Final 192-Week Efficacy and Safety Results of the ADVANCE Trial, Comparing 3 First-line Antiretroviral Regimens.

Background: ADVANCE compared 3 World Health Organization-recommended first-line regimens in participants with HIV who were antiretroviral naive. Methods: This randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial enrolled participants living with HIV with no antiretroviral exposure in the previous 6 months to 1 of the following arms: tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) / emtricitabine (FTC) + dolutegravir (DTG) (2 tablets), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) / FTC + DTG (2 tablets), or a fixed-dose combination of TDF / FTC / efavirenz (EFV) (1 tablet). We report the final safety and efficacy data up to 192 weeks. Results: Repeat consent from the original 351 participants randomized to each arm was obtained from 230 participants (66%) in the TAF/FTC + DTG arm, 209 (60%) in the TDF/FTC + DTG arm, and 183 (52%) in the TDF/FTC/EFV arm. At 192 weeks, 213 (61%) of the original 351 participants in the TAF/FTC + DTG arm, 195 (56%) in the TDF/FTC + DTG arm, and 172 (49%) in the TDF/FTC/EFV arm had confirmed RNA <50 copies/mL, with low virologic failure in all groups and no significant integrase inhibitor mutations in any arm. Mean weight gain was 8.9 kg (SD, 7.1) in the TAF/FTC + DTG arm, 5.9 kg (SD, 7.1) in the TDF/FTC + DTG arm, and 3.2 kg (SD, 8.1) in the TDF/FTC/EFV arm at 192 weeks from baseline and was greatest among women, those taking TAF, and those with lower baseline CD4 counts. The weight trajectory slowed after week 96. There were few clinical events and minor laboratory changes and differences among arms after 96 weeks. There were no significant differences in treatment-emergent hypertension or pregnancy outcomes by arm. Conclusions: High viral suppression was seen across arms, with no resistance to DTG. Weight gain continued but slowed after 96 weeks, with few clinical events or laboratory changes.

Weight and Metabolic Changes After Switching From Tenofovir Alafenamide/Emtricitabine (FTC)+Dolutegravir (DTG), Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF)/FTC + DTG, and TDF/FTC/Efavirenz to TDF/Lamivudine/DTG.

Participants randomized to first-line tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/emtricitabine (FTC)+dolutegravir (DTG), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/FTC + DTG, or TDF/FTC/efavirenz (EFV) for 192 weeks were then switched to TDF/lamivudine (3TC)/DTG for 52 weeks. Participants switching either TAF/FTC + DTG or TDF/FTC/EFV to TDF/3TC/DTG showed statistically significant reductions in weight, low-density lipoprotein, triglycerides, glucose and glycated hemoglobin.

Comparing Prospective Incident Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection Rates During Successive Waves of Delta and Omicron in Johannesburg, South Africa.

In high-risk individuals in Johannesburg, during the Delta coronavirus disease 2019 wave, 22% (125/561) were positive, with 33% symptomatic (2 hospitalizations; 1 death). During Omicron, 56% (232/411) were infected, with 24% symptomatic (no hospitalizations or deaths). The remarkable speed of infection of Omicron over Delta poses challenges to conventional severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 control measures.

Public attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2: a mixed-methods study.

Background: Human challenge studies involve the deliberate exposure of healthy volunteers to an infectious micro-organism in a highly controlled and monitored way. They are used to understand infectious diseases and have contributed to the development of vaccines. In early 2020, the UK started exploring the feasibility of establishing a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2. Given the significant public interest and the complexity of the potential risks and benefits, it is vital that public views are considered in the design and approval of any such study and that investigators and ethics boards remain accountable to the public. Methods: Mixed methods study comprising online surveys conducted with 2,441 UK adults and in-depth virtual focus groups with 57 UK adults during October 2020 to explore the public's attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 taking place in the UK. Results: There was overall agreement across the surveys and focus groups that a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 should take place in the UK. Transparency of information, trust and the necessity to provide clear information on potential risks to study human challenge study participants were important. The perceived risks of taking part included the risk of developing long-term effects from COVID, impact on personal commitments and mental health implications of isolation. There were a number of practical realities to taking part that would influence a volunteer's ability to participate (e.g. Wi-Fi, access to exercise, outside space and work, family and pet commitments). Conclusions: The results identified practical considerations for teams designing human challenge studies. Recommendations were grouped: 1) messaging to potential study participants, 2) review of the protocol and organisation of the study, and 3) more broadly, making the study more inclusive and relevant. This study highlights the value of public consultation in research, particularly in fields attracting public interest and scrutiny .

