Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Early HIV viral suppression associated with subsequent 12-month treatment success among people living with HIV in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: We analyzed the STREAM (Simplifying HIV TREAtment and Monitoring) study to determine risk factors associated with HIV viraemia and poor retention 18 months after initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: The STREAM study was an open-label randomized controlled trial in Durban, South Africa, that enrolled 390 people living with HIV presenting for their first HIV viral load measurement ~6 months after ART initiation. We used modified Poisson regression with robust standard errors to describe associations between baseline characteristics and three HIV outcomes 18 months after ART initiation: HIV viraemia (>50 copies/mL), poor retention in HIV care, and a composite outcome of poor retention in care and/or HIV viraemia. RESULTS: Approximately 18 months after ART initiation, 45 (11.5%) participants were no longer retained in care and 43 (11.8%) had viraemia. People with CD4 counts <200 and those with viraemia 6 months after ART initiation were significantly more likely to have viraemia 18 months after ART initiation (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-7.5 and aRR 5.5; 95% CI 3.3-9.0, respectively). People who did not disclose their HIV status and had viraemia after ART initiation were more likely to not be retained in care 12 months later (aRR 2.6; 95% CI 1.1-6.1 and aRR 2.2; 95% CI 1.0-4.8). People with a CD4 count <200 and those with viraemia were more likely to not achieve the composite outcome 18 months after ART initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Viraemia after ART initiation was the strongest predictor of subsequent viraemia and poor care retention. Understanding early indicators can help target our interventions to better engage people who may be more likely to experience persistent viraemia or disengage from HIV care.

Intimate Partner Violence and HIV Outcomes Among Women Living with HIV in Durban, South Africa.

We examined the impact of past-year intimate partner violence (IPV) on HIV outcomes among women living with HIV (WLHIV) in Durban, South Africa. We assessed past-year IPV using the WHO Violence Against Women Questionnaire. We conducted logistic regression to assess associations between demographic variables and IPV at baseline, and between IPV at baseline and longitudinal HIV outcomes. Among 235 WLHIV, 17% reported past-year emotional, physical, or sexual IPV. At baseline, HIV-disclosure to partner was associated with 4.35-fold odds of past-year IPV (95% CI 1.17-16.10) after controlling for children, education, and harmful alcohol use. In the prospective analysis, IPV was associated with not achieving the co-primary outcome of retention in care and viral suppression in univariate (OR = 2.32, 95% CI 1.04-5.18), but not in the multivariate model. In the context of rapid treatment scale-up, the high burden of IPV among WLHIV needs to be prioritized, with an emphasis on disclosure support.

Impact of Point-of-Care Testing on the Management of Sexually Transmitted Infections in South Africa: Evidence from the HVTN702 Human Immunodeficiency Virus Vaccine Trial.

BACKGROUND: Alternative approaches to syndromic management are needed to reduce rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in resource-limited settings. We investigated the impact of point-of-care (POC) versus central laboratory-based testing on STI treatment initiation and STI adverse event (STI-AE) reporting. METHODS: We used Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models to compare times to treatment initiation and STI-AE reporting among HVTN702 trial participants in South Africa. Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) were diagnosed POC at eThekwini clinic and in a central laboratory at Verulam/Isipingo clinics. All clinics used POC assays for Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) testing. RESULTS: Among 959 women (median age, 23 [interquartile range, 21-26] years), median days (95% confidence interval [95%CI]) to NG/CT treatment initiation and NG/CT-AE reporting were 0.20 (.16-.25) and 0.24 (.19-.27) at eThekwini versus 14.22 (14.12-15.09) and 15.12 (13.22-21.24) at Verulam/Isipingo (all P < .001). Median days (95%CI) to TV treatment initiation and TV-AE reporting were 0.17 (.12-.27) and 0.25 (.20-.99) at eThekwini versus 0.18 (.15-.2) and 0.24 (.15-.99) at Verulam/Isipingo (all P > .05). Cox regression analysis revealed that NG/CT treatment initiation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 39.62 [95%CI, 15.13-103.74]) and NG/CT-AE reporting (aHR, 3.38 [95%CI, 2.23-5.13]) occurred faster at eThekwini versus Verulam/Isipingo, while times to TV treatment initiation (aHR, 0.93 [95%CI, .59-1.48]) and TV-AE reporting (aHR, 1.38 [95%CI, .86-2.21]) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: POC testing led to prompt STI management with potential therapeutic and prevention benefits, highlighting its utility as a diagnostic tool in resource-limited settings.

