Cardiac Adverse Events and Remdesivir in Hospitalized Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Post Hoc Safety Analysis of the Randomized DisCoVeRy Trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the cardiac adverse events (AEs) in hospitalized patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving remdesivir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC alone (control), as an association was noted in some cohort studies and disproportionality analyses of safety databases. METHODS: This post-hoc safety analysis is based on data from the multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled DisCoVeRy trial in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (NCT04315948). Any first AE occurring between randomization and day 29 in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population randomized to either remdesivir or control group was considered. Analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for event rates. RESULTS: Cardiac AEs were reported in 46 (11.2%) of 410 and 48 (11.3%) of 423 patients in the mITT population (n = 833) enrolled in the remdesivir and control groups, respectively. The difference between both groups was not significant (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.5, p = 0.98), even when evaluating serious and non-serious cardiac AEs separately. The majority of reports in both groups were of arrhythmic nature (remdesivir, 84.8%; control, 83.3%) and were associated with a favorable outcome. There was no significant difference between remdesivir and control groups in the occurrence of different cardiac AE subclasses, including arrhythmic events (HR 1.1, 95% CI: 0.7-1.7, p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir treatment was not associated with an increased risk of cardiac AEs, whether serious or not, and regardless of AE severity, compared to control, in patients hospitalized with moderate or severe COVID-19. This is consistent with the results of other randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses.

Validation of a SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Neutralization Test Detecting Neutralizing Antibodies against the Major Variants of Concern.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or vaccination elicit a broad range of neutralizing antibody responses against the different variants of concern (VOC). We established a new variant-adapted surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) and assessed the neutralization activity against the ancestral B.1 (WT) and VOC Delta, Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5. Analytical performances were compared against the respective VOC to the reference virus neutralization test (VNT) and two CE-IVD labeled kits using three different cohorts collected during the COVID-19 waves. Correlation analyses showed moderate to strong correlation for Omicron sub-variants (Spearman's r = 0.7081 for BA.1, r = 0.7205 for BA.2, and r = 0.6042 for BA.5), and for WT (r = 0.8458) and Delta-sVNT (r = 0.8158), respectively. Comparison of the WT-sVNT performance with two CE-IVD kits, the "Icosagen SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody ELISA kit" and the "Genscript cPass, kit" revealed an overall good correlation ranging from 0.8673 to -0.8773 and a midway profile between both commercial kits with 87.76% sensitivity and 90.48% clinical specificity. The BA.2-sVNT performance was similar to the BA.2 Genscript test. Finally, a correlation analysis revealed a strong association (r = 0.8583) between BA.5-sVNT and VNT sVNT using a double-vaccinated cohort (n = 100) and an Omicron-breakthrough infection cohort (n = 91). In conclusion, the sVNT allows for the efficient prediction of immune protection against the various VOCs.

Association between SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics and clinical score evolution in hospitalized patients.

The role of antiviral treatment in coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized patients is controversial. To address this question, we analyzed simultaneously nasopharyngeal viral load and the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS-2) using an effect compartment model to relate viral dynamics and the evolution of clinical severity. The model is applied to 664 hospitalized patients included in the DisCoVeRy trial (NCT04315948; EudraCT 2020-000936-23) randomly assigned to either standard of care (SoC) or SoC + remdesivir. Then we use the model to simulate the impact of antiviral treatments on the time to clinical improvement, defined by a NEWS-2 score lower than 3 (in patients with NEWS-2 <7 at hospitalization) or 5 (in patients with NEWS-2 ≥7 at hospitalization), distinguishing between patients with low or high viral load at hospitalization. The model can fit well the different observed patients trajectories, showing that clinical evolution is associated with viral dynamics, albeit with large interindividual variability. Remdesivir antiviral activity was 22% and 78% in patients with low or high viral loads, respectively, which is not sufficient to generate a meaningful effect on NEWS-2. However, simulations predicted that antiviral activity greater than 99% could reduce by 2 days the time to clinical improvement in patients with high viral load, irrespective of the NEWS-2 score at hospitalization, whereas no meaningful effect was predicted in patients with low viral loads. Our results demonstrate that time to clinical improvement is associated with time to viral clearance and that highly effective antiviral drugs could hasten clinical improvement in hospitalized patients with high viral loads.

