly for better prioritizing patients in need for hospitalization. METHODS: We developed a machine learning-based predictor for deriving a clinical score identifying patients with asymptomatic/mild COVID-19 at risk of progressing to advanced COVID-19. Clinical data from SARS-CoV-2 positive patients from the multicenter Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 Infected Patients (LEOSS) were used for discovery (2020-03-16 to 2020-07-14) and validation (data from 2020-07-15 to 2021-02-16). RESULTS: The LEOSS dataset contains 473 baseline patient parameters measured at the first patient contact. After training the predictor model on a training dataset comprising 1233 patients, 20 of the 473 parameters were selected for the predictor model. From the predictor model, we delineated a composite predictive score (SACOV-19, Score for the prediction of an Advanced stage of COVID-19) with eleven variables. In the validation cohort (n = 2264 patients), we observed good prediction performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.73 ± 0.01. Besides temperature, age, body mass index and smoking habit, variables indicating pulmonary involvement (respiration rate, oxygen saturation, dyspnea), inflammation (CRP, LDH, lymphocyte counts), and acute kidney injury at diagnosis were identified. For better interpretability, the predictor was translated into a web interface. CONCLUSION: We present a machine learning-based predictor model and a clinical score for identifying patients at risk of developing advanced COVID-19.

Health-related quality-of-life in people living with HIV after switching to dual therapy with ritonavir-boosted darunavir + dolutegravir: a DUALIS sub-study.

The DUALIS study demonstrated efficacy and safety of switching to dolutegravir plus ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV/r) (2DR) as compared to standard-of-care-therapy with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors + DRV/r (3DR) in pretreated people living with HIV (PLWH), 48 weeks after switching. This DUALIS sub-study investigates health-related-quality-of-life (HrQoL) in this study-population. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Medical Outcome Survey-HIV (MOS-HIV) were used assessing anxiety and depression symptoms, respectively HrQoL. Data were collected at baseline, 4, 24, and 48 weeks after randomization. Outcome scores were dichotomized and used as criteria in longitudinal models identifying differential developments. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed as main measures of effects. ORs<1 indicate better results for HADS, and worse for MOS-HIV scores in the 2DR compared to 3DR group. In total, 263 subjects were randomized and treated (2DR n=131, 3DR n=132; median age 48 years). Significant different progressions could only be found for HADS-Depression scores (OR=.87, 95% CI: .78, .98, p=.02). While HADS-Depression scores decreased in the 2DR group, they increased in 3DR group. This sub-study showed no disadvantages regarding HrQoL in PLWH after switching to DTG+DRV/r. Considering lifelong requirements for antiretroviral medication, close attention to HrQL is required.

SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies to prevent COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as potential prophylaxis to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 27 April 2022. We checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, alone or combined, versus an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of COVID-19. We excluded studies of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs to treat COVID-19, as these are part of another review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB 2. Prioritised outcomes were infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, all-cause mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs of 9749 participants who were previously uninfected and unvaccinated at baseline. Median age was 42 to 76 years. Around 20% to 77.5% of participants in the PrEP studies and 35% to 100% in the PEP studies had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. At baseline, 72.8% to 82.2% were SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. We identified four ongoing studies, and two studies awaiting classification. Pre-exposure prophylaxis Tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo One study evaluated tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo in participants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, Beta, and Delta variant. About 39.3% of participants were censored for efficacy due to unblinding and 13.8% due to vaccination. Within six months, tixagevimab/cilgavimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.70; 4685 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), decreases development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 5172 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may decrease admission to hospital (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0 to 0.59; 5197 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tixagevimab/cilgavimab may result in little to no difference on mortality within six months, all-grade AEs, and SAEs (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and Delta variant. About 36.5% of participants opted for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and had a mean of 66.1 days between last dose of intervention and vaccination. Within six months, casirivimab/imdevimab may decrease infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.14; 825 seronegative participants; low-certainty evidence) and may decrease development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0 to 0.27; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether casirivimab/imdevimab affects mortality regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Casirivimab/imdevimab may increase all-grade AEs slightly (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on grade 3 to 4 AEs and SAEs within six months. Admission to hospital and quality of life were not reported. Postexposure prophylaxis Bamlanivimab versus placebo One study evaluated bamlanivimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type. Bamlanivimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 versus placebo by day 29 (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98; 966 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on all-cause mortality by day 60 (R 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.70; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), may increase all-grade AEs by week eight (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may increase slightly SAEs (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.91; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence). Development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital within 30 days, and quality of life were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and potentially, but less likely to Delta variant. Within 30 days, casirivimab/imdevimab decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (broad-term definition) (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.35; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.43; 1505 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in admission to hospital. Casirivimab/imdevimab may slightly decrease grade 3 to 4 AEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.02; 2617 participants; low-certainty evidence), decreases all-grade AEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; 2617 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference on SAEs in participants regardless of SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Quality of life was not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For PrEP, there is a decrease in development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (high certainty), infection with SARS-CoV-2 (moderate certainty), and admission to hospital (low certainty) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab. There is low certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, and development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms; and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab. For PEP, there is moderate certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2 and low certainty for a higher rate for all-grade AEs with bamlanivimab. There is high certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab.   Although there is high-to-moderate certainty evidence for some outcomes, it is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. These findings only apply to people unvaccinated against COVID-19. They are only applicable to the variants prevailing during the study and not other variants (e.g. Omicron). In vitro, tixagevimab/cilgavimab is effective against Omicron, but there are no clinical data. Bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are ineffective against Omicron in vitro. Further studies are needed and publication of four ongoing studies may resolve the uncertainties.

HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis was associated with no impact on sexually transmitted infection prevalence in a high-prevalence population of predominantly men who have sex with men, Germany, 2018 to 2019.

IntroductionDespite increased use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in Germany, HIV infection rates are not declining and little is known about how this prevention method affects the prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STI) among men who have sex with men (MSM).AimWe studied, in a large multicentre cohort, STI point prevalence, co-infection rates, anatomical location and influence of PrEP.MethodsThe BRAHMS study was a prospective cohort study conducted at 10 sites in seven major German cities that enrolled MSM reporting increased sexual risk behaviour. At screening visits, MSM were tested for Mycoplasma genitalium (MG), Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG), Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Treponema pallidum (TP), and given a behavioural questionnaire. With binomial regression, we estimated prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association of PrEP and STI.ResultsWe screened 1,043 MSM in 2018 and 2019, with 53.0% currently using PrEP. At screening, 370 participants (35.5%) had an STI. The most common pathogen was MG in 198 (19.0%) participants, followed by CT (n = 133; 12.8%), NG (n = 105; 10.1%) and TP (n = 37; 3.5%). Among the 370 participants with at least one STI, 14.6% (n = 54) reported STI-related symptoms. Infection prevalence was highest at anorectal site (13.4% MG, 6.5% NG, 10.2% CT). PrEP use was not statistically significant in adjusted models for STI (PR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.91-1.32), NG/CT, only NG or only CT.ConclusionsPrevalence of asymptomatic STI was high, and PrEP use did not influence STI prevalence in MSM eligible for PrEP according to national guidelines.

National medical specialty guidelines of HIV indicator conditions in Europe lack adequate HIV testing recommendations: a systematic guideline review.

BackgroundAdequate identification and testing of people at risk for HIV is fundamental for the HIV care continuum. A key strategy to improve timely testing is HIV indicator condition (IC) guided testing.AimTo evaluate the uptake of HIV testing recommendations in HIV IC-specific guidelines in European countries.MethodsBetween 2019 and 2021, European HIV experts reviewed guideline databases to identify all national guidelines of 62 HIV ICs. The proportion of HIV IC guidelines recommending HIV testing was reported, stratified by subgroup (HIV IC, country, eastern/western Europe, achievement of 90-90-90 goals and medical specialty).ResultsOf 30 invited European countries, 15 participated. A total of 791 HIV IC guidelines were identified: median 47 (IQR: 38-68) per country. Association with HIV was reported in 69% (545/791) of the guidelines, and 46% (366/791) recommended HIV testing, while 42% (101/242) of the AIDS-defining conditions recommended HIV testing. HIV testing recommendations were observed more frequently in guidelines in eastern (53%) than western (42%) European countries and in countries yet to achieve the 90-90-90 goals (52%) compared to those that had (38%). The medical specialties internal medicine, neurology/neurosurgery, ophthalmology, pulmonology and gynaecology/obstetrics had an HIV testing recommendation uptake below the 46% average. None of the 62 HIV ICs, countries or medical specialties had 100% accurate testing recommendation coverage in all their available HIV IC guidelines.ConclusionFewer than half the HIV IC guidelines recommended HIV testing. This signals an insufficient adoption of this recommendation in non-HIV specialty guidelines across Europe.