Inhaled Budesonide for COVID-19 in People at Higher Risk of Complications in the Community: The UK National Community Randomi.

Background The effectiveness of repurposed treatments with supportive evidence for higher risk individuals with COVID-19 in the community is unknown. In the UK PRINCIPLE national platform trial we aimed to determine whether 're-purposed medicines' (hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline, colchicine, inhaled budesonide, and other interventions) reduced time to recovery and COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths among people at higher risk of COVID-19 complications in the community. We mainly report the findings for budesonide arm here. Methods Participants in this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial were aged ≥65, or ≥50 years with comorbidities, and unwell ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, and were randomised to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Trial registration: ISRCTN86534580. Funded by United Kingdom Research Innovation (MC_PC_19079). Findings The trial opened on April 2, 2020, with the first 4 intervention arms stopped on futility grounds. Randomisation to the budesonide arm occurred from November 27, 2020 until March 31, 2021, when the pre-specified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants, randomised to budesonide (n=787), usual care (n=1069), and other treatments (n=674). Time to first self-reported recovery was shorter in the budesonide group versus usual care (hazard ratio 1·21 [95% credible interval 1·08 to 1·36], probability of superiority >O·999, estimated benefit 2·94 [95% credible interval 1·19 to 5·12] days). An estimated 6·8% COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths occurred in the budesonide group versus 8·8% in usual care (estimated absolute difference, 2·0% [95% credible interval -0.2% to 4.5%], probability of superiority 0.963). In the main secondary analysis of admissions using only concurrent controls, admissions occurred in 6.6% (3.8 to 10.1%) in the budesonide group versus 8.8% (95% CI 5.2 to 13.1%), with an absolute difference of 2.2% (0.0 to 4.9%) and a hazard ratio of 0.73 (0.53 to 1.00), meeting the pre-specified superiority probability of 0.975. Three serious adverse events occurred in the budesonide group and three in usual care.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. METHODS: PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). INTERPRETATION: Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Point-of-Care HIV Viral Load Testing: an Essential Tool for a Sustainable Global HIV/AIDS Response.

The global public health community has set ambitious treatment targets to end the HIV/AIDS pandemic. With the notable absence of a cure, the goal of HIV treatment is to achieve sustained suppression of an HIV viral load, which allows for immunological recovery and reduces the risk of onward HIV transmission. Monitoring HIV viral load in people living with HIV is therefore central to maintaining effective individual antiretroviral therapy as well as monitoring progress toward achieving population targets for viral suppression. The capacity for laboratory-based HIV viral load testing has increased rapidly in low- and middle-income countries, but implementation of universal viral load monitoring is still hindered by several barriers and delays. New devices for point-of-care HIV viral load testing may be used near patients to improve HIV management by reducing the turnaround time for clinical test results. The implementation of near-patient testing using these new and emerging technologies may be an essential tool for ensuring a sustainable response that will ultimately enable an end to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. In this report, we review the current and emerging technology, the evidence for decentralized viral load monitoring by non-laboratory health care workers, and the additional considerations for expanding point-of-care HIV viral load testing.

