Rapid ART initiation with bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide in individuals presenting with advanced HIV disease (Rainbow study).

BACKGROUND: A rapid ART initiation approach can be beneficial in people with advanced HIV disease, in consideration of their high morbidity and mortality. The aim of our study was to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and safety of rapid ART start with BIC/FTC/TAF in this setting. METHODS: Pilot, single-centre, single-arm, prospective, phase IV clinical trial conducted in a tertiary Italian hospital. Thirty ART-naïve people presenting with advanced HIV-1 diagnosis (defined as the presence of an AIDS-defining event and/or CD4 cell count <200 µL), were enrolled. Main exclusion criteria were active tuberculosis, cryptococcosis and pregnant/breastfeeding women. BIC/FTC/TAF was started within 7 days from HIV diagnosis. The primary endpoint was clinical or virologic failure (VF). Immunological parameters, safety, feasibility, neurocognitive performances and patient-reported outcomes were assessed as well. RESULTS: Over the study period, 40 (34%) of 116 patients diagnosed with HIV infection at INMI Spallanzani had advanced disease, of whom 30 (26%) were enrolled. The proportion of participants with HIV-RNA <50 cp/mL was 9/30 (30%) at week (w) 4, 19/30 (63%) at w12, 24/30 (80%) at w24, 23/30 (77%) at w36 and 27/30 (90%) at w48. Two unconfirmed VF occurred. No ART discontinuation due to toxicity or VF was observed. No ART modification was performed based on the review of genotype and no mutations for the study drugs were detected. Mean CD4 cells count changed by 133 cells/µL at BL to 309 cells/µL at w 48 and 83% of participants had a CD4 > 200 cells/µL at w 48. Two participants developed IRIS and one was diagnosed with disseminated TB and needed an ART switch. INTERPRETATIONS: Our results support the feasibility, efficacy and safety of BIC/FTC/TAF as a rapid ART strategy in patients with advanced HIV disease.

Sarilumab plus standard of care vs standard of care for the treatment of severe COVID-19: a phase 3, randomized, open-labeled, multi-center study (ESCAPE study).

Background: Among interleukin-6 inhibitors suggested for use in COVID-19, there are few robust evidences for the efficacy of sarilumab. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in severe COVID-19. Methods: In this phase 3, open-labeled, randomized clinical trial, conducted at 5 Italian hospitals, adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (excluding mechanically ventilated) were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous sarilumab (400 mg, repeatable after 12 h) plus standard of care (SOC) (arm A) or to continue SOC (arm B). Randomization was web-based. As post-hoc analyses, the participants were stratified according to baseline inflammatory parameters. The primary endpoint was analysed on the modified Intention-To-Treat population, including all the randomized patients who received any study treatment (sarilumab or SOC). It was time to clinical improvement of 2 points on a 7-points ordinal scale, from baseline to day 30. We used Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test to compare the primary outcome between two arms, and Cox regression stratified by clinical center and adjusted for severity of illness, to estimate the hazard ratio (HR). The trial was registered with EudraCT (2020-001390-76). Findings: Between May 2020 and May 2021, 191 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom, excluding nine dropouts, 176 were assigned to arm A (121) and B (55). At day 30, no significant differences in the primary endpoint were found (88% [95% CI 81-94] in arm A vs 85% [74-93], HR 1.07 [0.8-1.5] in arm B; log-rank p = 0.50). After stratifying for inflammatory parameters, arm A showed higher probability of improvement than B without statistical significance in the strata with C reactive protein (CRP) < 7 mg/dL (88% [77-96] vs 79% [63-91], HR 1.55 [0.9-2.6]; log-rank p = 0.049) and in the strata with lymphocytes <870/mmc (90% [79-96]) vs (73% [55-89], HR 1.53 [0.9-2.7]; log-rank p = 0.058). Overall, 39/121 (32%) AEs were reported in arm A and 14/55 (23%) in B (p = 0.195), while serious AEs were 22/121 (18%) and 7/55 (11%), respectively (p = 0.244). There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation: The efficacy of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 was not demonstrated both in the overall and in the stratified for severity analysis population. Exploratory analyses suggested that subsets of patients with lower CRP values or lower lymphocyte counts might have had benefit with sarilumab treatment, but this finding would require replication in other studies. The relatively low rate of concomitant corticosteroid use, could partially explain our results. Funding: This study was supported by INMI "Lazzaro Spallanzani" Ricerca Corrente Linea 1 on emerging and reemerging infections, funded by Italian Ministry of Health.