Management of pharmacovigilance during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis by the safety department of an academic sponsor: Lessons learnt and challenges from the EU DisCoVeRy clinical trial.

The current COVID-19 pandemic was an exceptional health situation, including for drug use. As there was no known effective drug for COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, different drug candidates were proposed. In this article, we present the challenges for an academic Safety Department to manage the global safety of a European trial during the pandemic. The National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) conducted a European multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial involving three repurposed and one-in development drugs (lopinavir/ritonavir, IFN-ß1a, hydroxychloroquine, and remdesivir) in adults hospitalized with COVID-19. From 25 March 2020 to 29 May 2020, the Inserm Safety Department had to manage 585 Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) initial notification and 396 follow-up reports. The Inserm Safety Department's staff was mobilized to manage these SAEs and to report Expedited safety reports to the competent authorities within the legal timeframes. More than 500 queries were sent to the investigators due to a lack of or incoherent information on SAE forms. At the same time, the investigators were overwhelmed by the management of patients suffering from COVID-19 infection. These particular conditions of missing data and lack of accurate description of adverse events made evaluation of the SAEs very difficult, particularly the assessment of the causal role of each investigational medicinal product. In parallel, working difficulties were accentuated by the national lockdown, frequent IT tool dysfunctions, delayed implementation of monitoring and the absence of automatic alerts for SAE form modification. Although COVID-19 is a confounding factor per se, the delay in and quality of SAE form completion and the real-time medical analysis by the Inserm Safety Department were major issues in the quick identification of potential safety signals. To conduct a high-quality clinical trial and ensure patient safety, all stakeholders must take their roles and responsibilities.

Derivation of a Protein Risk Score for Cardiovascular Disease Among a Multiracial and Multiethnic HIV+ Cohort.

Background Cardiovascular disease risk prediction models underestimate CVD risk in people living with HIV (PLWH). Our goal is to derive a risk score based on protein biomarkers that could be used to predict CVD in PLWH. Methods and Results In a matched case-control study, we analyzed normalized protein expression data for participants enrolled in 1 of 4 trials conducted by INSIGHT (International Network for Strategic Initiatives in Global HIV Trials). We used dimension reduction, variable selection and resampling methods, and multivariable conditional logistic regression models to determine candidate protein biomarkers and to generate a protein score for predicting CVD in PLWH. We internally validated our findings using bootstrap. A protein score that was derived from 8 proteins (including HGF [hepatocyte growth factor] and interleukin-6) was found to be associated with an increased risk of CVD after adjustment for CVD and HIV factors (odds ratio: 2.17 [95% CI: 1.58-2.99]). The protein score improved CVD prediction when compared with predicting CVD risk using the individual proteins that comprised the protein score. Individuals with a protein score above the median score were 3.10 (95% CI, 1.83-5.41) times more likely to develop CVD than those with a protein score below the median score. Conclusions A panel of blood biomarkers may help identify PLWH at a high risk for developing CVD. If validated, such a score could be used in conjunction with established factors to identify CVD at-risk individuals who might benefit from aggressive risk reduction, ultimately shedding light on CVD pathogenesis in PLWH.

Vaccine- and Breakthrough Infection-Elicited Pre-Omicron Immunity More Effectively Neutralizes Omicron BA.1, BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 Than Pre-Omicron Infection Alone.

