Recurrence of Symptoms Following Cryptococcal Meningitis: Characterizing a Diagnostic Conundrum With Multiple Etiologies.

BACKGROUND: Cryptococcal meningitis is a common cause of AIDS-related mortality. Although symptom recurrence after initial treatment is common, the etiology is often difficult to decipher. We sought to summarize characteristics, etiologies, and outcomes among persons with second-episode symptomatic recurrence. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled Ugandans with cryptococcal meningitis and obtained patient characteristics, antiretroviral therapy (ART) and cryptococcosis histories, clinical outcomes, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis results. We independently adjudicated cases of second-episode meningitis to categorize patients as (1) microbiological relapse, (2) paradoxical immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS), (3) persistent elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) only, or (4) persistent symptoms only, along with controls of primary cryptococcal meningitis. We compared groups with chi-square or Kruskal-Wallis tests as appropriate. RESULTS: 724 participants were included (n = 607 primary episode, 81 relapse, 28 paradoxical IRIS, 2 persistently elevated ICP, 6 persistent symptoms). Participants with culture-positive relapse had lower CD4 (25 cells/µL; IQR: 9-76) and lower CSF white blood cell (WBC; 4 cells/µL; IQR: 4-85) counts than paradoxical IRIS (CD4: 78 cells/µL; IQR: 47-142; WBC: 45 cells/µL; IQR: 8-128). Among those with CSF WBC <5 cells/µL, 86% (43/50) had relapse. Among those with CD4 counts <50 cells/µL, 91% (39/43) had relapse. Eighteen-week mortality (from current symptom onset) was 47% among first episodes of cryptococcal meningitis, 31% in culture-positive relapses, and 14% in paradoxical IRIS. CONCLUSIONS: Poor immune reconstitution was noted more often in relapse than IRIS as evidenced by lower CSF WBC and blood CD4 counts. These easily obtained laboratory values should prompt initiation of antifungal treatment while awaiting culture results. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01802385.

Therapeutic Lumbar Punctures in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Associated Cryptococcal Meningitis: Should Opening Pressure Direct Management?

Background: Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) frequently complicates cryptococcal meningitis. Therapeutic lumbar punctures (LPs) have acute survival benefits in the first week, and we sought to understand the longer-term survival impact of therapeutic LPs. Methods: We prospectively enrolled human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-seropositive adults with cryptococcal meningitis from 2013 to 2017 in Uganda. We assessed the association between clinical characteristics, CSF parameters, and 14- and 30-day mortality by baseline ICP. We also assessed 30-day mortality by number of follow-up therapeutic LPs performed within 7 days. Results: Our analysis included 533 participants. Participants with baseline ICP >350 mm H2O were more likely to have Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score <15 (P < .001), seizures (P < .01), and higher quantitative cryptococcal cultures (P < .001), whereas participants with ICP <200 mm H2O were more likely to have baseline sterile CSF cultures (P < .001) and CSF white blood cell count ≥5 cells/µL (P = .02). Thirty-day mortality was higher in participants with baseline ICP >350 mm H2O and ICP <200 mm H2O as compared with baseline ICP 200-350 mm H2O (hazard ratio, 1.55 [95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.19]; P = .02). Among survivors at least 7 days, the 30-day relative mortality was 50% higher among participants who did not receive any additional therapeutic LPs compared to those with ≥1 additional follow-up LP (33% vs 22%; P = .04), irrespective of baseline ICP. Conclusions: Management of increased ICP remains crucial in improving clinical outcomes in cryptococcal meningitis. Guidelines should consider an approach to therapeutic LPs that is not dictated by baseline ICP.

Efficacy and Safety of Ensovibep for Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ensovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multinational, multicenter trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Intravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Ensovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90. RESULTS: An independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR < 1 would favor ensovibep). LIMITATION: The trial was prematurely stopped because of futility, limiting power for the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, ensovibep did not improve clinical outcomes for hospitalized participants with COVID-19 receiving standard care, including remdesivir; no safety concerns were identified. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Lessons Learned From Conducting Internet-Based Randomized Clinical Trials During a Global Pandemic.

