The ATEAM study: Advances in technology to enhance PrEP adherence monitoring (ATEAM) among young men who have sex with men.

Young age has consistently correlated with lower adherence to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in young men who have sex with men (YMSM). Digital medicine, a dynamic healthcare platform of wearable physiological sensors and mobile communication technology that can respond to medication nonadherence rapidly, has the potential in promoting PrEP adherence. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of Proteus Discover, a digital monitoring adherence system, to measure PrEP adherence and provide real-time feedback among cisgender YMSM and transgender women. One hundred HIV-negative young men and transgender women ages 16-24 years were enrolled in a 24-week randomized controlled crossover study to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) coencapsulated with Proteus Discover versus TDF/FTC standard-of-care. Participants in the 12-week Proteus Discover arm received weekly SMS text messages to promote pill taking based on Proteus Discover adherence data. Dried blood spots (DBS) were collected at 4-week intervals for tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP) in red blood cells as the referent and questionnaires were completed to assess acceptability, usability, and patterns of use. Linear mixed models analyzed the relationship between 30-day adherence measured by DBS and Proteus Discover. PrEP adherence was high overall. Adherence, as measured by DBS, was correlated with adherence as measured by Proteus Discover (p value = 0.03). Most participants reported that Proteus Discover helped them take their PrEP daily and that the system was easy to use. However, a majority (53.5%-60.5%) disagreed with the statement that wearing the patch was not an issue. There was an incremental increase in TFV-DP in DBS with adherence by Proteus Discover. More research is warranted to explore optimizing PrEP adherence for youth through real-time monitoring.

COVID-19 symptom relationship to antibody response and ACE2 neutralization in recovered health systems employees before and after mRNA BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine.

BACKGROUND: The humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 can provide immunity and prevent reinfection. However, less is known about how the diversity, magnitude, and length of the antibody response after a primary infection is associated with symptoms, post-infection immunity, and post-vaccinated immunity. METHODS: Cook County Health employees provided blood samples and completed an online survey 8-10 weeks after a PCR-confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 test (pre-vaccinated, N = 41) and again, 1-4 weeks after completion of a 2-dose series mRNA BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine (post-vaccinated, N = 27). Associations were evaluated between SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers, participant demographics, and clinical characteristics. Antibody titers and angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) neutralization were compared before and after the mRNA BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: Antibody titers to the spike protein (ST4), receptor binding domain (RBD), and RBD mutant D614G were significantly associated with anosmia and ageusia, cough, and fever. Spike protein antibody titers and ACE2 neutralization were significantly higher in participants that presented with these symptoms. Antibody titers to the spike protein N-terminal domain (NTD), RBD, and ST4, and ACE2 IC50 were significantly higher in all post-vaccinated participant samples compared to pre-vaccinated participant sample, and not dependent on previously reported symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Spike protein antibody titers and ACE2 neutralization are associated with the presentation of anosmia and ageusia, cough, and fever after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Symptom response to previous SARS-CoV-2 infection did not influence the antibody response from subsequent vaccination. These results suggest a relationship between infection severity and the magnitude of the immune response and provide meaningful insights into COVID-19 immunity according to discrete symptom presentation.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial of Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab Together in High-Risk Ambulatory Patients With COVID-19 and Validation of the Prognostic Value of Persistently High Viral Load.

BACKGROUND: Based on interim analyses and modeling data, lower doses of bamlanivimab and etesevimab together (700/1400 mg) were investigated to determine optimal dose and expand availability of treatment. METHODS: This Phase 3 portion of the BLAZE-1 trial characterized the effect of bamlanivimab with etesevimab on overall patient clinical status and virologic outcomes in ambulatory patients ≥12 years old, with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and ≥1 risk factor for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization. Bamlanivimab and etesevimab together (700/1400 mg) or placebo were infused intravenously within 3 days of patients' first positive COVID-19 test. RESULTS: In total, 769 patients were infused (median age [range]; 56.0 years [12, 93], 30.3% of patients ≥65 years of age and median duration of symptoms; 4 days). By day 29, 4/511 patients (0.8%) in the antibody treatment group had a COVID-19-related hospitalization or any-cause death, as compared with 15/258 patients (5.8%) in the placebo group (Δ[95% confidence interval {CI}] = -5.0 [-8.0, -2.1], P < .001). No deaths occurred in the bamlanivimab and etesevimab group compared with 4 deaths (all COVID-19-related) in the placebo group. Patients receiving antibody treatment had a greater mean reduction in viral load from baseline to Day 7 (Δ[95% CI] = -0.99 [-1.33, -.66], P < .0001) compared with those receiving placebo. Persistently high viral load at Day 7 correlated with COVID-19-related hospitalization or any-cause death by Day 29 in all BLAZE-1 cohorts investigated. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of bamlanivimab and etesevimab (700/1400 mg) for ambulatory patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants will require continued monitoring to determine the applicability of this treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04427501.