Acceptability of point-of-care viral load testing to facilitate differentiated care: a qualitative assessment of people living with HIV and nurses in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Providing viral load (VL) results to people living with HIV (PLHIV) on antiretroviral therapy (ART) remains a challenge in low and middle-income countries. Point-of-care (POC) VL testing could improve ART monitoring and the quality and efficiency of differentiated models of HIV care. We assessed the acceptability of POC VL testing within a differentiated care model that involved task-shifting from professional nurses to less highly-trained enrolled nurses, and an option of collecting treatment from a community-based ART delivery programme. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative sub-study amongst clients on ART and nurses within the STREAM study, a randomized controlled trial of POC VL testing and task-shifting in Durban, South Africa. Between March and August 2018, we conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with clients, professional and enrolled nurses and 4 focus group discussions with clients. Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, translated and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Amongst 55 clients on ART (median age 31, 56% women) and 8 nurses (median age 39, 75% women), POC VL testing and task-shifting to enrolled nurses was acceptable. Both clients and providers reported that POC VL testing yielded practical benefits for PLHIV by reducing the number of clinic visits, saving time, travel costs and days off work. Receiving same-day POC VL results encouraged adherence amongst clients, by enabling them to see immediately if they were 'good' or 'bad' adherers and enabled quick referrals to a community-based ART delivery programme for those with viral suppression. However, there was some concern regarding the impact of POC VL testing on clinic flows when implemented in busy public-sector clinics. Regarding task-shifting, nurses felt that, with extra training, enrolled nurses could help decongest healthcare facilities by quickly issuing ART to stable clients. Clients could not easily distinguish enrolled nurses from professional nurses, instead they highlighted the importance of friendliness, respect and good communication between clients and nurses. CONCLUSIONS: POC VL testing combined with task-shifting was acceptable to clients and healthcare providers. Implementation of POC VL testing and task shifting within differentiated care models may help achieve international treatment targets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03066128 , registered 22/02/2017.

Clinic flow for STI, HIV, and TB patients in an urban infectious disease clinic offering point-of-care testing services in Durban, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Many clinics in Southern Africa have long waiting times. The implementation of point-of-care (POC) tests to accelerate diagnosis and improve clinical management in resource-limited settings may improve or worsen clinic flow and waiting times. The objective of this study was to describe clinic flow with special emphasis on the impact of POC testing at a large urban public healthcare clinic in Durban, South Africa. METHODS: We used time and motion methods to directly observe patients and practitioners. We created patient flow maps and recorded individual patient waiting and consultation times for patients seeking STI, TB, or HIV care. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 clinic staff to ascertain staff opinions on clinic flow and POC test implementation. RESULTS: Among 121 observed patients, the total number of queues ranged from 4 to 7 and total visit times ranged from 0:14 (hours:minutes) to 7:38. Patients waited a mean of 2:05 for standard-of-care STI management, and approximately 4:56 for STI POC diagnostic testing. Stable HIV patients who collected antiretroviral therapy refills waited a mean of 2:42 in the standard queue and 2:26 in the fast-track queue. A rapid TB test on a small sample of patients with the Xpert MTB/RIF assay and treatment initiation took a mean of 6:56, and 40% of patients presenting with TB-related symptoms were asked to return for an additional clinic visit to obtain test results. For all groups, the mean clinical assessment time with a nurse or physician was 7 to 9 min, which accounted for 2 to 6% of total visit time. Staff identified poor clinic flow and personnel shortages as areas of concern that may pose challenges to expanding POC tests in the current clinic environment. CONCLUSIONS: This busy urban clinic had multiple patient queues, long clinical visits, and short clinical encounters. Although POC testing ensured patients received a diagnosis sooner, it more than doubled the time STI patients spent at the clinic and did not result in same-day diagnosis for all patients screened for TB. Further research on implementing POC testing efficiently into care pathways is required to make these promising assays a success.

Changes in the medical admissions and mortality amongst children in four South African hospitals following the COVID-19 pandemic: A five-year review.