Retraction to: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials of Ivermectin to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

[This retracts the article DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofab358.]

Understanding the Potential Impact of Different Drug Properties on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Transmission and Disease Burden: A Modelling Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The public health impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of different treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. METHODS: Using a mathematical model of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care, we explore the public-health impact of different potential therapeutics, under a range of scenarios varying healthcare capacity, epidemic trajectories; and drug efficacy in the absence of supportive care. RESULTS: The impact of drugs like dexamethasone (delivered to the most critically-ill in hospital and whose therapeutic benefit is expected to depend on the availability of supportive care such as oxygen and mechanical ventilation) is likely to be limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R = 1.35). Therapeutics for different patient populations (those not in hospital, early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (reducing disease severity or infectiousness, preventing hospitalization) could have much greater benefits, particularly in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date have been focused on hospitalized-patients and predicated on an assumption of adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics delivered earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have significant impact, and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority.

What we have learned from antiretroviral treatment optimization efforts over the last 5 years?

Progression in the development of antiretroviral therapy has been remarkable, with new agents continuing to appear as options for modern regimens, including in low-and-middle income countries where the HIV epidemic is concentrated. Here, we reflect on progress made in guiding regimen changes to public health programmes, and the challenges facing selection of newer agents.

Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials of Ivermectin to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug being investigated for repurposing against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Ivermectin showed in vitro activity against SARS-COV-2, but only at high concentrations. This meta-analysis investigated ivermectin in 23 randomized clinical trials (3349 patients) identified through systematic searches of PUBMED, EMBASE, MedRxiv, and trial registries. The primary meta-analysis was carried out by excluding studies at a high risk of bias. Ivermectin did not show a statistically significant effect on survival (risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.42; P = .66) or hospitalizations (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.11; P = .11). Ivermectin displayed a borderline significant effect on duration of hospitalization in comparison with standard of care (mean difference, -1.14 days; 95% CI, -2.27 to -0.00; P = .05). There was no significant effect of ivermectin on time to clinical recovery (mean difference, -0.57 days; 95% CI, -1.31 to 0.17; P = .13) or binary clinical recovery (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.50; P = .15). Currently, the World Health Organization recommends the use of ivermectin only inside clinical trials. A network of large clinical trials is in progress to validate the results seen to date.

Participants on Dolutegravir Resuppress Human Immunodeficiency Virus RNA After Virologic Failure: Updated Data from the ADVANCE Trial.

Following evidence of HIV RNA re-suppression on DTG-based regimens, we assess the re-suppressive capacity of ADVANCE participants on TAF/FTC+DTG, TDF/FTC+DTG, and TDF/FTC/EFV. Viraemic participants were able to re-suppress within 3 follow-up visits of protocol-defined virological failure (PDVF) in 77/121 (64%), 85/126 (67%), and 44/138 (32%) cases respectively (DTG regimens vs. TDF/FTC/EFV; P < 0.001).