Excess Weight Gain With Integrase Inhibitors and Tenofovir Alafenamide: What Is the Mechanism and Does It Matter?

Numerous studies have detected a greater likelihood of excess weight gain with specific antiretrovirals (ARVs), particularly tenofovir alafenamide and integrase inhibitors, as compared with other agents and classes. The long-term implications and potential reversibility for individuals who have experienced substantial ARV-associated weight accumulation remain poorly understood. Furthermore, the underlying mechanism remains controversial: Is the explanation mitochondrial toxicity and weight suppression from the older agents or direct effects of the newer drugs on appetite, adipocytes, or other unintended targets? This review discusses proposed mechanisms and evidence to date and argues that the question about mechanism is highly clinically relevant because it carries significant implications for ARV management. The existing literature suggests that older ARVs, such as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and efavirenz, suppress weight gain, but also that integrase inhibitors may stimulate excess weight gain through several plausible biologic pathways. Confirming the mechanisms of ARV-associated excess weight gain should be high priority for future research.

Endogenous Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Patients With Mild or Moderate COVID-19 Who Received Bamlanivimab Alone or Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab Together.

Background: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to SARS-CoV-2 are clinically efficacious when administered early, decreasing hospitalization and mortality in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. We investigated the effects of receiving mAbs (bamlanivimab alone and bamlanivimab and etesevimab together) after SARS-CoV-2 infection on the endogenous immune response. Methods: Longitudinal serum samples were collected from patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 in the BLAZE-1 trial who received placebo (n=153), bamlanivimab alone [700 mg (n=100), 2800 mg (n=106), or 7000 mg (n=98)], or bamlanivimab (2800 mg) and etesevimab (2800 mg) together (n=111). A multiplex Luminex serology assay measured antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 antigens, including SARS-CoV-2 protein variants that evade bamlanivimab or etesevimab binding, and SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays were performed. Results: The antibody response in patients who received placebo or mAbs had a broad specificity. Titer change from baseline against a receptor-binding domain mutant (Spike-RBD E484Q), as well as N-terminal domain (Spike-NTD) and nucleocapsid protein (NCP) epitopes were 1.4 to 4.1 fold lower at day 15-85 in mAb recipients compared with placebo. Neutralizing activity of day 29 sera from bamlanivimab monotherapy cohorts against both spike E484Q and beta variant (B.1.351) were slightly reduced compared with placebo (by a factor of 3.1, p=0.001, and 2.9, p=0.002, respectively). Early viral load correlated with the subsequent antibody titers of the native, unmodified humoral response (p<0.0001 at Day 15, 29, 60 and 85 for full-length spike). Conclusions: Patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 treated with mAbs develop a wide breadth of antigenic responses to SARS-CoV-2. Small reductions in titers and neutralizing activity, potentially due to a decrease in viral load following mAb treatment, suggest minimal impact of mAb treatment on the endogenous immune response.

A Narrative Review of the Clinical Practicalities of Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab Antibody Therapies for SARS-CoV-2.

The severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ranges from mild to death, with high morbidity and mortality rates reported amongst a vulnerable subset of patients termed high risk. While vaccines remain the primary option for COVID-19 prevention, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), such as bamlanivimab and etesevimab, have been shown to benefit certain subpopulations after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Unlike vaccine-derived immunity that develops over time, administration of neutralizing mAbs is an immediate and passive immunotherapy, with the potential to reduce disease progression, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and death. Bamlanivimab alone and together with etesevimab hold emergency use authorizations in several countries globally, with countries increasingly transitioning to the use of bamlanivimab and etesevimab together and other authorized mAbs on the basis of their evolving variant landscape, regulatory authorizations, and access to drugs. The current guidelines for the administration of bamlanivimab alone or together with etesevimab are informed by an iterative process of testing and development. Herein the rationale for these guidelines is provided by sharing the learnings that have been gathered throughout the development process of these mAbs. In addition, this review addresses the most common clinical questions received from health care professionals (HCPs) and patients regarding indicated population, dose, use with other medications and vaccines, duration of protection, and variants in clinical practice. As prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 variants can differ by country and state, prescribing HCPs should consider the prevalence of bamlanivimab and etesevimab resistant variants in their area, where data are available, regarding potential efficacy impact when considering treatment options.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04427501; NCT04411628; NCT04497987; NCT04634409.