[Antiviral drugs : Potent agents, promising therapies for COVID­19 and therapeutic limitations]. / Antivirale Medikamente : Potente Wirkstoffe, Hoffnungsträger bei COVID­19 und therapeutische Grenzen.

Antiviral drugs inhibit viral replication by interaction with specific elements of the viral replication cycle. Directly acting antiviral agents have revolutionized the therapeutic options for chronic infections with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV). Pharmacological developments constantly improve therapeutic and prophylactic options for diseases caused by herpes viruses, which is of particular relevance for immunocompromised patients. While infections with persistent viruses, such as HIV, HBV or herpes viruses principally so far cannot be cured, complete elimination of viruses that cause acute infections is possible; however, acute infections, such as influenza or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) offer only a small therapeutic window for antiviral strategies due to their pathophysiological dynamics. The optimal time point for antiviral agents is immediately after exposure to the virus, which frequently limits its application in practice. An effective pre-exposure or postexposure prophylaxis has been established for infections with HIV and influenza A/B and also gains relevance for infections with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Immune deficiency is a risk factor for severe COVID-19 in people living with HIV.

OBJECTIVES: A prior T cell depletion induced by HIV infection may carry deleterious consequences in the current COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical data on patients co-infected with HIV and SARS-CoV-2 are still scarce. METHODS: This multicentre cohort study evaluated risk factors for morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 in people living with HIV (PLWH), infected with SARS-CoV-2 in three countries in different clinical settings. COVID-19 was clinically classified as to be mild-to-moderate or severe. RESULTS: Of 175 patients, 49 (28%) had severe COVID-19 and 7 (4%) patients died. Almost all patients were on antiretroviral therapy (ART) and in 94%, HIV RNA was below 50 copies/mL prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. In the univariate analysis, an age 50 years or older, a CD4+ T cell nadir of < 200/µl, current CD4+ T cells < 350/µl and the presence of at least one comorbidity were significantly associated with severity of COVID-19. No significant association was found for gender, ethnicity, obesity, a detectable HIV RNA, a prior AIDS-defining illness, or tenofovir (which was mainly given as alafenamide) or protease inhibitor use in the current ART. In a multivariate analysis, the only factor associated with risk for severe COVID-19 was a current CD4+ T cell count of < 350/µl (adjusted odds ratio 2.85, 95% confidence interval 1.26-6.44, p=0.01). The only factor associated with mortality was a low CD4 T cell nadir. CONCLUSIONS: In PLWH, immune deficiency is a possible risk factor for severe COVID-19, even in the setting of virological suppression. There is no evidence for a protective effect of PIs or tenofovir alafenamide.

Clinical and Ophthalmological Characteristics of Ocular Syphilis in a Retrospective Tertiary Hospital Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Data on ocular syphilis (OS) and its clinical presentation are currently insufficient. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of a cohort with a high OS incidence at a university hospital in Germany, focusing on the clinical presentation of OS. METHODS: This single-center cohort study retrospectively analyzed data on 90 patients with 109 episodes of syphilis between 2008 and 2018. Cases of OS were identified and additionally reevaluated through a study-specific secondary assessment by an ophthalmologist specializing in uveitis. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (26%) were diagnosed with OS, 16 (70%) of whom were with binocular involvement. Uveitis, especially that of the posterior segment, showed a high prevalence. Lumbar puncture was performed in 20 OS patients (87%), of whom 17 (85% of those with lumbar puncture/74% in total) met the 2018 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for likely neurosyphilis. Five (22%) of 23 patients had HIV infection, of whom 2 did not receive antiretroviral therapy. The preferred syphilis treatment regimens were benzylpenicillin and ceftriaxone, which yielded favorable serological, clinical, and ophthalmological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A high incidence of OS was identified, and physicians should be aware of uveitis as a manifestation of syphilis. Most patients presented with uveitis and syphilis in an early or late latent stage and showed central nervous system involvement.