Vulnerable children from poor communities with high HIV and Tuberculosis(TB) burdens were impacted by COVID-19 lockdowns. Concern was raised about the extent of this impact and anticipated post-pandemic surges in mortality. Interrupted time series segmented regression analyses were done using routinely collected facility-level data of children admitted for medical conditions at four South African referral hospitals. Monthly admission and mortality data over 60 months from 01 April 2018 to 31 January 2023 was analysed using models which included dummy lockdown level variables, a dummy post-COVID period variable, Fourier terms to account for seasonality, and excess mortality as a proxy for healthcare burden. Of the 45 015 admissions analysed, 1237(2·75%) demised with significant decreases in admissions during all the lockdown levels, with the most significant mean monthly decrease of 450(95%, CI = 657·3, -244·3) p<0·001 in level 5 (the most severe) lockdown. There was evidence of loss of seasonality on a six-month scale during the COVID periods for all admissions (p = 0·002), including under-one-year-olds (p = 0·034) and under-five-year-olds (p = 0·004). No decreases in mortality accompanied decreased admissions. Post-pandemic surges in admissions or mortality were not identified in children with acute gastroenteritis, acute pneumonia and severe acute malnutrition.During the COVID-19 pandemic, paediatric admissions in 4 hospitals serving communities with high levels of HIV, TB and poverty decreased, similar to global experiences; however, there was no change in in-hospital mortality. No post-pandemic surge in admissions or mortality was documented. Differences in the impact of pandemic control measures on the transmission of childhood infections and access to health care may account for differing outcomes seen in our setting compared to the global experiences. Further studies are needed to understand the impact of pandemic control measures on healthcare provision and transmission dynamics and to better inform future responses amongst vulnerable child populations.

Healthcare worker perspectives on adaptations to differentiated anti-retroviral therapy delivery during COVID-19 in South Africa: A qualitative inquiry.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the South African Centralized Chronic Medicines Dispensing and Distribution (CCMDD) programme, adapted to include extended 12-month antiretroviral therapy (ART) prescriptions, 3-months ART refills and earlier eligibility criteria at 6-months after ART initiation. We aimed to explore the experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) in implementing these adaptations, and to understand the overall impact of COVID-19 on CCMDD. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with HCWs in eThekwini District clinics, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, translated, and analysed thematically. Between 18 February and 13 December 2022, we conducted 21 interviews with nurses, doctors, pharmacists, clinic managers and a community pick-up-point staff member. There were mixed perceptions about COVID-19 adaptations to CCMDD. HCWs reported that COVID-19 adaptations to CCMDD helped keep clients away from clinics, reducing exposure to COVID-19, minimizing queues, alleviating client frustration, and easing workload, which enabled more focused attention on clients with greater needs. Clients reportedly preferred 12-month prescriptions as it gave them independence. However, HCWs were concerned about clients' ART adherence, potential to miss out on clinical input, and difficulties aligning annual viral load results, during the 12 months without clinic attendance. The extended eligibility and multi-month dispensing were acceptable to HCWs, but concerns were expressed about non-adherence and stock shortages. Challenges, including staff shortages due to sickness, increased workload, inadequate training, HCWs' distrust in clients' ability to manage their health autonomously, and staff's limited involvement in decisions about the adaptations, impacted on their implementation. While HCWs reported benefits of 12-month prescribing, extended eligibility and multi-month dispensing in CCMDD, long-term implementation would require addressing concerns about impacts on adherence, alignment of annual viral loads and timely follow up. Prioritizing HCW input in decision-making processes and enhancing provider-client interactions will be pivotal in ensuring the effectiveness of CCMDD adaptations.

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.

