Effectiveness and safety of integrase strand transfer inhibitors in Spain: a prospective real-world study.

Introduction: Second-generation integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are preferred treatment options worldwide, and dolutegravir (DTG) is the treatment of choice in resource-limited settings. Nevertheless, in some resource-limited settings, these drugs are not always available. An analysis of the experience with the use of INSTIs in unselected adults living with HIV may be of help to make therapeutic decisions when second-generation INSTIs are not available. This study aimed to evaluate the real-life effectiveness and safety of dolutegravir (DTG), elvitegravir/cobicistat (EVG/c), and raltegravir (RAL) in a large Spanish cohort of HIV-1-infected patients. Methods: Real-world study of adults living with HIV who initiated integrase INSTIs DTG, EVG/c, and RAL-based regimens in three settings (ART-naïve patients, ART-switching, and ART-salvage patients). The primary endpoint was the median time to treatment discontinuation after INSTI-based regimen initiation. Proportion of patients experiencing virological failure (VF) (defined as two consecutive viral loads (VL) ≥200 copies/mL at 24 weeks or as a single determination of VL ≥1,000 copies/mL while receiving DTG, EVG/c or RAL, and at least 3 months after INSTI initiation) and time to VF were also evaluated. Results: Virological effectiveness of EVG/c- and RAL-based regimens was similar to that of DTG when given as first-line and salvage therapy. Treatment switching for reasons other than virological failure was more frequent in subjects receiving EVG/c and, in particular, RAL. Naïve patients with CD4+ nadir <100 cells/µL were more likely to develop VF, particularly if they initiated RAL or EVG/c. In the ART switching population, initiation of RAL and EVG/c was associated with both VF and INSTI discontinuation. There were no differences in the time to VF and INSTI discontinuation between DTG, EVG/c and RAL. Immunological parameters improved in the three groups and for the three drugs assessed. Safety and tolerability were consistent with expected safety profiles. Discussion: Whereas second-generation INSTIs are preferred treatment options worldwide, and DTG is one of the treatment of choices in resource-limited settings, first-generation INSTIs may still provide high virological and immunological effectiveness when DTG is not available.

Mpox Infection and Sexually Transmitted Infections: A Cross-Sectional Study from a Secondary Hospital in the May-September 2022 International Outbreak.

The aims of this study were to describe the characteristics of patients infected by mpox in our setting, to determine the prevalence of mpox in samples that are classically used for diagnosing sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as anal, urethral, pharyngeal, and urine, and to assess the prevalence of coinfection with STIs in the same samples. A cross-sectional study was conducted, collecting all confirmed cases of mpox between June and July 2022 using polymerase chain reaction. Sociodemographic data, HIV and other STI status, and prevalence of mpox and STIs in urethral, anal, pharyngeal, or urine samples were collected. Data from 22 patients were extracted, all of whom were men who have sex with men (MSM) and 54.5% were previously HIV positive. The median age was 43 years. All the skin samples were positive for mpox, followed by anal samples (n = 10, 45.5%). Mpox was isolated in 2 or more samples simultaneously in 12 (54%) cases. Nine (41%) patients were positive for an STI and four of them had more than one STIs (18.2%). Human mpox has been epidemiologically significant among MSM. Mpox should be investigated not only in skin lesions but also in samples classically used for STIs. Mpox, such as other STIs, shares ways of transmission and coinfection may be underdiagnosed.

Ruminococcus gnavus bacteremia: Literature review and a case report associated with acute flare of ulcerative colitis in an immunocompromised patient.

We present a case of bacteremia caused by Ruminococcus gnavus in an immunocompromised patient. R. gnavus is a Gram-positive strict anaerobe bacterium that forms chains. The bacteremia has been associated with an acute flare of ulcerative colitis. Anaerobic bacteremia is becoming increasingly frequent in patients with compromised gastrointestinal barrier. The role of the human microbiota and its alterations in the pathogenesis of immune-related diseases is an expanding area of interest. R. gnavus has been identified as a microorganism that may be responsible for the development of these diseases. The contribution of anaerobic bacteria to the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is discussed, and cases reported up until 2023 were reviewed.