Implications of weight gain with newer anti-retrovirals: 10-year predictions of cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term risks of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) secondary to weight gain and clinical obesity associated with the initiation of integrase strand transfer inhibitors and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) in the ADVANCE trial using validated risk equation tools. DESIGN: Retrospective data analysis. METHODS: In ADVANCE, 1053 treatment-naive participants in South Africa (99% black, 59% female) were randomized to 96 weeks of TAF/emtricitabine + dolutegravir (TAF/FTC + DTG), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/FTC + DTG (TDF/FTC + DTG), or TDF/FTC + efavirenz (TDF/FTC/EFV). The 5 and 10-year risks of CVD were calculated using D:A:D, QRISK and Framingham, and T2DM risk using QDiabetes, Cambridge Diabetes and Leicester Practice Risk scores. Participants were included in this analysis if they were above 30 years old at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 217 (TAF/FTC + DTG), 218 (TDF/FTC + DTG), and 215 (TDF/FTC/EFV) participants had 96-week data available. Weight gain was +8.1, +4.2, and +2.4 kg on TAF/FTC + DTG, TDF/FTC + DTG, and TDF/FTC/EFV, respectively. Participants on TAF/FTC + DTG had greatest risk scores for CVD (using QRISK) and T2DM, driven by weight changes. Differences were statistically significant between TAF/FTC + DTG and TDF/FTC/EFV for CVD risk using the QRISK equation, equivalent to one extra case per 1000 people treated over 10 years, and between all treatment groups for T2DM risk. Six extra T2DM cases were predicted on TAF/FTC + DTG vs. TDF/FTC + DTG using QDiabetes. CONCLUSION: Obesity, especially with TAF/FTC + DTG, drove increased risk of T2DM, with some evidence of greater CVD risk. However, predictive tools have not been validated in the HIV-positive and black African population.

Dolutegravir with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection (ADVANCE): week 96 results from a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: ADVANCE compared the efficacy and safety of two antiretroviral first-line combinations (dolutegravir combined with emtricitabine and either tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or tenofovir alafenamide), with a third regimen (efavirenz combined with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) previously recommended by WHO. Here, we report the 96-week data for the study. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial, was done at two research sites in Johannesburg, South Africa, after participant recruitment from 11 public health clinics also in Johannesburg. Eligible participants were aged 12 years or older with HIV-1 infection, who weighed at least 40 kg, had no antiretroviral exposure in the previous 6 months, with a creatinine clearance of more than 60 mL/min (>80 mL per min in individuals aged <19 years), and a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of 500 copies per mL or higher. Individuals who were pregnant or had tuberculosis were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by study staff using a computerised randomisation system. Randomisation was stratified by age (12 and <19 years and ≥19 years). Participants were randomly assigned to once-daily oral fixed-dose combination tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg, and once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg; once-daily oral fixed-dose combination tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg, and once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg; or once-daily oral fixed-dose combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and efavirenz 600 mg. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants who had a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, which has been reported previously. Here, we report the key secondary efficacy endpoint of the proportion of participants who had a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at the week 96 visit, assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of any study drug, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -10%. Safety data, including clinical, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and laboratory data, are also reported. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03122262. FINDINGS: Between Jan 17, 2017, and May 14, 2018, we screened 1453 individuals, of whom 1053 were enrolled: 351 participants were randomly assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, 351 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, and 351 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group. All participants received at least one dose of study medication and were included in the primary analysis. At week 96, 276 (79%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, 275 (78%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, and 258 (74%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group had achieved a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL. Non-inferiority was established in all three comparisons. The proportion of patients with protocol-defined virological failure at week 96 was low in all treatment groups. Participants in the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group had fewer changes in bone density than the two other treatment groups. Mean weight gain was substantial (7·1 kg [SD 7·4] in the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group; 4·3 kg [6·7] in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, and 2·3 kg [7·0] in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group), and was greater among women than men. Ten (3%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group discontinued due to treatment-related adverse events, of which liver dysfunction (n=4) and rash (n=4) were most common. INTERPRETATION: Medium-term and long-term metabolic and clinical consequences of the considerable increase in bodyweight observed in participants given these antiretroviral regimens and the trajectory of this weight gain over time, especially among women, require further study. FUNDING: USAID, Unitaid, South African Medical Research Council, ViiV Healthcare.