Urine tenofovir and dried blood spot tenofovir diphosphate concentrations and viraemia in people taking efavirenz and dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether urine tenofovir (TFV) and dried blood spot (DBS) tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP) concentrations are associated with concurrent HIV viraemia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study among people with HIV (PWH) receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: We used dual tandem liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry to measure urine TFV and DBS TFV-DP concentrations, and evaluated their associations with concurrent viraemia at least 1000 copies/ml using logistic regression models. In exploratory analyses, we used receiver operating curves (ROCs) to estimate optimal urine TFV and DBS TFV-DP thresholds to predict concurrent viraemia. RESULTS: Among 124 participants, 68 (54.8%) were women, median age was 39 years [interquartile range (IQR) 34-45] and 74 (59.7%) were receiving efavirenz versus 50 (40.3%) receiving dolutegravir. Higher concentrations of urine TFV [1000 ng/ml increase, odds ratio (OR) 0.97 95% CI 0.94-0.99, P  = 0.005] and DBS TFV-DP (100 fmol/punch increase, OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.86, P  < 0.001) were associated with lower odds of viraemia. There was evidence that these associations were stronger among people receiving dolutegravir than among people receiving efavirenz (urine TFV, P  = 0.072; DBS TFV-DP, P  = 0.003). Nagelkerke pseudo- R2 for the DBS TFV-DP models was higher for the urine TFV models, demonstrating a stronger relationship between DBS TFV-DP and viraemia. Among people receiving dolutegravir, a DBS TFV-DP concentration of 483 fmol/punch had 88% sensitivity and 85% specificity to predict concurrent viraemia ≥1000 copies/ml. CONCLUSION: Among PWH receiving TDF-based ART, urine TFV concentrations, and in particular DBS TFV-DP concentrations, were strongly associated with concurrent viraemia, especially among people receiving dolutegravir.

Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 µg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86534580. FINDINGS: The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months. INTERPRETATION: Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted. FUNDING: UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).

Favipiravir for COVID-19 in adults in the community in PRINCIPLE, an open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the effect of favipiravir treatment of acute COVID-19 on recovery, hospital admissions and longer-term outcomes in community settings is limited. METHODS: In this multicentre. open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial participants aged ≥18 years in the community with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and symptoms lasting ≤14 days were randomised to: usual care; usual care plus favipiravir tablets (loading dose of 3600 mg in divided doses on day one, then 800 mg twice a day for four days); or, usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at six months was the primary longer-term outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86534580. FINDINGS: The primary analysis model included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive mostly COVID vaccinated participants, randomised to favipiravir (n = 1829), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3726). Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the favipiravir group than usual care (estimated hazard ratio 1·23 [95% credible interval 1·14 to 1·33]), a reduction of 2·98 days [1·99 to 3·94] from 16 days in median time to self-reported recovery for favipiravir versus usual care alone. COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were similar (estimated odds ratio 0·99 [0·61 to 1·61]; estimated difference 0% [-0·9% to 0·6%]). 14 serious adverse events occurred in the favipiravir group and 4 in usual care. By six months, the proportion feeling fully recovered was 74·9% for favipiravir versus 71·3% for usual care (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]). INTERPRETATION: In this open-label trial in a largely vaccinated population with COVID-19 in the community, favipiravir did not reduce hospital admissions, but shortened time to recovery and had a marginal positive impact on long term outcomes.

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir for high-risk, community-based adults with COVID-19: an economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over 6 months. DESIGN AND SETTING: An economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK NHS and personal social services perspective and a 6-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI = 0.0044 to 0.0067) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81 190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except for those aged ≥75 years, with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30 000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15 000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: At the current cost of £513 per course, molnupiravir is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a 6-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated patients with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