Lung ultrasound score severity cut-off points in COVID-19 pneumonia. A systematic review and validating cohort.

Objectives: Our purpose was to establish different cut-off points based on the lung ultrasound score (LUS) to classify COVID-19 pneumonia severity. Methods: Initially, we conducted a systematic review among previously proposed LUS cut-off points. Then, these results were validated by a single-centre prospective cohort study of adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studied variables were poor outcome (ventilation support, intensive care unit admission or 28-days mortality) and 28-days mortality. Results: From 510 articles, 11 articles were included. Among the cut-off points proposed in the articles included, only the LUS > 15 cut-off point could be validated for its original endpoint, demonstrating also the strongest relation with poor outcome (odds ratio [OR] = 3.636, confidence interval [CI] 1.411-9.374). Regarding our cohort, 127 patients were admitted. In these patients, LUS was statistically associated with poor outcome (OR = 1.303, CI 1.137-1.493), and with 28-days mortality (OR = 1.024, CI 1.006-1.042). LUS > 15 showed the best diagnostic performance when choosing a single cut-off point in our cohort (area under the curve 0.650). LUS ≤ 7 showed high sensitivity to rule out poor outcome (0.89, CI 0.695-0.955), while LUS > 20 revealed high specificity to predict poor outcome (0.86, CI 0.776-0.917). Conclusions: LUS is a good predictor of poor outcome and 28-days mortality in COVID-19. LUS ≤ 7 cut-off point is associated with mild pneumonia, LUS 8-20 with moderate pneumonia and ≥20 with severe pneumonia. If a single cut-off point were used, LUS > 15 would be the point which better discriminates mild from severe disease.

Objetivos: Establecer diferentes puntos de corte basados en el Lung Ultrasound Score (LUS) para clasificar la gravedad de la neumonía COVID-19. Métodos: Inicialmente, realizamos una revisión sistemática entre los puntos de corte LUS propuestos previamente. Estos resultados fueron validados por una cohorte prospectiva unicéntrica de pacientes adultos con infección confirmada por SARS-CoV-2. Las variables analizadas fueron la mala evolución y la mortalidad a los 28 días. Resultados: De 510 artículos, se incluyeron 11. Entre los puntos de corte propuestos en los artículos incluidos, solo LUS > 15 pudo ser validado para su objetivo original, demostrando también la relación más fuerte con mala evolución (odds ratio [OR] = 3,636, intervalo de confianza [IC] 1,411-9,374). Respecto a nuestra cohorte, se incluyeron 127 pacientes. En estos pacientes, el LUS se asoció estadísticamente con mala evolución (OR = 1,303, IC 1,137-1,493) y con mortalidad a los 28 días (OR = 1,024, IC 1,006-1,042). LUS > 15 mostró el mejor rendimiento diagnóstico al elegir un único punto de corte en nuestra cohorte (área bajo la curva 0,650). LUS ≤ 7 mostró una alta sensibilidad para descartar mal resultado (0,89, IC 0,695-0,955), mientras que LUS > 20 reveló gran especificidad para predecir mala evolución (0,86, IC 0,776-0,917). Conclusiones: LUS es un buen predictor de mala evolución y mortalidad a 28 días en COVID-19. LUS ≤ 7 se asocia con neumonía leve, LUS 8-20 con neumonía moderada y ≥ 20 con neumonía grave. Si se utilizara un único punto de corte, LUS > 15 sería el que mejor discriminaría la enfermedad leve de la grave.