Bamlanivimab plus Etesevimab in Mild or Moderate Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Patients with underlying medical conditions are at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Whereas vaccine-derived immunity develops over time, neutralizing monoclonal-antibody treatment provides immediate, passive immunity and may limit disease progression and complications. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, a cohort of ambulatory patients with mild or moderate Covid-19 who were at high risk for progression to severe disease to receive a single intravenous infusion of either a neutralizing monoclonal-antibody combination agent (2800 mg of bamlanivimab and 2800 mg of etesevimab, administered together) or placebo within 3 days after a laboratory diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The primary outcome was the overall clinical status of the patients, defined as Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause by day 29. RESULTS: A total of 1035 patients underwent randomization and received an infusion of bamlanivimab-etesevimab or placebo. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 53.8±16.8 years, and 52.0% were adolescent girls or women. By day 29, a total of 11 of 518 patients (2.1%) in the bamlanivimab-etesevimab group had a Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause, as compared with 36 of 517 patients (7.0%) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference, -4.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.4 to -2.3; relative risk difference, 70%; P<0.001). No deaths occurred in the bamlanivimab-etesevimab group; in the placebo group, 10 deaths occurred, 9 of which were designated by the trial investigators as Covid-19-related. At day 7, a greater reduction from baseline in the log viral load was observed among patients who received bamlanivimab plus etesevimab than among those who received placebo (difference from placebo in the change from baseline, -1.20; 95% CI, -1.46 to -0.94; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk ambulatory patients, bamlanivimab plus etesevimab led to a lower incidence of Covid-19-related hospitalization and death than did placebo and accelerated the decline in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load. (Funded by Eli Lilly; BLAZE-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04427501.).

A Dual-Platform Point-of-Care Test for Neurosyphilis Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of neurosyphilis relies on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) abnormalities (pleocytosis, elevated protein) and CSF-Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) test. In resource-limited settings, the CSF-VDRL test may not be widely available. METHODS: We optimized a commercial immunochromatographic strip test, the DPP Chembio syphilis assay, for performance with CSF and tested centrifuged CSF samples of 71 patients with syphilis (35 with neurosyphilis and 36 without neurosyphilis). A CSF dilution of 1:4 was chosen based on agreement with CSF pools with documented results from the CSF-VDRL test and fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test on CSF. Using an electronic reader, we obtained unit values of treponemal and nontreponemal antibodies for all study samples and generated a receiver operating characteristic curve; using the Youden index, we established diagnostic cutoffs with optimal sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Diagnostic sensitivity of the nontreponemal test was 80% (95% confidence interval, 63%-92%) and specificity was 97% (95% confidence interval, 85%-100%) for neurosyphilis diagnosis using a reactive CSF-VDRL that improved after neurosyphilis therapy as a criterion standard. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study, the DPP Chembio test showed promising results for neurosyphilis diagnosis. Further studies are needed to assess its performance in resource-limited settings.