As the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic evolved, it was apparent that well designed and rapidly conducted randomized clinical trials were urgently needed. However, traditional clinical trial design presented several challenges. Notably, disease prevalence initially varied by time and region, and the pockets of outbreaks evolved geographically over time. Coupled with an occupational hazard from in-person study visits, timely recruitment would prove difficult in a traditional in-person clinical trial. Thus, our team opted to launch nationwide internet-based clinical trials using patient-reported outcome measures. In total, 2795 participants were recruited using traditional and social media, with screening and enrollment performed via an online data capture system. Follow-up surveys and survey reminders were similarly managed through this online system with manual participant outreach in the event of missing data. In this report, we present a narrative of our experience running internet-based clinical trials and provide recommendations for the design of future clinical trials during a world pandemic.

Feasibility of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing in Remote Outpatient Trials.

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical trials necessitated rapid testing to be performed remotely. Dried blood spot (DBS) techniques have enabled remote HIV virologic testing globally, and more recently, antibody testing as well. We evaluated DBS testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody testing in outpatients to assess seropositivity. Methods: In 2020, we conducted 3 internet-based randomized clinical trials and offered serologic testing via self-collected DBS as a voluntary substudy. COVID-19 diagnosis was based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention case definition with epidemiological link to cases. A minority reported polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing at an outside facility. We tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin via antibody detection by agglutination-PCR (ADAP) and compared the results with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Results: Of 2727 participants in the primary studies, 60% (1648/2727) consented for serology testing; 56% (931/1648) returned a usable DBS sample. Of those who were asymptomatic, 5% (33/707) had positive ADAP serology. Of participants with a positive PCR, 67% (36/54) had positive SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. None of those who were PCR-positive and asymptomatic were seropositive (0/7). Of 77 specimens tested for concordance via ELISA, 83% (64/77) were concordant. The challenges of completing a remote testing program during a pandemic included sourcing and assembling collection kits, delivery and return of the kits, and troubleshooting testing. Self-collection was successful for >95% of participants. Delays in US mail with possible sample degradation and timing of DBS collection complicated the analysis. Conclusions: We found remote antibody testing during a global pandemic feasible although challenging. We identified an association between symptomatic COVID-19 and positive antibody results at a similar prevalence as other outpatient cohorts.

Hydroxychloroquine as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Workers: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations. RESULTS: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was .72 (95% CI, .44-1.16; P = .18) and for twice-weekly was .74 (95% CI, .46-1.19; P = .22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19-compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467.

Baseline Serum C-Reactive Protein Level Predicts Mortality in Cryptococcal Meningitis.

BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP) is an acute phase protein produced by the liver in response to systemic inflammation. CRP is a helpful surrogate biomarker used for following the progression and resolution of infection. We aimed to determine the association of baseline CRP level and the temporal change in CRP over time with cryptococcal meningitis outcome. METHODS: We reviewed 168 prospectively enrolled HIV-infected Ugandans with confirmed first-episode cryptococcal meningitis. Baseline plasma CRP collected within 5 days of meningitis diagnosis was categorized into quartiles. We compared baseline CRP with 18-week survival using time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: Of 168 participants, the baseline first quartile of serum CRP was <29.0 mg/L, second quartile 29.0-49.5 mg/L, third quartile 49.6-83.6 mg/L, and fourth quartile >83.6 mg/L. Baseline CD4 count, HIV viral load, and cerebrospinal fluid results did not differ by CRP quartile. Participants with CRP >49.5 mg/L more likely presented with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) <15 (P = .03). The 18-week mortality rate was 55% (46/84) in the highest 2 quartile CRP groups (>49.5 mg/L), 41% (17/42) in the mid-range CRP group (29.0-49.5 mg/L), and 14% (6/42) in the low-CRP group (<29.0 mg/L; P < .001). After adjustment for possible confounding factors including GCS <15, CRP remained significantly associated with mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.084 per 10 mg/L; 95% CI, 1.031-1.139; P = .0016). CONCLUSIONS: Higher baseline CRP is associated with increased mortality in HIV-infected individuals with first-episode cryptococcal meningitis. CRP could be a surrogate marker for undiagnosed coinfections or may reflect immune dysregulation, leading to worse outcomes in persons with advanced AIDS and concomitant cryptococcal meningitis.