Lung ultrasound score severity cut-off points in COVID-19 pneumonia. A systematic review and validating cohort / Puntos de corte de gravedad del Lung Ultrasound Score en la neumonía COVID-19. Revisión sistemática de la literatura y cohorte de validación

Objectives Our purpose was to establish different cut-off points based on the lung ultrasound score (LUS) to classify COVID-19 pneumonia severity. Methods Initially, we conducted a systematic review among previously proposed LUS cut-off points. Then, these results were validated by a single-centre prospective cohort study of adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studied variables were poor outcome (ventilation support, intensive care unit admission or 28-days mortality) and 28-days mortality. Results From 510 articles, 11 articles were included. Among the cut-off points proposed in the articles included, only the LUS>15 cut-off point could be validated for its original endpoint, demonstrating also the strongest relation with poor outcome (odds ratio [OR]=3.636, confidence interval [CI] 1.411–9.374). Regarding our cohort, 127 patients were admitted. In these patients, LUS was statistically associated with poor outcome (OR=1.303, CI 1.137–1.493), and with 28-days mortality (OR=1.024, CI 1.006–1.042). LUS>15 showed the best diagnostic performance when choosing a single cut-off point in our cohort (area under the curve 0.650). LUS≤7 showed high sensitivity to rule out poor outcome (0.89, CI 0.695–0.955), while LUS>20 revealed high specificity to predict poor outcome (0.86, CI 0.776–0.917). Conclusions LUS is a good predictor of poor outcome and 28-days mortality in COVID-19. LUS≤7 cut-off point is associated with mild pneumonia, LUS 8–20 with moderate pneumonia and ≥20 with severe pneumonia. If a single cut-off point were used, LUS>15 would be the point which better discriminates mild from severe disease (AU)

Objetivos Establecer diferentes puntos de corte basados en el Lung Ultrasound Score (LUS) para clasificar la gravedad de la neumonía COVID-19. Métodos Inicialmente, realizamos una revisión sistemática entre los puntos de corte LUS propuestos previamente. Estos resultados fueron validados por una cohorte prospectiva unicéntrica de pacientes adultos con infección confirmada por SARS-CoV-2. Las variables analizadas fueron la mala evolución y la mortalidad a los 28 días. Resultados De 510 artículos, se incluyeron 11. Entre los puntos de corte propuestos en los artículos incluidos, solo LUS>15 pudo ser validado para su objetivo original, demostrando también la relación más fuerte con mala evolución (odds ratio [OR]=3,636, intervalo de confianza [IC] 1,411-9,374). Respecto a nuestra cohorte, se incluyeron 127 pacientes. En estos pacientes, el LUS se asoció estadísticamente con mala evolución (OR=1,303, IC 1,137-1,493) y con mortalidad a los 28 días (OR=1,024, IC 1,006-1,042). LUS>15 mostró el mejor rendimiento diagnóstico al elegir un único punto de corte en nuestra cohorte (área bajo la curva 0,650). LUS≤7 mostró una alta sensibilidad para descartar mal resultado (0,89, IC 0,695-0,955), mientras que LUS>20 reveló gran especificidad para predecir mala evolución (0,86, IC 0,776-0,917). Conclusiones LUS es un buen predictor de mala evolución y mortalidad a 28 días en COVID-19. LUS≤7 se asocia con neumonía leve, LUS 8-20 con neumonía moderada y ≥20 con neumonía grave. Si se utilizara un único punto de corte, LUS>15 sería el que mejor discriminaría la enfermedad leve de la grave (AU)

Lung ultrasound score severity cut-off points in COVID-19 pneumonia. A systematic review and validating cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to establish different cut-off points based on the lung ultrasound score (LUS) to classify COVID-19 pneumonia severity. METHODS: Initially, we conducted a systematic review among previously proposed LUS cut-off points. Then, these results were validated by a single-centre prospective cohort study of adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studied variables were poor outcome (ventilation support, intensive care unit admission or 28-days mortality) and 28-days mortality. RESULTS: From 510 articles, 11 articles were included. Among the cut-off points proposed in the articles included, only the LUS>15 cut-off point could be validated for its original endpoint, demonstrating also the strongest relation with poor outcome (odds ratio [OR]=3.636, confidence interval [CI] 1.411-9.374). Regarding our cohort, 127 patients were admitted. In these patients, LUS was statistically associated with poor outcome (OR=1.303, CI 1.137-1.493), and with 28-days mortality (OR=1.024, CI 1.006-1.042). LUS>15 showed the best diagnostic performance when choosing a single cut-off point in our cohort (area under the curve 0.650). LUS≤7 showed high sensitivity to rule out poor outcome (0.89, CI 0.695-0.955), while LUS>20 revealed high specificity to predict poor outcome (0.86, CI 0.776-0.917). CONCLUSIONS: LUS is a good predictor of poor outcome and 28-days mortality in COVID-19. LUS≤7 cut-off point is associated with mild pneumonia, LUS 8-20 with moderate pneumonia and ≥20 with severe pneumonia. If a single cut-off point were used, LUS>15 would be the point which better discriminates mild from severe disease.