Effect of Bamlanivimab as Monotherapy or in Combination With Etesevimab on Viral Load in Patients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread rapidly worldwide. Neutralizing antibodies are a potential treatment for COVID-19. Objective: To determine the effect of bamlanivimab monotherapy and combination therapy with bamlanivimab and etesevimab on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load in mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The BLAZE-1 study is a randomized phase 2/3 trial at 49 US centers including ambulatory patients (N = 613) who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and had 1 or more mild to moderate symptoms. Patients who received bamlanivimab monotherapy or placebo were enrolled first (June 17-August 21, 2020) followed by patients who received bamlanivimab and etesevimab or placebo (August 22-September 3). These are the final analyses and represent findings through October 6, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive a single infusion of bamlanivimab (700 mg [n = 101], 2800 mg [n = 107], or 7000 mg [n = 101]), the combination treatment (2800 mg of bamlanivimab and 2800 mg of etesevimab [n = 112]), or placebo (n = 156). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in SARS-CoV-2 log viral load at day 11 (±4 days). Nine prespecified secondary outcome measures were evaluated with comparisons between each treatment group and placebo, and included 3 other measures of viral load, 5 on symptoms, and 1 measure of clinical outcome (the proportion of patients with a COVID-19-related hospitalization, an emergency department [ED] visit, or death at day 29). Results: Among the 577 patients who were randomized and received an infusion (mean age, 44.7 [SD, 15.7] years; 315 [54.6%] women), 533 (92.4%) completed the efficacy evaluation period (day 29). The change in log viral load from baseline at day 11 was -3.72 for 700 mg, -4.08 for 2800 mg, -3.49 for 7000 mg, -4.37 for combination treatment, and -3.80 for placebo. Compared with placebo, the differences in the change in log viral load at day 11 were 0.09 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.52; P = .69) for 700 mg, -0.27 (95% CI, -0.71 to 0.16; P = .21) for 2800 mg, 0.31 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.76; P = .16) for 7000 mg, and -0.57 (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.14; P = .01) for combination treatment. Among the secondary outcome measures, differences between each treatment group vs the placebo group were statistically significant for 10 of 84 end points. The proportion of patients with COVID-19-related hospitalizations or ED visits was 5.8% (9 events) for placebo, 1.0% (1 event) for 700 mg, 1.9% (2 events) for 2800 mg, 2.0% (2 events) for 7000 mg, and 0.9% (1 event) for combination treatment. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions were reported in 9 patients (6 bamlanivimab, 2 combination treatment, and 1 placebo). No deaths occurred during the study treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: Among nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 illness, treatment with bamlanivimab and etesevimab, compared with placebo, was associated with a statistically significant reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral load at day 11; no significant difference in viral load reduction was observed for bamlanivimab monotherapy. Further ongoing clinical trials will focus on assessing the clinical benefit of antispike neutralizing antibodies in patients with COVID-19 as a primary end point. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04427501.

A Novel Score to Predict Esophageal Varices in Patients with Compensated Advanced Chronic Liver Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Several criteria have been described to noninvasively predict the presence of high-risk esophageal varices in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD). However, a recent study showed that treatment with ß blockers could increase decompensation-free survival in patients with clinically significant portal hypertension, thereby making it important to predict the presence of any esophageal varices. We aimed to develop a simple scoring system to predict any esophageal varices. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who had vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) at Cook County Hospital, Chicago, USA. Patients with cACLD and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) ≥ 10 kPa with esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed within one year of VCTE were analyzed. We generated a novel score to predict esophageal varices, using the beta coefficient of predictive variables. The score was validated in an external cohort at the University of Iowa Hospital, USA. RESULTS: There were 372 patients in the development cohort and 200 patients in the validation cohort. LSM, platelet count, and albumin were identified as predictors of esophageal varices and were included for generating the Cook County score as "platelet count * - 0.0155872 + VCTE score * 0.0387052 + albumin * - 0.8549209." The area under receiver operating curve for our score was 0.86 for any varices and 0.85 for high risk varices and avoided more endoscopies than the expanded Baveno VI criteria while maintaining a very low miss rate (negative predictive value > 99%). CONCLUSION: We propose a new, highly accurate, and easy-to-use scoring system to predict the presence of not only high-risk but any esophageal varices in patients with cACLD.

SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody LY-CoV555 in Outpatients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), which is most frequently mild yet can be severe and life-threatening. Virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies are predicted to reduce viral load, ameliorate symptoms, and prevent hospitalization. METHODS: In this ongoing phase 2 trial involving outpatients with recently diagnosed mild or moderate Covid-19, we randomly assigned 452 patients to receive a single intravenous infusion of neutralizing antibody LY-CoV555 in one of three doses (700 mg, 2800 mg, or 7000 mg) or placebo and evaluated the quantitative virologic end points and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the viral load at day 11. The results of a preplanned interim analysis as of September 5, 2020, are reported here. RESULTS: At the time of the interim analysis, the observed mean decrease from baseline in the log viral load for the entire population was -3.81, for an elimination of more than 99.97% of viral RNA. For patients who received the 2800-mg dose of LY-CoV555, the difference from placebo in the decrease from baseline was -0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.98 to -0.08; P = 0.02), for a viral load that was lower by a factor of 3.4. Smaller differences from placebo in the change from baseline were observed among the patients who received the 700-mg dose (-0.20; 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.25; P = 0.38) or the 7000-mg dose (0.09; 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.55; P = 0.70). On days 2 to 6, the patients who received LY-CoV555 had a slightly lower severity of symptoms than those who received placebo. The percentage of patients who had a Covid-19-related hospitalization or visit to an emergency department was 1.6% in the LY-CoV555 group and 6.3% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this interim analysis of a phase 2 trial, one of three doses of neutralizing antibody LY-CoV555 appeared to accelerate the natural decline in viral load over time, whereas the other doses had not by day 11. (Funded by Eli Lilly; BLAZE-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04427501.).