Patient Portal Functionalities and Patient Outcomes Among Patients With Diabetes: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patient portal use could help improve the care and health outcomes of patients with diabetes owing to functionalities, such as appointment booking, electronic messaging (e-messaging), and repeat prescription ordering, which enable patient-centered care and improve patient self-management of the disease. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to summarize the evidence regarding patient portal use (portals that are connected to electronic health care records) or patient portal functionality use (eg, appointment booking and e-messaging) and their reported associations with health and health care quality outcomes among adult patients with diabetes. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases and reported the review methodology using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Three independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and two reviewers assessed the full texts of relevant studies and performed data extraction and quality assessments of the included studies. We used the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Study Quality Assessment Tool to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Data were summarized through narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in this review. Five studies reported overall patient portal use and its association with diabetes health and health care quality outcomes. Six studies reported e-messaging or email use-associated outcomes, and two studies reported prescription refill-associated outcomes. The reported health outcomes included the associations of patient portal use with blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and BMI. Few studies reported health care utilization outcomes such as office visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. A limited number of studies reported overall quality of care for patients with diabetes who used patient portals. CONCLUSIONS: The included studies mostly reported improved glycemic control outcomes for patients with diabetes who used patient portals. However, limitations of studying the effects of patient portals exist, which do not guarantee whether the outcomes reported are completely the result of patient portal use or if confounding factors exist. Randomized controlled trials and mixed-methods studies could help understand the mechanisms involved in health outcome improvements and patient portal use among patients with diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42019141131; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019141131. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/14975.

Sofosbuvir and daclatasvir compared with standard of care in the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with moderate or severe coronavirus infection (COVID-19): a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently no effective antiviral therapy has been found to treat COVID-19. The aim of this trial was to assess if the addition of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir improved clinical outcomes in patients with moderate or severe COVID-19. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicentre, randomized controlled clinical trial in adults with moderate or severe COVID-19 admitted to four university hospitals in Iran. Patients were randomized into a treatment arm receiving sofosbuvir and daclatasvir plus standard care, or a control arm receiving standard care alone. The primary endpoint was clinical recovery within 14 days of treatment. The study is registered with IRCT.ir under registration number IRCT20200128046294N2. RESULTS: Between 26 March and 26 April 2020, 66 patients were recruited and allocated to either the treatment arm (n = 33) or the control arm (n = 33). Clinical recovery within 14 days was achieved by 29/33 (88%) in the treatment arm and 22/33 (67%) in the control arm (P = 0.076). The treatment arm had a significantly shorter median duration of hospitalization [6 days (IQR 4-8)] than the control group [8 days (IQR 5-13)]; P = 0.029. Cumulative incidence of hospital discharge was significantly higher in the treatment arm versus the control (Gray's P = 0.041). Three patients died in the treatment arm and five in the control arm. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir to standard care significantly reduced the duration of hospital stay compared with standard care alone. Although fewer deaths were observed in the treatment arm, this was not statistically significant. Conducting larger scale trials seems prudent.

Dolutegravir plus Two Different Prodrugs of Tenofovir to Treat HIV.