High efficacy of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for HCV-infected individuals with active drug use.

OBJECTIVES: Real world data on glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (G/P) among active drug users are scarce. We evaluated the sustained virological response (SVR) rates of G/P among individuals with and without active drug use in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Two ongoing prospective multicenter cohorts of individuals starting G/P were analyzed. Overall SVR intention-to-treat (ITT), discontinuations due to adverse effects and dropouts were evaluated. Results in patients with active, past and without active drug use were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 644 individuals started G/P and have reached the date of SVR evaluation. Of them, 613 (95.2%) individuals achieved SVR. There were two (0.3%) relapses, one (0.2%) discontinuation due to side effects and 35 (5.4%) dropouts. SVR rates for patients with active drug use, past drug use and those who never used drugs were 85.4%(n/N = 70/82), 96.1%(n/N = 320/333) and 97.4%(n/N = 223/229) respectively (p < 0.001). After adjustment by sex, age, HCV genotype and opioid agonist therapy, active drug use was the only factor independently associated with SVR (ITT) [adjusted OR (95%confidence interval): 0.29(0.09-0.99),p = 0.048]. CONCLUSIONS: Active drug use was independently associated with lower SVR rates to G/P, mainly due to voluntary dropout. G/P could be particularly beneficial in this scenario but specific strategies designed to increase the retention in care are needed.

Identification of IL-6 Signalling Components as Predictors of Severity and Outcome in COVID-19.

IL-6 is one of the major mediators of the hyper-inflammatory responses with complex biological functions as it can signal via different modes of action. IL-6 by classical signalling has anti-inflammatory and antibacterial activities, while trans-signalling mediates pro-inflammatory effects. The net biological effect of IL-6 is established by multiple factors beyond its absolute concentration. Here, we assess the relationship between IL-6 signalling variables [IL-6, soluble IL-6R (sIL-6R) and soluble gp130 (sgp130)] and outcomes in a cohort of 366 COVID-19 patients. The potential trans-signalling was evaluated by a ratio between the pro-inflammatory binary IL-6:sIL-6R complex and the inactive ternary IL-6:sIL-6R:sgp130 complex (binary/ternary complex) and the fold molar excess of sgp130 over sIL-6R (FME). Our data provide new evidence that high levels of IL-6, sIL-6R, sgp130, binary/ternary complex ratio, and low FME are independent predictors of COVID-19 severity in survivor patients (without death), and the combination of IL-6 + sIL-6R + sgp130 exhibited the most robust classification capacity. Conversely, in a subgroup of patients with a very poor prognosis, we found that high levels of IL-6 and low levels of sIL-6R, sgp130, and binary/ternary complex ratio were predictors of death. In this context, the highest predictive capacity corresponded to the combined analysis of IL-6 + FME + lymphopenia + creatinine. Herein, we present IL-6 signalling variables as a helpful tool for the early identification and stratification of patients with clear implications for treatment and clinical decision-making.

HIV/HBV coinfection: temporal trends and patient characteristics, Spain, 2002 to 2018.