Effect of Remdesivir vs Standard Care on Clinical Status at 11 Days in Patients With Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Remdesivir demonstrated clinical benefit in a placebo-controlled trial in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its effect in patients with moderate disease is unknown. Objective: To determine the efficacy of 5 or 10 days of remdesivir treatment compared with standard care on clinical status on day 11 after initiation of treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label trial of hospitalized patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and moderate COVID-19 pneumonia (pulmonary infiltrates and room-air oxygen saturation >94%) enrolled from March 15 through April 18, 2020, at 105 hospitals in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a 10-day course of remdesivir (n = 197), a 5-day course of remdesivir (n = 199), or standard care (n = 200). Remdesivir was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg/d. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was clinical status on day 11 on a 7-point ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharged (category 7). Differences between remdesivir treatment groups and standard care were calculated using proportional odds models and expressed as odds ratios. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates difference in clinical status distribution toward category 7 for the remdesivir group vs the standard care group. Results: Among 596 patients who were randomized, 584 began the study and received remdesivir or continued standard care (median age, 57 [interquartile range, 46-66] years; 227 [39%] women; 56% had cardiovascular disease, 42% hypertension, and 40% diabetes), and 533 (91%) completed the trial. Median length of treatment was 5 days for patients in the 5-day remdesivir group and 6 days for patients in the 10-day remdesivir group. On day 11, patients in the 5-day remdesivir group had statistically significantly higher odds of a better clinical status distribution than those receiving standard care (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.09-2.48; P = .02). The clinical status distribution on day 11 between the 10-day remdesivir and standard care groups was not significantly different (P = .18 by Wilcoxon rank sum test). By day 28, 9 patients had died: 2 (1%) in the 5-day remdesivir group, 3 (2%) in the 10-day remdesivir group, and 4 (2%) in the standard care group. Nausea (10% vs 3%), hypokalemia (6% vs 2%), and headache (5% vs 3%) were more frequent among remdesivir-treated patients compared with standard care. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with moderate COVID-19, those randomized to a 10-day course of remdesivir did not have a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care at 11 days after initiation of treatment. Patients randomized to a 5-day course of remdesivir had a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care, but the difference was of uncertain clinical importance. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04292730.

Impact of a digital medicine programme on hepatitis C treatment adherence and efficacy in adults at high risk for non-adherence.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting anti-virals (DAA) are highly effective for hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment, but perceived risks of medication non-adherence may restrict access to care. Digital medicine programme (DMP) has improved adherence and outcomes for some conditions. AIMS: To conduct a prospective, single-arm, open-label study across the United States to assess the impact of DMP on adherence and efficacy in adults with chronic HCV infection at high risk for non-adherence. METHODS: Eligible participants were placed on the DMP to evaluate real-time adherence; primary outcome was sustained virological response (SVR) at ≥10 weeks post-treatment. RESULTS: Between August 2017 and April 2019, 288 participants (Medicaid, 64.9%; psychiatric disorders, 61.1%; homeless, 9.4%) received DAAs for 8-12 weeks (sofosbuvir/velpatasvir or ledipasvir, 45%; glecaprevir/pibrentasvir, 55%). SVR was achieved in 99.1% of 218 participants who had HCV RNA assessed at ≥10 weeks post-treatment; of the 70 participants who did not have SVR assessed, 17 had SVR4 with HCV RNA assessed at a median (IQR; interquartile range) 5.6 weeks (4.1, 7.9) post-treatment; one completed treatment but did not have HCV RNA assessed, and 52 discontinued treatment early without assessment. Overall, the primary analysed participants (n = 218) actively used the DMP for median (range) 92.9% (12.5%, 100%) of their prescribed treatment time, and overall pill-taking adherence was 95.0% (57.1%, 100%). Participants reported the programme was useful and easy to use through satisfaction surveys. CONCLUSIONS: HCV treatment with DMP was accepted by patients and clinicians and may support HCV treatment outcomes among patients at high risk for treatment non-adherence (Clinical trials.gov NCT03164902).

Real-world efficacy of direct acting antiviral therapies in patients with HIV/HCV.