BACKGROUND: Two drugs under consideration for inclusion in antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection are dolutegravir (DTG) and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF). There are limited data on their use in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We conducted a 96-week, phase 3, investigator-led, open-label, randomized trial in South Africa, in which we compared a triple-therapy combination of emtricitabine (FTC) and DTG plus either of two tenofovir prodrugs - TAF (TAF-based group) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) (TDF-based group) - against the local standard-of-care regimen of TDF-FTC-efavirenz (standard-care group). Inclusion criteria included an age of 12 years or older, no receipt of ART in the previous 6 months, a creatinine clearance of more than 60 ml per minute (>80 ml per minute in patients younger than 19 years of age), and an HIV type 1 (HIV-1) RNA level of 500 copies or more per milliliter. The primary end point was the percentage of patients with a 48-week HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter (as determined with the Snapshot algorithm from the Food and Drug Administration; noninferiority margin, -10 percentage points). We report the primary (48-week) efficacy and safety data. RESULTS: A total of 1053 patients underwent randomization from February 2017 through May 2018. More than 99% of the patients were black, and 59% were female. The mean age was 32 years, and the mean CD4 count was 337 cells per cubic millimeter. At week 48, the percentage of patients with an HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter was 84% in the TAF-based group, 85% in the TDF-based group, and 79% in the standard-care group, findings that indicate that the DTG-containing regimens were noninferior to the standard-care regimen. The number of patients who discontinued the trial regimen was higher in the standard-care group than in the other two groups. In the per-protocol population, the standard-care regimen had equivalent potency to the other two regimens. The TAF-based regimen had less effect on bone density and renal function than the other regimens. Weight increase (both lean and fat mass) was greatest in the TAF-based group and among female patients (mean increase, 6.4 kg in the TAF-based group, 3.2 kg in the TDF-based group, and 1.7 kg in the standard-care group). No resistance to integrase inhibitors was identified in patients receiving the DTG-containing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with DTG combined with either of two tenofovir prodrugs (TAF and TDF) showed noninferior efficacy to treatment with the standard-care regimen. There was significantly more weight gain with the DTG-containing regimens, especially in combination with TAF, than with the standard-care regimen. (ADVANCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03122262.).

Low-dose ritonavir-boosted darunavir once daily versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir for participants with less than 50 HIV RNA copies per mL (WRHI 052): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Pilot studies suggest that ritonavir-boosted darunavir could show high efficacy at doses below those currently approved. We investigated whether switch to 400 mg of darunavir boosted with 100 mg ritonavir once daily could show equivalent efficacy to continuation of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (a protease inhibitor commonly used in low-income and middle-income countries) for individuals with HIV RNA suppression. METHODS: In the WRHI 052 study, a randomised, parallel-group, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial, adults who were HIV-1 positive were enrolled in Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital, Johannesburg, South Africa. Eligible participants were 18 years or older, who tolerated ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in combination with two nucleoside analogues (standard of care) for 6 months or more, and had plasma HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL within 60 days of enrolment. We randomly assigned participants (1:1), using a computer-generated randomisation plan, to switch to darunavir (400 mg) boosted with ritonavir (100 mg) once daily or remain on ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (800 mg [plus 200 mg ritonavir]), with nucleoside analogues left unchanged. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with less than 50 HIV-1 RNA copies per mL at week 48 (US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm; non-inferiority margin -4%). Primary and safety analyses included participants receiving at least one dose of darunavir boosted with ritonavir. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02671383. FINDINGS: Between June 30, 2016, and June 15, 2017, 148 participants were assigned to ritonavir-boosted darunavir 400 mg and 152 continued on their lopinavir-containing regimen. Four (3%) patients in the darunavir group and three (2%) in the lopinavir group discontinued before week 48. At week 48, darunavir was non-inferior to lopinavir for the primary outcome (142 [96%] of 148 participants on darunavir had <50 HIV-1 RNA copies per mL vs 143 [94%] of 152 participants on lopinavir; difference 1·9% [95% CI -3·4 to 7·3]), with a predefined margin of -4%. More participants taking darunavir (30 [20%] participants) had drug-related adverse events than those on lopinavir (eight [5%]), but the adverse events were generally asymptomatic and resolved when switching back to lopinavir. Elevated liver transaminase in three (1%; one symptomatic) darunavir participants led to study withdrawal; all transaminase elevations resolved on restarting lopinavir. INTERPRETATION: Low-dose ritonavir-boosted darunavir might be a safe and efficacious switch option to maintain HIV suppression for patients on lopinavir. However, an adequately powered and designed study in viraemic participants is needed. FUNDING: South African Medical Research Council, United States Agency for International Development, and US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.