BackgroundRecent and reliable estimates on the prevalence of coinfection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) in Europe are lacking.AimLeveraged on a study designed to assess HIV/HCV coinfection prevalence, we assessed the prevalence of HIV/HBV coinfection in Spain in 2018 and compared the results with five similar studies performed since 2002.MethodsThis cross-sectional prevalence study was carried out in 43 centres, and patients were selected using simple random sampling. The reference population comprised 40,322 patients and the sample size were 1,690 patients.ResultsThe prevalence of HIV/HBV coinfection in Spain at the end of 2018 was 3.2%. The prevalence in 2002, 2009, 2015, 2016 and 2017 was 4.9%, 3.4%, 3%, 3.9% and 3%, respectively. Among the HIV/HBV-coinfected patients identified in 2018, 16.7% had cirrhosis according to transient elastography and 26.3% tested positive for antibodies against hepatitis D virus. All HIV/HBV-coinfected patients were receiving drugs with activity against HBV, and 97% of those tested for HBV DNA had an HBV DNA load < 80 IU/mL.ConclusionsThe prevalence of HIV/HBV coinfection in Spain remained stable at around 3% for a decade. Our data could facilitate the design of national programmes to control HBV infection and help identify areas of patient management that need improvement.

Glucocorticoides solos versus tocilizumab solo o glucocorticoides más tocilizumab en pacientes con neumonía grave por SARS-CoV-2 e inflamación moderada / Glucocorticoids alone versus tocilizumab alone or glucocorticoids plus tocilizumab in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and mild inflammation

Objetivos: Analizar si existen diferencias en desenlaces clínicos según el tratamiento inmunosupresor recibido en pacientes con neumonía grave por SARS-CoV-2 e inflamación moderada.MétodosEstudio de cohortes retrospectivo de 142 pacientes con neumonía grave COVID-19 e inflamación moderada. Se dividieron en tres grupos de tratamiento (pulsos de metilprednisolona solo [grupoI], tocilizumab solo [grupoII] y metilprednisolona más tocilizumab [grupoIII]). Analizamos las diferencias intergrupos en el curso clínico con un seguimiento de 60días y factores clínicos analíticos relacionados.ResultadosFallecieron 14 pacientes (9,8%): 8 (10%) del grupoI y 6 (9,5%) de los gruposII yIII. Quince (10,6%) ingresaron en UCI: 2 (2,5%) del grupoI, 4 (28,5%) del grupoII y 9 (18,4%) del grupoIII. La estancia media hospitalaria fue mayor en los del grupoII. La evolución clínica no se asoció al tratamiento administrado.ConclusionesEl uso de tocilizumab debería reservarse para escenarios de ensayos clínicos. Su utilización generalizada podría acompañarse de mayor estancia media hospitalaria e ingreso en UCI sin diferencias en la mortalidad con un potencial aumento de efectos adversos. (AU)

Aim: To assess clinical outcomes according to the immunosuppressive treatment administered to patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and moderate inflammation.MethodsA retrospective observational cohort study involving 142 patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and moderate inflammation divided into three treatment groups (pulses of methylprednisolone alone [groupI], tocilizumab alone [groupII] and methylprednisolone plus tocilizumab [groupIII]). The aim was to assess intergroups differences in the clinical course with a 60-day follow-up and related analytical factors.Results14 patients (9,8%) died: 8 (10%) in groupI and 6 (9,5%) in groupsII andIII. 15 (10,6%) were admitted to ICU: 2 (2,5%) from groupI, 4 (28,5%) from groupII and 9 (18,4%) from groupIII. The mean hospital stay was longer in groupII and clinical outcome was not associated with treatment.ConclusionsTocilizumab seems to be not associated with better clinical outcomes and should be reserved for clinical trial scenario, since its widespread use may result in higher rate of ICU admission and longer mean hospital stay without differences in mortality rate and potentially adverse events. (AU)

Glucocorticoids alone versus tocilizumab alone or glucocorticoids plus tocilizumab in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and mild inflammation.