Safety of Hydroxychloroquine Among Outpatient Clinical Trial Participants for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially in combination with azithromycin, has raised safety concerns. Here, we report safety data from 3 outpatient randomized clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials investigating hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis, postexposure prophylaxis, and early treatment for COVID-19 using an internet-based design. We excluded individuals with contraindications to hydroxychloroquine. We collected side effects and serious adverse events. We report descriptive analyses of our findings. RESULTS: We enrolled 2795 participants. The median age of research participants (interquartile range) was 40 (34-49) years, and 59% (1633/2767) reported no chronic medical conditions. Overall 2544 (91%) participants reported side effect data, and 748 (29%) reported at least 1 medication side effect. Side effects were reported in 40% with once-daily, 36% with twice-weekly, 31% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, compared with 19% with placebo. The most common side effects were upset stomach or nausea (25% with once-daily, 19% with twice-weekly, and 18% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 11% for placebo), followed by diarrhea, vomiting, or abdominal pain (23% for once-daily, 17% twice-weekly, and 13% once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 7% for placebo). Two individuals were hospitalized for atrial arrhythmias, 1 on placebo and 1 on twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine. No sudden deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Data from 3 outpatient COVID-19 trials demonstrated that gastrointestinal side effects were common but mild with the use of hydroxychloroquine, while serious side effects were rare. No deaths occurred related to hydroxychloroquine. Randomized clinical trials, in cohorts of healthy outpatients, can safely investigate whether hydroxychloroquine is efficacious for COVID-19. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04308668 for postexposure prophylaxis and early treatment trials; NCT04328467 for pre-exposure prophylaxis trial.

Symptoms of COVID-19 Outpatients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel pathogen causing the current worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Due to insufficient diagnostic testing in the United States, there is a need for clinical decision-making algorithms to guide testing prioritization. METHODS: We recruited participants nationwide for a randomized clinical trial. We categorized participants into 3 groups: (1) those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, (2) those with probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (pending test or not tested but with a confirmed COVID-19 contact), and (3) those with possible SARS-CoV-2 infection (pending test or not tested and with a contact for whom testing was pending or not performed). We compared the frequency of self-reported symptoms in each group and categorized those reporting symptoms in early infection (0-2 days), midinfection (3-5 days), and late infection (>5 days). RESULTS: Among 1252 symptomatic persons screened, 316 had confirmed, 393 had probable, and 543 had possible SARS-CoV-2 infection. In early infection, those with confirmed and probable SARS-CoV-2 infection shared similar symptom profiles, with fever most likely in confirmed cases (P = .002). Confirmed cases did not show any statistically significant differences compared with unconfirmed cases in symptom frequency at any time point. The most commonly reported symptoms in those with confirmed infection were cough (82%), fever (67%), fatigue (62%), and headache (60%), with only 52% reporting both fever and cough. CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic persons with probable SARS-CoV-2 infection present similarly to those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was no pattern of symptom frequency over time.

Hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare workers: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high-risk of exposure. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with Covid-19, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, Covid-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine 400mg once weekly or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable Covid-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole blood concentrations. RESULTS: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of which 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of Covid-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events per person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events per person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events per person-year with placebo. For once weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was 0.72 (95%CI 0.44 to 1.16; P=0.18) and for twice weekly was 0.74 (95%CI 0.46 to 1.19; P=0.22) as compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed Covid-19 (154 ng/mL) versus participants without Covid-19 (133 ng/mL; P=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or Covid-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers.

Safety of Hydroxychloroquine among Outpatient Clinical Trial Participants for COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, especially in combination with azithromycin, has raised safety concerns. Here, we report safety data from three outpatient randomized clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials investigating hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis, post-exposure prophylaxis and early treatment for COVID-19. We excluded individuals with contraindications to hydroxychloroquine. We collected side effects and serious adverse events. We report descriptive analyses of our findings. RESULTS: We enrolled 2,795 participants. The median age of research participants was 40 (IQR 34-49) years, and 59% (1633/2767) reported no chronic medical conditions. Overall 2,324 (84%) participants reported side effect data, and 638 (27%) reported at least one medication side effect. Side effects were reported in 29% with daily, 36% with twice weekly, 31% with once weekly hydroxychloroquine compared to 19% with placebo. The most common side effects were upset stomach or nausea (25% with daily, 18% with twice weekly, 16% with weekly, vs. 10% for placebo), followed by diarrhea, vomiting, or abdominal pain (23% for daily, 16% twice weekly, 12% weekly, vs. 6% for placebo). Two individuals were hospitalized for atrial arrhythmias, one on placebo and one on twice weekly hydroxychloroquine. No sudden deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: Data from three outpatient COVID-19 trials demonstrated that gastrointestinal side effects were common but mild with the use of hydroxychloroquine, while serious side effects were rare. No deaths occurred related to hydroxychloroquine. Randomized clinical trials can safely investigate whether hydroxychloroquine is efficacious for COVID-19.