Since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2, several Omicron sublineages have emerged, supplanting their predecessors. Here we compared the neutralization of Omicron sublineages BA.1, BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 by human sera collected from individuals who were infected with the ancestral B.1 (D614G) strain, who were vaccinated (3 doses) or with breakthrough infection with pre-Omicron strains (Gamma or Delta). All Omicron sublineages exhibited extensive escape from all sera when compared to the ancestral B.1 strain and to Delta, albeit to different levels depending on the origin of the sera. Convalescent sera were unable to neutralize BA.1, and partly neutralized BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5. Vaccinee sera partly neutralized BA.2, but BA.1, BA.4 and BA.5 evaded neutralizing antibodies (NAb). Some breakthrough infections (BTI) sera were non-neutralizing. Neutralizing BTI sera had similar neutralizing ability against all Omicron sublineages. Despite similar levels of anti-Spike and anti-Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) antibodies in all groups, BTI sera had the highest cross-neutralizing ability against all Omicron sublineages and convalescent sera were the least neutralizing. Antibody avidity inferred from the NT50:antibody titer ratio was highest in sera from BTI patients, underscoring qualitative differences in antibodies elicited by infection or vaccination. Together, these findings highlight the importance of vaccination to trigger highly cross-reactive antibodies that neutralize phylogenetically and antigenically distant strains, and suggest that immune imprinting by first generation vaccines may restrict, but not abolish, cross-neutralization.

Long COVID Symptomatology After 12 Months and Its Impact on Quality of Life According to Initial Coronavirus Disease 2019 Disease Severity.

Background: "Long COVID" is characterized by a variety of symptoms and an important burden for affected people. Our objective was to describe long COVID symptomatology according to initial coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity. Methods: Predi-COVID cohort study participants, recruited at the time of acute COVID-19 infection, completed a detailed 12-month symptom and quality of life questionnaire. Frequencies and co-occurrences of symptoms were assessed. Results: Among the 289 participants who fully completed the 12-month questionnaire, 59.5% reported at least 1 symptom, with a median of 6 symptoms. Participants with an initial moderate or severe acute illness declared more frequently 1 or more symptoms (82.6% vs 38.6%, P < .001) and had on average 6.8 more symptoms (95% confidence interval, 4.18-9.38) than initially asymptomatic participants who developed symptoms after the acute infection. Overall, 12.5% of the participants could not envisage coping with their symptoms in the long term. Frequently reported symptoms, such as neurological and cardiovascular symptoms, but also less frequent ones such as gastrointestinal symptoms, tended to cluster. Conclusions: Frequencies and burden of symptoms present 12 months after acute COVID-19 infection increased with the severity of the acute illness. Long COVID likely consists of multiple subcategories rather than a single entity. This work will contribute to the better understanding of long COVID and to the definition of precision health strategies. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04380987.

Observational cohort study of rilpivirine (RPV) utilization in Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Data on safety and effectiveness of RPV from the real-world setting as well as comparisons with other NNRTIs such as efavirenz (EFV) remain scarce. METHODS: Participants of EuroSIDA were included if they had started a RPV- or an EFV-containing regimen over November 2011-December 2017. Statistical testing was conducted using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test. A logistic regression model was used to compare participants' characteristics by treatment group. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the cumulative risk of virological failure (VF, two consecutive values > 50 copies/mL). RESULTS: 1,355 PLWH who started a RPV-based regimen (11% ART-naïve), as well as 333 initiating an EFV-containing regimen were included. Participants who started RPV differed from those starting EFV for demographics (age, geographical region) and immune-virological profiles (CD4 count, HIV RNA). The cumulative risk of VF for the RPV-based group was 4.5% (95% CI 3.3-5.7%) by 2 years from starting treatment (71 total VF events). Five out of 15 (33%) with resistance data available in the RPV group showed resistance-associated mutations vs. 3/13 (23%) among those in the EFV group. Discontinuations due to intolerance/toxicity were reported for 73 (15%) of RPV- vs. 45 (30%) of EFV-treated participants (p = 0.0001). The main difference was for toxicity of central nervous system (CNS, 3% vs. 22%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our estimates of VF > 50 copies/mL and resistance in participants treated with RPV were similar to those reported by other studies. RPV safety profile was favourable with less frequent discontinuation due to toxicity than EFV (especially for CNS).