Health outcomes 3 months and 6 months after molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 for people at higher risk in the community (PANORAMIC): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: No randomised controlled trials have yet reported on the effectiveness of molnupiravir on longer term outcomes for COVID-19. The PANORAMIC trial found molnupiravir reduced time to recovery in acute COVID-19 over 28 days. We aimed to report the effect of molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 on wellbeing, severe and persistent symptoms, new infections, health care and social service use, medication use, and time off work at 3 months and 6 months post-randomisation. METHODS: This study is a follow-up to the main analysis, which was based on the first 28 days of follow-up and has been previously reported. For this multicentre, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, prospective randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK, participants were eligible if aged at least 50 years, or at least 18 years with a comorbidity, and unwell 5 days or less with confirmed COVID-19 in the community. Participants were randomly assigned to the usual care group or molnupiravir group plus usual care (800 mg twice a day for 5 days), which was stratified by age (<50 years or ≥50 years) and vaccination status (at least one dose: yes or no). The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death (or both) at 28 days; all longer term outcomes were considered to be secondary outcomes and included self-reported ratings of wellness (on a scale of 0-10), experiencing any symptom (fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle ache, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of smell or taste, headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, and generally feeling unwell) rated as severe (moderately bad or major problem) or persistent, any health and social care use, health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L), time off work or school, new infections, and hospitalisation. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 25 783 participants were randomly assigned to the molnupiravir plus usual care group (n=12 821) or usual care group (n=12 962). Long-term follow-up data were available for 23 008 (89·2%) of 25 784 participants with 11 778 (91·9%) of 12 821 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and 11 230 (86·6%) of 12 963 in the usual care group. 22 806 (99·1%) of 23 008 had at least one previous dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Any severe (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; probability superiority [p(sup)]>0·99; number needed to treat [NNT] 62·5; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99, NNT 52·6) or persistent symptoms (3 months: adjusted risk difference -2·1% [-2·9% to -1·5%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 47·6; 6 months: -2·5% [-3·3% to -1·6%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 40) were reduced in severity, and health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L) improved in the molnupiravir plus usual care group at 3 months and 6 months (3 months: adjusted mean difference 1·08 [0·65 to 1·53]; p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 1·09 [0·63 to 1·55]; p(sup)>0·99). Ratings of wellness (3 months: adjusted mean difference 0·15 (0·11 to 0·19); p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 0·12 (0·07 to 0·16); p(sup)>0·99), experiencing any more severe symptom (3 months; adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; p(sup)=0·99; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99), and health-care use (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·4% [-2·3% to -0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 71·4; 6 months: -0·5% [-1·5% to 0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 200) had high probabilities of superiority with molnupiravir treatment. There were significant differences in persistence of any symptom (910 [8·9%] of 10 190 vs 1027 [11%] of 9332, NNT 67) at 6 months, and reported time off work at 3 months (2017 [17·9%] of 11 274 vs 2385 [22·4%] of 10 628) and 6 months (460 [4·4%] of 10 562 vs 527 [5·4%] of 9846; NNT 100). There were no differences in hospitalisations at long-term follow-up. INTERPRETATION: In a vaccinated population, people treated with molnupiravir for acute COVID-19 felt better, experienced fewer and less severe COVID-19 associated symptoms, accessed health care less often, and took less time off work at 6 months. However, the absolute differences in this open-label design are small with high numbers needed to treat. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Randomized controlled trial of molnupiravir SARS-CoV-2 viral and antibody response in at-risk adult outpatients.

Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n = 253) or Usual Care (n = 324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031.

Delivery of Community-based Antiretroviral Therapy to Maintain Viral Suppression and Retention in Care in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: To determine whether the Centralized Chronic Medication Dispensing and Distribution (CCMDD) program in South Africa's differentiated ART delivery model affects clinical outcomes, we assessed viral load (VL) suppression and retention in care between patients participating in the program and those receiving the clinic-based standard of care. METHODS: Clinically stable people living with HIV (PLHIV) eligible for differentiated care were referred to the national CCMDD program and followed up for up to 6 months. In this secondary analysis of trial cohort data, we estimated the association between routine patient participation in the CCMDD program and their clinical outcomes of viral suppression (<200 copies/mL) and retention in care. RESULTS: Among 390 PLHIV, 236 (61%) were assessed for CCMDD eligibility; 144 (37%) were eligible, and 116 (30%) participated in the CCMDD program. Participants obtained their ART in a timely manner at 93% (265/286) of CCMDD visits. VL suppression and retention in care was very similar among CCMDD-eligible patients who participated in the program compared with patients who did not participate in the program (aRR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.94-1.12). VL suppression alone (aRR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.97-1.08) and retention in care alone (aRR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.95-1.12) were also similar between CCMDD-eligible PLHIV who participated in the program and those who did not. CONCLUSION: The CCMDD program successfully facilitated differentiated care among clinically stable participants. PLHIV participating in the CCMDD program maintained a high proportion of viral suppression and retention in care, indicating that community-based ART delivery model did not negatively affect their HIV care outcomes.