Phase I EnACT Trial of the Safety and Tolerability of a Novel Oral Formulation of Amphotericin B.

Amphotericin B deoxycholate (AMB) has substantial toxicities. A novel encochleated amphotericin B deoxycholate (cAMB) formulation has oral bioavailability, efficacy in an animal model, and minimal toxicity due to targeted drug delivery into macrophages, where intracellular fungi reside. We conducted a phase I, ascending-dose trial of cAMB administered at 1.0 g, 1.5 g, or 2.0 g per day in 4 to 6 divided doses among HIV-positive survivors of cryptococcosis (n = 9 per cohort). We assessed the tolerability of cAMB and the adverse events (AEs) associated with cAMB treatment over 3 days. A second trial (n = 9) assessed the tolerability of 1.5 g/day given for 7 days. In the single-ascending-dose study, all subjects received their full daily dose without vomiting (100% tolerability). The cohort receiving 1.0 g had 4 transient clinical AEs in 2 subjects within 48 h and 8 laboratory AEs (n = 6 grade 2, n = 2 grade 1). The cohort receiving 1.5 g had 7 clinical AEs in 1 subject attributed to acute gastroenteritis (n = 4 grade 2) and 5 laboratory AEs (n = 1 grade 2). The cohort receiving 2.0 g had 20 clinical AEs among 5 subjects within 48 h (n = 3 grade 2) and 11 laboratory AEs (n = 2 grade 2, n = 1 grade 3). From a qualitative survey, 26 of 27 subjects (96%) preferred their experience with oral cAMB over their prior experience with intravenous (i.v.) AMB. The second, multiple-dose cohort received 1.5 g/day for 1 week, with 98.4% (248/252) of the doses being taken. Overall, 5 clinical AEs (n = 5 grade 1) and 6 laboratory AEs (n = 6 grade 1) occurred without kidney toxicity. Oral cAMB was well tolerated when given in 4 to 6 divided daily doses without the toxicities commonly seen with i.v. AMB. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT04031833.).

Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19 : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: No effective oral therapy exists for early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether hydroxychloroquine could reduce COVID-19 severity in adult outpatients. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 22 March through 20 May 2020. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04308668). SETTING: Internet-based trial across the United States and Canada (40 states and 3 provinces). PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic, nonhospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or probable COVID-19 and high-risk exposure within 4 days of symptom onset. INTERVENTION: Oral hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 more days) or masked placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Symptoms and severity at baseline and then at days 3, 5, 10, and 14 using a 10-point visual analogue scale. The primary end point was change in overall symptom severity over 14 days. RESULTS: Of 491 patients randomly assigned to a group, 423 contributed primary end point data. Of these, 341 (81%) had laboratory-confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or epidemiologically linked exposure to a person with laboratory-confirmed infection; 56% (236 of 423) were enrolled within 1 day of symptoms starting. Change in symptom severity over 14 days did not differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (difference in symptom severity: relative, 12%; absolute, -0.27 point [95% CI, -0.61 to 0.07 point]; P = 0.117). At 14 days, 24% (49 of 201) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine had ongoing symptoms compared with 30% (59 of 194) receiving placebo (P = 0.21). Medication adverse effects occurred in 43% (92 of 212) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine versus 22% (46 of 211) receiving placebo (P < 0.001). With placebo, 10 hospitalizations occurred (2 non-COVID-19-related), including 1 hospitalized death. With hydroxychloroquine, 4 hospitalizations occurred plus 1 nonhospitalized death (P = 0.29). LIMITATION: Only 58% of participants received SARS-CoV-2 testing because of severe U.S. testing shortages. CONCLUSION: Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Private donors.

A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) occurs after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For persons who are exposed, the standard of care is observation and quarantine. Whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent symptomatic infection after SARS-CoV-2 exposure is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was -2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -7.0 to 2.2; P = 0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668.).