Changes in body mass index and clinical outcomes after initiation of contemporary antiretroviral regimens.

BACKGROUND: Weight gain is becoming increasingly prevalent amongst people with HIV (PWH) receiving contemporary antiretroviral treatment. We investigated BMI changes and clinical impact in a large prospective observational study. METHODS: PWH aged ≥18 years were included who started a new antiretroviral (baseline) during 2010-2019 with baseline and ≥1 follow-up BMI assessment available. Rates of clinical outcomes (cardiovascular disease [CVD], malignancies, diabetes mellitus [DM] and all-cause mortality) were analysed using Poisson regression to assess effect of time-updated BMI changes (>1 kg/m 2 decrease, ±1 kg/m 2 stable, >1 kg/m 2 increase), lagged by 1-year to reduce reverse causality. Analyses were adjusted for baseline BMI plus key confounders including antiretroviral exposure. RESULTS: 6721 PWH were included; 72.3% were male, median age 48 years (interquartile range [IQR] 40-55). At baseline, 8.4% were antiretroviral-naive, and 5.0% were underweight, 59.7% healthy weight, 27.5% overweight, and 7.8% were living with obesity. There was an 8.2% increase in proportion of overweight and 4.8% in obesity over the study period (median follow-up 4.4 years [IQR 2.6-6.7]).100 CVDs, 149 malignancies, 144 DMs, and 257 deaths were observed with incidence rates 4.4, 6.8, 6.6, 10.6 per 1000 person-years of follow-up, respectively. Compared to stable BMI, >1 kg/m 2 increase was associated with increased risk of DM (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.36-2.80) and >1 kg/m 2 decrease with increased risk of death (adjusted IRR: 2.33, 95% CI: 1.73-3.13). No significant associations were observed between BMI changes and CVD or malignancies. CONCLUSIONS: A BMI increase was associated with DM and a decrease associated with death.

Pre-Omicron Vaccine Breakthrough Infection Induces Superior Cross-Neutralization against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 Compared to Infection Alone.

SARS-CoV-2 variants raise concern because of their high transmissibility and their ability to evade neutralizing antibodies elicited by prior infection or by vaccination. Here, we compared the neutralizing abilities of sera from 70 unvaccinated COVID-19 patients infected before the emergence of variants of concern (VOCs) and of 16 vaccine breakthrough infection (BTI) cases infected with Gamma or Delta against the ancestral B.1 strain, the Gamma, Delta and Omicron BA.1 VOCs using live virus. We further determined antibody levels against the Nucleocapsid (N) and full Spike proteins, the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the Spike protein. Convalescent sera featured considerable variability in the neutralization of B.1 and in the cross-neutralization of different strains. Their neutralizing capacity moderately correlated with antibody levels against the Spike protein and the RBD. All but one convalescent serum failed to neutralize Omicron BA.1. Overall, convalescent sera from patients with moderate disease had higher antibody levels and displayed a higher neutralizing ability against all strains than patients with mild or severe forms of the disease. The sera from BTI cases fell into one of two categories: half the sera had a high neutralizing activity against the ancestral B.1 strain as well as against the infecting strain, while the other half had no or a very low neutralizing activity against all strains. Although antibody levels against the spike protein and the RBD were lower in BTI sera than in unvaccinated convalescent sera, most neutralizing sera also retained partial neutralizing activity against Omicron BA.1, suggestive of a better cross-neutralization and higher affinity of vaccine-elicited antibodies over virus-induced antibodies. Accordingly, the IC50: antibody level ratios were comparable for BTI and convalescent sera, but remained lower in the neutralizing convalescent sera from patients with moderate disease than in BTI sera. The neutralizing activity of BTI sera was strongly correlated with antibodies against the Spike protein and the RBD. Together, these findings highlight qualitative differences in antibody responses elicited by infection in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. They further indicate that breakthrough infection with a pre-Omicron variant boosts immunity and induces cross-neutralizing antibodies against different strains, including Omicron BA.1.