AIM: To assess clinical outcomes according to the immunosuppressive treatment administered to patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and moderate inflammation. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study involving 142 patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and moderate inflammation divided into three treatment groups (pulses of methylprednisolone alone [group I], tocilizumab alone [group II] and methylprednisolone plus tocilizumab [group III]). The aim was to assess intergroups differences in the clinical course with a 60-day follow-up and related analytical factors. RESULTS: 14 patients (9,8%) died: 8 (10%) in group I and 6 (9,5%) in groups II and III. 15 (10,6%) were admitted to ICU: 2 (2,5%) from group I, 4 (28,5%) from group II and 9 (18,4%) from group III. The mean hospital stay was longer in group II and clinical outcome was not associated with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab seems to be not associated with better clinical outcomes and should be reserved for clinical trial scenario, since its widespread use may result in higher rate of ICU admission and longer mean hospital stay without differences in mortality rate and potentially adverse events.

OBJETIVOS: Analizar si existen diferencias en desenlaces clínicos según el tratamiento inmunosupresor recibido en pacientes con neumonía grave por SARS-CoV-2 e inflamación moderada. MÉTODOS: Estudio de cohortes retrospectivo de 142 pacientes con neumonía grave COVID-19 e inflamación moderada. Se dividieron en tres grupos de tratamiento (pulsos de metilprednisolona solo [grupo I], tocilizumab solo [grupo II] y metilprednisolona más tocilizumab [grupo III]). Analizamos las diferencias intergrupos en el curso clínico con un seguimiento de 60 días y factores clínicos analíticos relacionados. RESULTADOS: Fallecieron 14 pacientes (9,8%): 8 (10%) del grupo I y 6 (9,5%) de los grupos II y III. Quince (10,6%) ingresaron en UCI: 2 (2,5%) del grupo I, 4 (28,5%) del grupo II y 9 (18,4%) del grupo III. La estancia media hospitalaria fue mayor en los del grupo II. La evolución clínica no se asoció al tratamiento administrado. CONCLUSIONES: El uso de tocilizumab debería reservarse para escenarios de ensayos clínicos. Su utilización generalizada podría acompañarse de mayor estancia media hospitalaria e ingreso en UCI sin diferencias en la mortalidad con un potencial aumento de efectos adversos.

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis associated with Leishmania: A hidden passenger in endemic areas / Linfohistiocitosis hemofagocítica asociada a Leishmania: el pasajero oculto en zonas endémicas

Introduction: Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is an aggressive and life-threatening syndrome characterized by excessive immune activation. We analyzed the presentation, diagnosis and prognosis of our cohort of HLH-Leishmania cases. Methods: We studied HLH cases in patients over 14 years of age in the province of Granada (Spain), from January 2008 to November 2019. Results: In this study, Leishmania was the predominant trigger of adult HLH in our region. There were no differences in the clinical-analytical presentation between HLH triggered by Leishmania and those initiated by a different cause. RT-PCR was the best tool to identify Leishmania as the trigger of HLH, given that the other microbiological tests showed low sensitivity to detect the parasite in our HLH-Leishmania cases. Conclusion: A comprehensive search for Leishmania is mandatory in HLH cases. Based on our findings, we propose that RT-PCR for Leishmania in bone marrow samples must be included in HLH differential diagnostic protocols.(AU)

Introducción: La linfohistiocitosis hemofagocítica (LHH) es un síndrome agresivo y potencialmente mortal caracterizado por una activación inmune excesiva. Analizamos la presentación, el diagnóstico y el pronóstico de nuestra cohorte de casos LHH-Leishmania. Métodos: Estudiamos los casos de LHH en pacientes mayores de 14 años en la provincia de Granada (España) desde enero de 2008 hasta noviembre de 2019. Resultados: En este estudio, la Leishmania fue el desencadenante principal de la LHH en adultos en nuestra región. No hubo diferencias en la presentación clínico-analítica entre la LHH desencadenada por Leishmania y las iniciadas por otra causa. La PCR en tiempo real fue la mejor herramienta para identificar la Leishmania como el desencadenante de LHH, dado que las otras pruebas microbiológicas mostraron baja sensibilidad para detectar el parásito en nuestros casos de LHH-Leishmania. Conclusión: Una búsqueda exhaustiva de la Leishmania es obligatoria en los casos de LHH. Considerando nuestros hallazgos, proponemos que la PCR en tiempo real de Leishmania en médula ósea se incluya en los protocolos de diagnóstico diferencial de LHH.(AU)