Post-exposure prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): study protocol for a pragmatic randomized-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019 causing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Currently, there is a lack of evidence-based therapies to prevent COVID-19 following exposure to the virus, or to prevent worsening of symptoms following confirmed infection. We describe the design of a clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and pre-emptive therapy (PET) for COVID-19. METHODS: We will conduct two nested multicentre international double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine for: 1) PEP of asymptomatic household contacts or healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19 within the past four days, and 2) PET for symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 showing symptoms for less than four days. We will recruit 1,500 patients each for the PEP and PET trials. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive five days of hydroxychloroquine or placebo. The primary PEP trial outcome will be the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19. The primary PET trial outcome will be an ordinal scale of disease severity (not hospitalized, hospitalized without intensive care, hospitalization with intensive care, or death). Participant screening, informed consent, and follow-up will be exclusively internet-based with appropriate regulatory and research ethics board approvals in Canada and the United States. DISCUSSION: These complementary randomized-controlled trials are innovatively designed and adequately powered to rapidly answer urgent questions regarding the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine to reduce virus transmission and disease severity of COVID-19 during a pandemic. In-person participant follow-up will not be conducted to facilitate social distancing strategies and reduce risks of exposure to study personnel. Innovative trial approaches are needed to urgently assess therapeutic options to mitigate the global impact of this pandemic. TRIALS REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04308668); registered 16 March, 2020.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Le syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère du coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) est apparu en décembre 2019, provoquant la pandémie de la COVID-19. À l'heure actuelle, il n'existe aucun traitement fondé sur des données probantes permettant de prévenir la COVID-19 suite à une exposition au virus ou de prévenir l'aggravation des symptômes suite à une infection confirmée. Nous décrivons la conception d'une étude clinique examinant l'utilisation d'hydroxychloroquine en tant que prophylaxie post-exposition (PPE) et de traitement préventif (TP) pour la COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous réaliserons deux études cliniques imbriquées contrôlées par placebo, randomisées, à double insu, internationales et multicentriques examinant l'utilisation d'hydroxychloroquine pour : 1) la prophylaxie post-exposition des contacts asymptomatiques dans un même foyer ou les travailleurs de la santé exposés à la COVID-19 au cours des quatre derniers jours, et 2) le traitement préventif des patients symptomatiques en ambulatoire atteints de COVID-19 et présentant des symptômes pour une durée totale de moins de quatre jours. Nous recruterons 1500 patients pour chaque bras de l'étude (PPE et TP). Les participants seront randomisés à un ratio de 1 : 1 pour recevoir cinq jours d'hydroxychloroquine ou de placebo. Le critère d'évaluation principal de l'étude PPE sera l'incidence de COVID-19 symptomatique. Le critère d'évaluation principal de l'étude TP consistera en une échelle ordinale de la gravité de la maladie (pas d'hospitalisation, hospitalisation sans soins intensifs, hospitalisation avec soins intensifs, ou décès). La sélection des participants, le consentement éclairé et le suivi se feront exclusivement en ligne après avoir obtenu les consentements réglementaires et des comités d'éthique de la recherche appropriés au Canada et aux États-Unis. DISCUSSION: Ces études randomisées contrôlées complémentaires sont conçues de façon innovatrice et disposent de la puissance nécessaire pour répondre rapidement aux questions urgentes quant à l'efficacité de l'hydroxychloroquine pour réduire la transmission et la gravité de la maladie de la COVID-19 pendant une pandémie. Le suivi des participants ne sera pas réalisé en personne afin de faciliter les stratégies de distanciation sociale et de réduire le risque d'exposition du personnel de l'étude. Des approches innovatrices d'études sont nécessaires afin d'évaluer rapidement les options thérapeutiques pour mitiger l'impact global de cette pandémie. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04308668); enregistrées le 16 mars 2020.