Effect of remdesivir on viral dynamics in COVID-19 hospitalized patients: a modelling analysis of the randomized, controlled, open-label DisCoVeRy trial.

BACKGROUND: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in COVID-19 hospitalized patients remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of remdesivir in blocking viral replication. METHODS: We analysed nasopharyngeal normalized viral loads from 665 hospitalized patients included in the DisCoVeRy trial (NCT04315948; EudraCT 2020-000936-23), randomized to either standard of care (SoC) or SoC + remdesivir. We used a mathematical model to reconstruct viral kinetic profiles and estimate the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in blocking viral replication. Additional analyses were conducted stratified on time of treatment initiation (≤7 or >7 days since symptom onset) or viral load at randomization (< or ≥3.5 log10 copies/104 cells). RESULTS: In our model, remdesivir reduced viral production by infected cells by 2-fold on average (95% CI: 1.5-3.2-fold). Model-based simulations predict that remdesivir reduced time to viral clearance by 0.7 days compared with SoC, with large inter-individual variabilities (IQR: 0.0-1.3 days). Remdesivir had a larger impact in patients with high viral load at randomization, reducing viral production by 5-fold on average (95% CI: 2.8-25-fold) and the median time to viral clearance by 2.4 days (IQR: 0.9-4.5 days). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir halved viral production, leading to a median reduction of 0.7 days in the time to viral clearance compared with SoC. The efficacy was larger in patients with high viral load at randomization.

Remdesivir plus standard of care versus standard of care alone for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): a phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen or ventilator support. METHODS: DisCoVeRy was a phase 3, open-label, adaptive, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial conducted in 48 sites in Europe (France, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Luxembourg). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness of any duration were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxaemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzymes, severe chronic kidney disease, any contraindication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before random assignment, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breastfeeding. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive standard of care alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir and interferon beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Randomisation used computer-generated blocks of various sizes; it was stratified on severity of disease at inclusion and on European administrative region. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg intravenous infusion on day 1, followed by once daily, 1-h infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population and was one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2020-000936-23, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948. FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 21, 2021, 857 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to remdesivir plus standard of care (n=429) or standard of care only (n=428). 15 participants were excluded from analysis in the remdesivir group, and ten in the control group. At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was: (1) not hospitalised, no limitations on activities (61 [15%] of 414 in the remdesivir group vs 73 [17%] of 418 in the control group); (2) not hospitalised, limitation on activities (129 [31%] vs 132 [32%]); (3) hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen (50 [12%] vs 29 [7%]); (4) hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen (76 [18%] vs 67 [16%]); (5) hospitalised, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (15 [4%] vs 14 [3%]); (6) hospitalised, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (62 [15%] vs 79 [19%]); (7) death (21 [5%] vs 24 [6%]). The difference between treatment groups was not significant (odds ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·77-1·25]; p=0·85). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups (remdesivir, 135 [33%] of 406 vs control, 130 [31%] of 418; p=0·48). Three deaths (acute respiratory distress syndrome, bacterial infection, and hepatorenal syndrome) were considered related to remdesivir by the investigators, but only one by the sponsor's safety team (hepatorenal syndrome). INTERPRETATION: No clinical benefit was observed from the use of remdesivir in patients who were admitted to hospital for COVID-19, were symptomatic for more than 7 days, and required oxygen support. FUNDING: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, Domaine d'intérêt majeur One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Austrian Group Medical Tumor, European Regional Development Fund, Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Case series of four re-infections with a SARS-CoV-2 B.1.351 variant, Luxembourg, February 2021.