The advent of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies has dramatically transformed HCV treatment, with most recent trials demonstrating high efficacy rates (>90%) across all genotypes and special populations, including patients with HIV/HCV coinfection. The efficacy rates of HCV treatment are nearly identical between patients with HCV monofection and patients with HIV/HCV coinfection; however, there are limited studies to compare real-world efficacy with efficacy observed in clinical trials. Using a database from HIV clinics across the United States (US), we identified 432 patients with HIV/HCV coinfection who completed DAA therapy from January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2017 and were assessed for efficacy. Efficacy was evaluated as sustained virologic response (SVR) 12 weeks after DAA completion; furthermore, factors associated with achieving SVR12 were identified. In this analysis, we found DAA therapies to be effective, with 94% of the patients achieving SVR12 and 6% experiencing virologic failure. Baseline variables, including older age, HCV viral load <800K IU/ML, FIB-4 score <1.45, absence of depression, diabetes, substance abuse, and use of DAA regimens without ribavirin were significant predictors of achieving SVR12. Patients with fewer comorbidities, better liver health, and lower HCV viral loads at baseline were more likely to achieve treatment success. Our results were consistent with other real-world studies, supporting the use of HCV therapy in HIV/HCV coinfected patients.

Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Profile of Tenofovir Alafenamide Versus Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate.

BACKGROUND: In human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is associated with greater increases in all fasting cholesterol subgroups compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Because lipid abnormalities may contribute to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, cardiovascular risk assessment is integral to routine HIV care. This post hoc study evaluates the impact of lipid changes on predicted atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk and statin eligibility in treatment-naive adults living with HIV treated with TAF or TDF. METHODS: Participants (N = 1744) were randomized (1:1) to initiate TAF or TDF, each coformulated with elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine (studies GS-US-292-0104 and GS-US-292-0111). Eligibility for statin therapy and estimated 10-year ASCVD risk among adults aged 40-79 years treated with TAF or TDF for 96 weeks (W96) were analyzed based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations. Categorical shifts in 10-year ASCVD risk from <7.5% to ≥7.5% by W96 on TAF versus TDF were calculated. RESULTS: Participants initiating TAF versus TDF in the overall study population showed small but significant increases in median fasting lipid parameters at W96, including total cholesterol (191 vs 177 mg/dL; P < .001), low-density lipoprotein ([LDL] 119 vs 112 mg/dL; P < .001), and high-density lipoprotein ([HDL] 51 vs 48 mg/dL; P < .001), respectively. At baseline, 18% and 23% on TAF versus TDF had a 10-year ASCVD risk score ≥7.5%, with mean risk scores low overall for TAF versus TDF at baseline (4.9% vs 5.4%; P = .35) and W96 (6.1% vs 6.2%; P = .04). Increases in ASCVD risk from baseline to W96 were driven by both increasing age and changes in total cholesterol (TC) and HDL cholesterol. At W96, TC/HDL ratios (median) were 3.7 for both groups (P = .69). There was no difference between shifts in categorical risk for TAF versus TDF (9% vs 5%; P = .19). Eligibility for high-intensity statin therapy were similar for TAF versus TDF groups (19% vs 21%; P = .47). CONCLUSIONS: Lipid changes with TAF as part of coformulated regimens do not substantively affect CVD risk profiles compared with TDF.

HIV/HCV therapy with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir after randomized switch to emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenamide-based single-tablet regimens.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines advocate the treatment of HCV in all HIV/HCV co-infected individuals. The aim of this randomized, open-label study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02707601; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02707601) was to evaluate the safety/efficacy of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) co-administered with elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/TAF) or rilpivirine/F/TAF (R/F/TAF) in HIV-1/HCV co-infected participants. METHODS: Participants with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL and chronic HCV-genotype (GT) 1 (HCV treatment-naïve ± compensated cirrhosis or HCV treatment-experienced non-cirrhotic) were randomized 1:1 to switch to E/C/F/TAF or R/F/TAF. If HIV suppression was maintained at Week 8, participants received 12 weeks of LDV/SOF. The primary endpoint was sustained HCV virologic response 12 weeks after LDV/SOF completion (SVR12). RESULTS: Of 150 participants, 148 received ≥1 dose of HIV study drug and 144 received LDV/SOF (72 in each F/TAF group; 83% GT1a, 94% HCV treatment-naïve, 12% cirrhotic). Overall, SVR12 was 97% (95% confidence interval: 93-99%). Black race did not affect SVR12. Of four participants not achieving SVR12, one had HCV relapse, one had HCV virologic non-response due to non-adherence, and two missed the post-HCV Week 12 visit. Of 148 participants, 96% receiving E/C/F/TAF and 95% receiving R/F/TAF maintained HIV suppression at Week 24; no HIV resistance was detected. No participant discontinued LDV/SOF or E/C/F/TAF due to adverse events; one participant discontinued R/F/TAF due to worsening of pre-existing hypercholesterolemia. Renal toxicity was not observed in either F/TAF regimen during LDV/SOF co-administration. In conclusion, high rates of HCV SVR12 and maintenance of HIV suppression were achieved with LDV/SOF and F/TAF-based regimens. CONCLUSION: This study supports LDV/SOF co-administered with an F/TAF-based regimen in HIV-1/HCV-GT1 co-infected patients.