A randomized evaluation of on-site monitoring nested in a multinational randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from prospectively designed studies to guide on-site monitoring practices for randomized trials is limited. A cluster randomized study, nested within the Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) trial, was conducted to evaluate on-site monitoring. METHODS: Sites were randomized to either annual on-site monitoring or no on-site monitoring. All sites were centrally monitored, and local monitoring was carried out twice each year. Randomization was stratified by country and projected enrollment in START. The primary outcome was a participant-level composite outcome including components for eligibility errors, consent violations, use of antiretroviral treatment not recommended by protocol, late reporting of START primary and secondary clinical endpoints (defined as the event being reported more than 6 months from occurrence), and data alteration and fraud. Logistic regression fixed effect hierarchical models were used to compare on-site versus no on-site monitoring for the primary composite outcome and its components. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals comparing on-site monitoring versus no on-site monitoring are cited. RESULTS: In total, 99 sites (2107 participants) were randomized to receive annual on-site monitoring and 97 sites (2264 participants) were randomized to be monitored only centrally and locally. The two monitoring groups were well balanced at entry. In the on-site monitoring group, 469 annual on-site monitoring visits were conducted, and 134 participants (6.4%) in 56 of 99 sites (57%) had a primary monitoring outcome. In the no on-site monitoring group, 85 participants (3.8%) in 34 of 97 sites (35%) had a primary monitoring outcome (odds ratio = 1.7; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-2.7; p = 0.03). Informed consent violations accounted for most outcomes in each group (56 vs 41 participants). The largest odds ratio was for eligibility violations (odds ratio = 12.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.8-85.2; p = 0.01). The number of participants with a late START primary endpoint was similar for each monitoring group (23 vs 16 participants). Late START grade 4 and unscheduled hospitalization events were found for 34 participants in the on-site monitoring group and 19 participants in the no on-site monitoring group (odds ratio = 2.0; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-3.7; p = 0.02). There were no cases of data alteration or fraud. Based on the travel budget for on-site monitoring and the hours spent conducting on-site monitoring, the estimated cost of on-site monitoring was over US$2 million. CONCLUSION: On-site monitoring led to the identification of more eligibility and consent violations and START clinical events being reported more than 6 months from occurrence as compared to no on-site monitoring. Considering the nature of the excess monitoring outcomes identified at sites receiving on-site monitoring, as well as the cost of on-site monitoring, the value to the START study was limited.

Anti-influenza hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin for adults with influenza A or B infection (FLU-IVIG): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Since the 1918 influenza pandemic, non-randomised studies and small clinical trials have suggested that convalescent plasma or anti-influenza hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) might have clinical benefit for patients with influenza infection, but definitive data do not exist. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hIVIG in a randomised controlled trial. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was planned for 45 hospitals in Argentina, Australia, Denmark, Greece, Mexico, Spain, Thailand, UK, and the USA over five influenza seasons from 2013-14 to 2017-18. Adults (≥18 years of age) were admitted for hospital treatment with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B infection and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard care plus either a single 500-mL infusion of high-titre hIVIG (0·25 g/kg bodyweight, 24·75 g maximum; hIVIG group) or saline placebo (placebo group). Eligible patients had a National Early Warning score of 2 points or greater at the time of screening and their symptoms began no more than 7 days before randomisation. Pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded, as well as any patients for whom the treatment would present a health risk. Separate randomisation schedules were generated for each participating clinical site using permuted block randomisation. Treatment assignments were obtained using a web-based application by the site pharmacist who then masked the solution for infusion. Patients and investigators were masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was a six-category ordinal outcome of clinical status at day 7, ranging in severity from death to resumption of normal activities after discharge. The choice of day 7 was based on haemagglutination inhibition titres from a pilot study. It was analysed with a proportional odds model, using all six categories to estimate a common odds ratio (OR). An OR greater than 1 indicated that, for a given category, patients in the hIVIG group were more likely to be in a better category than those in the placebo group. Prespecified primary analyses for safety and efficacy were based on patients who received an infusion and for whom eligibility could be confirmed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02287467. FINDINGS: 313 patients were enrolled in 34 sites between Dec 11, 2014, and May 28, 2018. We also used data from 16 patients enrolled at seven of the 34 sites during the pilot study between Jan 15, 2014, and April 10, 2014. 168 patients were randomly assigned to the hIVIG group and 161 to the placebo group. 21 patients were excluded (12 from the hIVIG group and 9 from the placebo group) because they did not receive an infusion or their eligibility could not be confirmed. Thus, 308 were included in the primary analysis. hIVIG treatment produced a robust rise in haemagglutination inhibition titres against influenza A and smaller rises in influenza B titres. Based on the proportional odds model, the OR on day 7 was 1·25 (95% CI 0·79-1·97; p=0·33). In subgroup analyses for the primary outcome, the OR in patients with influenza A was 0·94 (0·55-1·59) and was 3·19 (1·21-8·42) for those with influenza B (interaction p=0·023). Through 28 days of follow-up, 47 (30%) of 156 patients in the hIVIG group and in 45 (30%) of 152 patients in the placebo group had the composite safety outcome of death, a serious adverse event, or a grade 3 or 4 adverse event (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·70-1·60; p=0·79). Six (4%) patients in the hIVIG group and five (3%) in the placebo group died, but these deaths were not necessarily related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: When administered alongside standard care (most commonly oseltamivir), hIVIG was not superior to placebo for adults hospitalised with influenza infection. By contrast with our prespecified subgroup hypothesis that hIVIG would result in more favourable responses in patients with influenza A than B, we found the opposite effect. The clinical benefit of hIVIG for patients with influenza B is supported by antibody affinity analyses, but confirmation is warranted. FUNDING: NIAID and NIH. Partial support was provided by the Medical Research Council (MRC_UU_12023/23) and the Danish National Research Foundation.