We describe four SARS-CoV-2 re-infections with a B.1.351 variant in 2021, in healthcare workers (HCWs) previously infected in 2020, before detection of this variant in Europe. Cases live in France, near the border with Luxembourg, where variants B.1.351 and B.1.1.7 circulated. All work in the same hospital unit where a cluster of COVID 19 with B1.351 variant occurred, affecting patients and HCWs. Before the cluster onset, HCWs used surgical masks, as per recommendations. After cluster onset, HCWs used FFP2 masks.

An open-label randomized controlled trial of the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-ß-1a and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-ß-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. METHODS: We conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 583 participants-lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)-among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54-71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, p 0.75). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of serious adverse events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. CONCLUSION: In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.

Clinical Outcomes of 2-Drug Regimens vs 3-Drug Regimens in Antiretroviral Treatment-Experienced People Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist that compare clinical outcomes of 2-drug regimens (2DRs) and 3-drug regimens (3DRs) in people living with human immunodeficiency virus. METHODS: Antiretroviral treatment-experienced individuals in the International Cohort Consortium of Infectious Diseases (RESPOND) who switched to a new 2DR or 3DR from 1 January 2012-1 October 2018 were included. The incidence of clinical events (AIDS, non-AIDS cancer, cardiovascular disease, end-stage liver and renal disease, death) was compared between regimens using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Of 9791 individuals included, 1088 (11.1%) started 2DRs and 8703 (88.9%) started 3DRs. The most common 2DRs were dolutegravir plus lamivudine (22.8%) and raltegravir plus boosted darunavir (19.8%); the most common 3DR was dolutegravir plus 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (46.9%). Individuals on 2DRs were older (median, 52.6 years [interquartile range, 46.7-59.0] vs 47.7 [39.7-54.3]), and a higher proportion had ≥1 comorbidity (81.6% vs 73.9%). There were 619 events during 27 159 person-years of follow-up (PYFU): 540 (incidence rate [IR] 22.5/1000 PYFU; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.7-24.5) on 3DRs and 79 (30.9/1000 PYFU; 95% CI: 24.8-38.5) on 2DRs. The most common events were death (7.5/1000 PYFU; 95% CI: 6.5-8.6) and non-AIDS cancer (5.8/1000 PYFU; 95% CI: 4.9-6.8). After adjustment for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, there was a similar incidence of events on both regimen types (2DRs vs 3DRs IR ratio, 0.92; 95% CI: .72-1.19; P = .53). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large, international cohort to assess clinical outcomes on 2DRs. After accounting for baseline characteristics, there was a similar incidence of events on 2DRs and 3DRs. 2DRs appear to be a viable treatment option with regard to clinical outcomes. Further research on resistance barriers and long-term durability of 2DRs is needed.

Protocol for a prospective, longitudinal cohort of people with COVID-19 and their household members to study factors associated with disease severity: the Predi-COVID study.

INTRODUCTION: A few major clinical factors such as sex, obesity or comorbidities have already been associated with COVID-19 severity, but there is a need to identify new epidemiological, clinical, digital and biological characteristics associated with severity and perform deep phenotyping of patients according to severity. The objectives of the Predi-COVID study are (1) to identify new determinants of COVID-19 severity and (2) to conduct deep phenotyping of patients by stratifying them according to risk of complications, as well as risk factors for infection among household members of Predi-COVID participants (the Predi-COVID-H ancillary study). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Predi-COVID is a prospective, hybrid cohort study composed of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases in Luxembourg who will be followed up remotely for 1 year to monitor their health status and symptoms. Predi-COVID-H is an ancillary cohort study on household members of index cases included in Predi-COVID to monitor symptoms and household clusters in this high-risk population. A subcohort of up to 200 Predi-COVID and 300 Predi-COVID-H participants with biological samples will be included. Severity of infection will be evaluated by occurrence and duration of hospitalisation, admission and duration of stay in intensive care units or equivalent structures, provision of and duration of supplemental oxygen and ventilation therapy, transfer to another hospital, as well as the impact of infection on daily activities following hospital discharge. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the National Research Ethics Committee of Luxembourg (study number 202003/07) in April 2020. An informed consent is signed by study participants. Scientific articles will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals, along with press releases for lay audience for major results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04380987.