Week 96 subgroup analyses of the phase 3, randomized AMBER and EMERALD trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of the once daily darunavir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (D/C/F/TAF) single-tablet regimen in antiretroviral treatment (ART)-naïve and -experienced, virologically-suppressed adults living with HIV-1.

BACKGROUND: Darunavir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (D/C/F/TAF) 800/150/200/10 mg was investigated in AMBER (treatment-naïve adults; NCT02431247) and EMERALD (treatment-experienced, virologically-suppressed adults; NCT02269917). OBJECTIVE: To describe a Week 96 pre-planned subgroup analysis of D/C/F/TAF arms by demographic characteristics (age ≤/>50 years, gender, black/non-black race), and baseline clinical characteristics (AMBER: viral load [VL], CD4+ count, WHO clinical stage, HIV-1 subtype and antiretroviral resistance; EMERALD: prior virologic failure [VF], antiretroviral experience, screening boosted protease inhibitor [PI], and boosting agent). METHODS: Patients in D/C/F/TAF and control arms could continue on/switch to D/C/F/TAF in a single-arm, open-label extension phase after Week 48 until Week 96. Efficacy endpoints were percentage cumulative confirmed VL ≥50 copies/mL (virologic rebound; EMERALD), and VL <50 (virologic response), or ≥50 copies/mL (VF) (FDA snapshot; both trials). RESULTS: D/C/F/TAF demonstrated high Week 96 virologic responses (AMBER: 85% [308/362]; EMERALD: 91% [692/763]) and low VF rates (AMBER: 6% [20/362]; EMERALD: 1% [9/763]). In EMERALD, D/C/F/TAF showed low virologic rebound cumulative through Week 96 (3% [24/763]). Results were consistent across subgroups, including prior antiretroviral experience in EMERALD. No darunavir, primary PI, or tenofovir resistance-associated mutations were observed post-baseline. Study-drug-related serious adverse events (AEs) and AE-related discontinuations were <1% and 2%, respectively (both D/C/F/TAF arms), and similar across subgroups. eGFRcyst and bone mineral density improved or were stable and lipids increased through Week 96 across demographic subgroups, with small changes in total-cholesterol/HDL-cholesterol ratio. CONCLUSIONS: D/C/F/TAF was effective with a high barrier to resistance and bone/renal safety benefits, regardless of demographic or clinical characteristics for treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced, virologically-suppressed adults.

Darunavir/Cobicistat/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir Alafenamide in a Rapid-Initiation Model of Care for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infection: Primary Analysis of the DIAMOND Study.

BACKGROUND: Most guidelines recommend rapid treatment initiation for patients with newly diagnosed human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, but prospective US data are limited. The DIAMOND (NCT03227861) study using darunavir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (D/C/F/TAF) 800/150/200/10 mg is a phase 3 prospective study evaluating efficacy/safety of a single-tablet regimen in a rapid-initiation model of care. METHODS: Adults aged ≥18 years began D/C/F/TAF ≤14 days from diagnosis without screening/baseline results; as results became available, participants not meeting predefined safety/resistance stopping rules continued. Primary endpoint was virologic response (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL; intent-to-treat; US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] snapshot) at week 48; participant satisfaction was measured via the HIV Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (HIVTSQs). RESULTS: Of 109 participants, 87% were male, 32% black/African American, median (range) age was 28 (range, 19-66) years, 25% of participants had HIV-1 RNA ≥100 000 copies/mL, 21% had CD4+ cell count <200 cells/µL, and 31% enrolled ≤48 hours from diagnosis. At week 48, 97 (89%) participants completed the study and 92 (84%) achieved HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL (FDA snapshot). There were no protocol-defined virologic failures; incidences of adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (33%) were low, no serious AEs were study drug related, and 1 (<1%) participant discontinued due to study drug related AE(s). The overall HIVTSQs score at week 48 was 58 (maximum: 60). CONCLUSIONS: At week 48, a high proportion of participants starting D/C/F/TAF achieved HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL and very few discontinued therapy. D/C/F/TAF was well tolerated, no participants discontinued due to baseline resistance stopping criteria, and high treatment satisfaction among participants was recorded. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03227861.