Inflammation Associates With Impaired Small Arterial Elasticity Early in HIV Disease.

We estimated small arterial elasticity and used linear regression to evaluate its association with inflammatory biomarkers among antiretroviral therapy-naïve, HIV-positive patients with high CD4+ counts. After adjustment, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 were inversely associated with small arterial elasticity. These data suggest that systemic inflammation may contribute to vascular dysfunction even in very early HIV disease.

Immediate Initiation of Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV Infection Accelerates Bone Loss Relative to Deferring Therapy: Findings from the START Bone Mineral Density Substudy, a Randomized Trial.

Both HIV infection and antiretroviral therapy (ART) are associated with lower bone mineral density (BMD) and increased fracture risk. Because the relative contributions of ART and untreated HIV to BMD loss are unclear, it is important to quantify the effect of ART on bone. We compared the effect of early ART initiation (CD4 >500 cells/µL) with deferred ART on change in BMD in the START Bone Mineral Density substudy, a randomized trial evaluating the effect of immediate ART initiation versus deferring ART (to CD4 <350 cells/µL). BMD was measured annually at the lumbar spine and hip by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Percent change in BMD by treatment assignment (intent-to-treat analysis) was estimated using longitudinal mixed models and linear regression. Baseline and follow-up DXA scans were available for 399 (195 immediate, 204 deferred) participants (median age 32 years, 80% non-white, 26% women, median CD4 count 642 cells/µL). ART (most commonly including tenofovir and efavirenz) was used for 95% and 18% of follow-up in the immediate and deferred ART groups, respectively. Through 2.2 years mean follow-up, immediate ART resulted in greater BMD declines than deferred ART at the hip (-2.5% versus -1.0%; difference -1.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.2 to -0.8, p < 0.001) and spine (-1.9% versus -0.4%; difference -1.6%, 95% CI -2.2 to -1.0, p < 0.001). BMD declines were greatest in the first year of ART. In the immediate ART group, spine BMD stabilized after year 1, whereas hip BMD declined progressively over 2 years. After year 1, BMD changes were similar in the immediate and deferred groups. No clinical, HIV-related, or ART characteristic predicted greater BMD loss in either group. All HIV treatment guidelines now recommend ART initiation at HIV diagnosis because of the reduced risk of serious clinical outcomes. Better understanding of the longer-term consequences of the observed reductions in BMD is needed. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT00867048. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Improved quality of life with immediate versus deferred initiation of antiretroviral therapy in early asymptomatic HIV infection.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if immediate compared to deferred initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in healthy persons living with HIV had a more favorable impact on health-related quality of life (QOL), or self-assessed physical, mental, and overall health status. DESIGN: QOL was measured in the Strategic Timing of Antiretroviral Therapy study, which randomized healthy ART-naive persons living with HIV with CD4 cell counts above 500 cells/µl from 35 countries to immediate versus deferred ART. METHODS: At baseline, months 4 and 12, then annually, participants completed a visual analog scale (VAS) for 'perceived current health' and the Short-Form 12-Item Health Survey version 2 from which the following were computed: general health perception; physical component summary (PCS); and mental component summary (MCS); the VAS and general health were rated from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest). RESULTS: QOL at study entry was high (mean scores: VAS = 80.9, general health = 72.5, PCS = 53.7, MCS = 48.2). Over a mean follow-up of 3 years, changes in all QOL measures favored the immediate group (P < 0.001); estimated differences were as follows: VAS = 1.9, general health = 3.6, PCS = 0.8, MCS = 0.9. When QOL changes were assessed across various demographic and clinical subgroups, treatment differences continued to favor the immediate group. QOL was poorer in those experiencing primary outcomes; however, when excluding those with primary events, results remained favorable for immediate ART recipients. CONCLUSION: In an international randomized trial in ART-naive participants with above 500 CD4 cells/µl, there were modest but significant improvements in self-assessed QOL among those initiating ART immediately compared to deferring treatment, supporting patient-perceived health benefits of initiating ART as soon as possible after an HIV diagnosis.