Efficacy and Safety of Sarilumab in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Open-label platform trials and a prospective meta-analysis suggest efficacy of anti-interleukin (IL)-6R therapies in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving corticosteroids. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab, an anti-IL-6R monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this adaptive, phase 2/3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults hospitalized with COVID-19 received intravenous sarilumab 400 mg or placebo. The phase 3 primary analysis population included patients with critical COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). The primary outcome was proportion of patients with ≥1-point improvement in clinical status from baseline to day 22. RESULTS: There were 457 and 1365 patients randomized and treated in phases 2 and 3, respectively. In phase 3, patients with critical COVID-19 receiving MV (n = 298; 28.2% on corticosteroids), the proportion with ≥1-point improvement in clinical status (alive, not receiving MV) at day 22 was 43.2% for sarilumab and 35.5% for placebo (risk difference, +7.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.4 to 21.3; P =.3261), a relative risk improvement of 21.7%. In post hoc analyses pooling phase 2 and 3 critical patients receiving MV, the hazard ratio for death for sarilumab vs placebo was 0.76 (95% CI, .51 to 1.13) overall and 0.49 (95% CI, .25 to .94) in patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not establish the efficacy of sarilumab in hospitalized patients with severe/critical COVID-19. Post hoc analyses were consistent with other studies that found a benefit of sarilumab in patients receiving corticosteroids. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04315298.

Brief Report: Long-Term (96-Week) Efficacy and Safety After Switching From Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate to Tenofovir Alafenamide in HIV-Infected, Virologically Suppressed Adults.

In a double-blind, phase 3 trial, 663 HIV-infected, virologically suppressed adults were randomized to switch to tenofovir alafenamide (TAF; n = 333) vs. remain on tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF; n = 330), each coformulated with emtricitabine (FTC), while continuing their third agent (boosted protease inhibitor or unboosted third agent). At week 96, 88.6% on FTC/TAF and 89.1% on FTC/TDF had HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter [adjusted difference -0.5% (95% confidence interval: -5.3 to 4.4%)]. Proteinuria, albuminuria, proximal renal tubular function, and bone mineral density improved after switching to TAF- from TDF-containing regimens. These longer-term data support FTC/TAF as a safe, well-tolerated, and durable nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone.

Dendritic Cell Immunotherapy for HIV-1 Infection Using Autologous HIV-1 RNA: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The genomic heterogeneity of HIV-1 impedes the ability of consensus sequences in vaccines to elicit effective antiviral immune responses. AGS-004 amplifies translation-competent RNA molecules encoding for Gag, Rev, Vpr, and Nef from the patient's autologous virus and loads them into dendritic cells. METHODS: This phase IIB, multicenter, 2:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled 54 HIV-1-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy with viral loads (VLs) <50 copies per milliliter, current CD4 T-cell counts >450 cells per cubic millimeter, and nadir counts >200 cells per cubic millimeter, to receive intradermal injections of study product into the axillary lymph node region every 4 weeks. At week 16, a 12-week analytical treatment interruption (ATI) was undertaken. RESULTS: There was no difference in the end-of-ATI VL (average of values from weeks 11 and 12) between the 2 arms of the study [4.39 (4.17, 4.69) vs. 4.47 (3.76, 4.64) log10 HIV-1 RNA; P = 0.73]. Between arms, no change between pre-antiretroviral therapy VL and the end-of-ATI VL [-0.06 (0.24, -0.32) vs. -0.17 (0.17, -0.32) log10 HIV-1 RNA; P = 0.43] was observed. When interferon-γ, interleukin-2, tumor necrosis factor α, CD107a, and granzyme b expressions were measured by multicolor flow cytometry, a greater percentage of AGS-004 than of placebo recipients had multifunctional cytotoxic T-lymphocyte responses induced in the CD28+/CD45RA-CD8 effector/memory T-cell population to dendritic cells electroporated with autologous antigens. Adverse events consisted of transient, mild (grade 1) local injection site reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the induction of HIV-specific effector/memory CD8 T-cell responses, no antiviral effect was seen after the administration of AGS-004 when compared with placebo.

A randomized study of the use of fluconazole in continuous versus episodic therapy in patients with advanced HIV infection and a history of oropharyngeal candidiasis: AIDS Clinical Trials Group Study 323/Mycoses Study Group Study 40.

BACKGROUND: In human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients, fluconazole prophylaxis is associated with reductions in the rate of fungal infection. However, concerns exist with regard to the use of fluconazole prophylaxis and the risk of development of fluconazole treatment-refractory infections. METHODS: We performed a randomized, open-label trial that compared oral fluconazole given continuously (200 mg 3 times weekly; the "continuous fluconazole arm") with fluconazole that was provided only for episodes of orophayngeal candidiasis (OPC) or esophageal candidiasis (EC) (the "episodic fluconazole arm") in HIV-infected persons with CD4+ T cell counts of <150 cells/mm3 and a history of OPC. The primary study end point was the time to development of fluconazole-refractory OPC or EC, which was defined as lack of response to 200 mg fluconazole given daily for 14 or 21 days, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 413 subjects were randomized to receive continuous fluconazole, and 416 were randomized to receive episodic fluconazole. After 42 months, 17 subjects (4.1%) in the continuous fluconazole arm developed fluconazole-refractory OPC or EC infections, compared with 18 subjects (4.3%) in the episodic fluconazole arm, with no difference between treatment arms with regard to the time to development of a fluconazole-refractory infection within 24 months (P=.88, by log-rank test) or before the end of the study (P=.97, by the log-rank test). Continuous fluconazole therapy was associated with fewer cases of OPC or EC (0.29 vs. 1.08 episodes per patient-year; P<.0001) and fewer invasive fungal infections (15 vs. 28 episodes; P=.04, by chi2 test), but not with improved survival, compared with episodic fluconazole therapy. CONCLUSION: Continuous fluconazole therapy is not associated with significant risk of fluconazole-refractory OPC or EC, compared with episodic fluconazole therapy, in HIV-infected patients with access to active antiretroviral therapy.

A randomized and blinded multicenter trial of high-dose fluconazole plus placebo versus fluconazole plus amphotericin B as therapy for candidemia and its consequences in nonneutropenic subjects.

A randomized, blinded, multicenter trial was conducted to compare fluconazole (800 mg per day) plus placebo with fluconazole plus amphotericin B (AmB) deoxycholate (0.7 mg/kg per day, with the placebo/AmB component given only for the first 5-6 days) as therapy for candidemia due to species other than Candida krusei in adults without neutropenia. A total of 219 patients met criteria for a modified intent-to-treat analysis. The groups were similar except that those who were treated with fluconazole plus placebo had a higher mean (+/- standard error) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (16.8+/-0.6 vs. 15.0+/-0.7; P=.039). Success rates on study day 30 by Kaplan-Meier time-to-failure analysis were 57% for fluconazole plus placebo and 69% for fluconazole plus AmB (P=.08). Overall success rates were 56% (60 of 107 patients) and 69% (77 of 112 patients; P=.043), respectively; the bloodstream infection failed to clear in 17% and 6% of subjects, respectively (P=.02). In nonneutropenic subjects, the combination of fluconazole plus AmB was not antagonistic compared with fluconazole alone, and the combination trended toward improved success and more-rapid clearance from the bloodstream.