Darunavir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide in treatment-experienced, virologically suppressed patients with HIV-1: subgroup analyses of the phase 3 EMERALD study.

BACKGROUND: Darunavir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (D/C/F/TAF) 800/150/200/10 mg is a once-daily, single-tablet regimen for treatment of HIV-1 infection. The efficacy/safety of switching to D/C/F/TAF versus continuing boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) + emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (control) were demonstrated in a phase 3, randomized study (EMERALD) of treatment-experienced, virologically suppressed adults through week 48. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate EMERALD outcomes across subgroups of patients based on demographic characteristics, prior treatment experience, and baseline antiretroviral regimen. METHODS: EMERALD patients were virologically suppressed (viral load [VL] < 50 copies/mL for ≥ 2 months at screening). Prior non-darunavir virologic failure (VF) was allowed. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients with virologic rebound (confirmed VL ≥ 50 copies/mL) cumulative through week 48. Virologic response was VL < 50 copies/mL (FDA snapshot). Safety was assessed by adverse events, renal proteinuria markers, and bone mineral density. Outcomes were examined for prespecified subgroups by age (≤/> 50 years), gender, race (black/non-black), prior number of antiretrovirals used (4/5/6/7/> 7), prior VF (0/≥ 1), baseline bPI (darunavir/atazanavir or lopinavir), and baseline boosting agent (ritonavir/cobicistat). RESULTS: Among 1141 patients in the D/C/F/TAF (n = 763) and control (n = 378) arms, virologic rebound rates (2.5% and 2.1%, respectively) were similar, and this was consistent across all subgroups. Virologic response rates ranged from 91 to 97% (D/C/F/TAF) and 89 to 99% (control) across all subgroups, with differences between treatment arms of 0 and 6%. Adverse event rates were low in both arms and across subgroups. Improvements in renal and bone parameters were observed with D/C/F/TAF across demographic subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: For treatment-experienced, virologically suppressed patients, switching to D/C/F/TAF was highly effective and safe, regardless of demographic characteristics, prior treatment experience, or pre-switch bPI. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02269917. Registered 21 October 2014. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02269917.

Pharmacokinetics of tenofovir monoester and association with intracellular tenofovir diphosphate following single-dose tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir monoester is a relatively lipophilic intermediate formed during the hydrolysis of tenofovir disoproxil to tenofovir. Its clinical pharmacokinetic profile and influence on the cellular pharmacology of tenofovir diphosphate have not been reported. METHODS: Plasma, PBMC and dried blood spots (DBS) were obtained from HIV-uninfected adults participating in a randomized, cross-over bioequivalence study of single-dose tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine unencapsulated or encapsulated with a Proteus® ingestible sensor. Plasma pharmacokinetics of tenofovir monoester and tenofovir were characterized using non-compartmental methods. Relationships with tenofovir diphosphate in DBS and PBMC were examined using mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Samples were available from 24 participants (13 female; 19 white, 3 black, 2 Hispanic). Tenofovir monoester appeared rapidly with a median (range) Tmax of 0.5 h (0.25-2) followed by a rapid monophasic decline with a geometric mean (coefficient of variation) t½ of 26 min (31.0%). Tenofovir monoester Cmax was 131.6 ng/mL (69.8%) and AUC0-4 was 93.3 ng·h/mL (47.9%). The corresponding values for plasma tenofovir were 222.2 ng/mL (37.1%) and 448.1 ng·h/mL (30.0%). Tenofovir monoester AUC0-∞ (but not tenofovir AUC0-∞) was a significant predictor of tenofovir diphosphate in both PBMC (P = 0.015) and DBS (P = 0.005), increasing by 3.8% (95% CI 0.8%-6.8%) and 4.3% (95% CI 1.5%-7.2%), respectively, for every 10 ng·h/mL increase in tenofovir monoester. CONCLUSIONS: Tenofovir monoester Cmax and AUC0-4 were 59.2% and 20.6% of corresponding plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir monoester was significantly associated with intracellular tenofovir diphosphate concentrations in PBMC and DBS, whereas tenofovir concentrations were not. Tenofovir monoester likely facilitates cell loading, thereby increasing tenofovir diphosphate exposures in vivo.