Influence of hepatitis C virus co-infection and hepatitis C virus treatment on risk of chronic kidney disease in HIV-positive persons.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has been associated with increased risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD). We investigated the impact of HCV cure on CKD in HIV-positive persons in the EuroSIDA study. METHODS: HIV-positive persons with known HCV status and at least three serum creatinine measurements after 1/1/2004 were compared based on time-updated HCV-RNA and HCV treatment: anti-HCV-negative, spontaneously cleared HCV, chronic untreated HCV, successfully treated HCV, and HCV-RNA positive after HCV treatment. Poisson regression compared incidence rates of CKD [confirmed (>3 months apart) eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m] between HCV strata. RESULTS: Fourteen thousand, seven hundred and fifty-four persons were included; at baseline 9273 (62.9%) were HCV-Ab negative, 696 (4.7%) spontaneous clearers, 3021 (20.5%) chronically infected, 922 (6.2%) successfully treated and 842 (5.7%) HCV-RNA positive after treatment. During 115 335 person-years of follow-up (PYFU), 1128 (7.6%) developed CKD; crude incidence 9.8/1000 PYFU (95% CI 9.2-10.4). After adjustment, persons anti-HCV negative [adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) 0.59; 95% CI 0.46-0.75] and spontaneous clearers (aIRR 0.67; 95% CI 0.47-0.97) had significantly lower rates of CKD compared with those cured whereas persons chronically infected (aIRR 0.85; 95% CI 0.65-1.12) and HCV-RNA positive after treatment (aIRR 0.71; 95% CI 0.49-1.04) had similar rates. Analysis in those without F3/F4 liver fibrosis using a more rigorous definition of CKD showed similar results. CONCLUSION: This large study found no evidence that successful HCV treatment reduced CKD incidence. Confounding by indication, where those with highest risk of CKD were prioritized for HCV treatment in the DAA era, may contribute to these findings.

Uptake and effectiveness of two-drug compared with three-drug antiretroviral regimens among HIV-positive individuals in Europe.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of two-drug antiretroviral regimens (2DR) and virologic and immunologic outcomes compared with three-drug regimens (3DR) in the EuroSIDA cohort. DESIGN: Multicentre, prospective cohort study. METHODS: Logistic regression was used to analyse the uptake and outcomes among HIV-positive individuals who started or switched to a 2DR compared with those on a 3DR. Virologic outcomes were assessed on-treatment as the proportion of individuals with controlled viral load (<400 copies/ml), or with a composite modified FDA snapshot endpoint (mFDA), with mFDA success defined as controlled viral load at 6 months or 12 months for individuals with a known viral load, no regimen changes, AIDS or death. Immunologic response was defined as a 100 cells/µl or a 25% increase in CD4 cell counts from baseline. RESULTS: Between 1 July 2010 and 31 December 2016, 423 individuals started or switched to a 2DR (eight antiretroviral-naive) and 4347 started a 3DR (566 naive). Individuals on 2DR tended to have suppressed viral load, higher CD4 cell counts and more comorbidities at baseline compared with those on 3DR. There were no differences in the proportions of individuals who obtained on-treatment or mFDA success, and no significant differences in the adjusted odds ratios for mFDA success or immunologic responses between the 2DR and 3DR groups at 6 months or 12 months. CONCLUSION: In routine clinical practice, 2DR were largely used for virologically suppressed individuals with higher cumulative exposure to antiretrovirals and comorbidities. Virologic and immunologic outcomes were similar among those on 2DR or 3DR, although confounding by indication cannot be fully excluded due to the observational nature of the study.