Mechanisms of COVID-19-induced kidney injury and current pharmacotherapies.

The COVID-19 pandemic created a worldwide debilitating health crisis with the entire humanity suffering from the deleterious effects associated with the high infectivity and mortality rates. While significant evidence is currently available online and targets various aspects of the disease, both inflammatory and noninflammatory kidney manifestations secondary to COVID-19 infection are still largely underrepresented. In this review, we summarized current knowledge about COVID-19-related kidney manifestations, their pathologic mechanisms as well as various pharmacotherapies used to treat patients with COVID-19. We also shed light on the effect of these medications on kidney functions that can further enhance renal damage secondary to the illness.

The Challenging Anticoagulant Therapy in COVID19 Patient with Associated Coagulopathy.

COVID-19 became a widespread infectious disease in late 2019. Indonesia currently has the highest COVID-19 mortality rate in Asia, between 4-5 percent. Interestingly, COVID-19-associated coagulopathy characterized by an increase of several procoagulant factor levels, including fibrinogen and D-dimer, that has been associated with higher mortality and unfavorable outcomes. We report a case of a 30-year-old male admitted to the hospital with a profuse vomiting and worsening fever, cough and shortness of breath, and was diagnosed with COVID-19-associated coagulopathy. Seven days after admission, he became deteriorated with significant reduction of oxygen saturation and his coagulation parameter levels were increased with highly suspicion of pulmonary embolism. He was treated with azithromycin, isoprinosine, lopinavir, and fondaparinux with thromboprophylaxis dosage since admission. The role of increased fondaparinux dosage at the time of clinical deterioration was then followed by clinical improvement and reduced D-dimer level. Anticoagulant therapy, mainly with fondaparinux, showed a better prognosis in patients with markedly elevated D-Dimer. Fondaparinux needs to be monitored appropriately to prevent bleeding and adverse. The patient was discharged from the hospital in an improved condition and normal D-Dimer levels. There was no bleeding event nor other major side effects had been found in this case. The decision for increasing dose of anticoagulant may be determined on individual basis, considering risks, benefits, and also the most important is clinical findings.

Risk factors for prolonged virus shedding of respiratory tract and fecal in adults with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: The dynamic alteration and comparative study of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA shedding pattern during treatment are limited. This study explores the potential risk factors influencing prolonged viral shedding in COVID-19. METHODS: A total of 126 COVID-19 patients were enrolled in this retrospective longitudinal study. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out to estimate the potential risk factors. RESULTS: 38.1% (48/126) cases presented prolonged respiratory tract viral shedding, and 30 (23.8%) cases presented prolonged rectal swab viral shedding. Obesity (OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 1.08-10.09), positive rectal swab (OR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.53-7.7), treatment by lopinavir/ritonavir with chloroquine phosphate (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.04-6.03), the interval from onset to antiviral treatment more than 7 days (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.04-4.93), lower CD4+ T cell (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99) and higher NK cells (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.20) were significantly associated with prolonged respiratory tract viral shedding. CD3-CD56+ NK cells (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99) were related with prolonged fecal shedding. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity, delayed antiviral treatment, and positive SARS-CoV-2 for stool were independent risk factors for prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding of the respiratory tract. A combination of LPV/r and abidol as the initial antiviral regimen was effective in shortening the duration of viral shedding compared with LPV/r combined with chloroquine phosphate. CD4+ T cell and NK cells were significantly associated with prolonged viral shedding, and further studies are to be warranted to determine the mechanism of immunomodulatory response in virus clearance.

Pharmacokinetic interactions between the potential COVID-19 treatment drugs lopinavir/ritonavir and arbidol in rats.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has occasioned worldwide alarm. Globally, the number of reported confirmed cases has exceeded 84.3 million as of this writing (January 2, 2021). Since there are no targeted therapies for COVID-19, the current focus is the repurposing of drugs approved for other uses. In some clinical trials, antiviral drugs such as remdesivir (Grein et al., 2020), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) (Cao et al., 2020), chloroquine (Gao et al., 2020), hydroxychloroquine (Gautret et al., 2020), arbidol (Wang et al., 2020), and favipiravir (Cai et al., 2020b) have shown efficacy in COVID-19 patients. LPV/r combined with arbidol, which is the basic regimen in some regional hospitals in China including Zhejiiang Province, has shown antiviral effects in COVID-19 patients (Guo et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2020). A retrospective cohort study also reported that this combination therapy showed better efficacy than LPV/r alone for the treatment of COVID-19 patients (Deng et al., 2020).

Comparing the effectiveness of Atazanavir/Ritonavir/Dolutegravir/Hydroxychloroquine and Lopinavir/Ritonavir/Hydroxychloroquine treatment regimens in COVID-19 patients.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Atazanavir/Ritonavir/Dolutegravir/Hydroxychloroquine and Lopinavir/Ritonavir/Hydroxychloroquine treatment regimens in COVID-19 patients based on clinical and laboratory parameters. We prospectively evaluated the clinical and laboratory outcomes of 62 moderate to severe COVID-19 patients during a 10-day treatment plan. Patients were randomly assigned to either KH (receiving Lopinavir/Ritonavir [Kaletra] plus Hydroxychloroquine) or ADH (receiving Atazanavir/Ritonavir, Dolutegravir, and Hydroxychloroquine) groups. During this period, clinical and laboratory parameters and outcomes such as intensive care unit (ICU) admission or mortality rate were recorded. Compared to the KH group, after the treatment period, patients in the ADH group had higher activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) (12, [95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.97, 17.06), p = <0.01), international normalized ratio (INR) (0.17, [95% CI: 0.07, 0.27), p = <0.01) and lower C-reactive protein (CRP) (-14.29, (95% CI: -26.87, -1.71), p = 0.03) and potassium (-0.53, (95% CI: -1.03, -0.03), p = 0.04) values. Moreover, a higher number of patients in the KH group needed invasive ventilation (6 (20%) vs. 1 (3.1%), p = 0.05) and antibiotic administration (27 (90%) vs. 21(65.6), p = 0.02) during hospitalization while patients in the ADH group needed more corticosteroid administration (9 (28.1%) vs. 2 (6.7%), p = 0.03). There was no difference in mortality rate, ICU admission rate, and hospitalization period between the study groups. Our results suggest that the Atazanavir/Dolutegravir treatment regimen may result in a less severe disease course compared to the Lopinavir/Ritonavir treatment regimen and can be considered as an alternative treatment option beside standard care. However, to confirm our results, larger-scale studies are recommended.

Point-of-Care Detection of Nonadherence to Antiretroviral Treatment for HIV-1 in Resource-Limited Settings Using Drug Level Testing for Efavirenz, Lopinavir, and Dolutegravir: A Validation and Pharmacokinetic Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Virological failure during antiretroviral treatment (ART) may indicate the presence of drug resistance, but may also originate from nonadherence. Qualitative detection of ART components using drug level testing may be used to differentiate between these scenarios. We aimed to validate and implement qualitative point-of-care drug level tests for efavirenz (EFV), lopinavir (LPV), and dolutegravir (DTG) in rural South Africa. METHODS: Qualitative performance of immunoassays for EFV, LPV, and DTG was assessed by calculating limit of detection (LoD), region of uncertainty, and qualitative agreement with a reference test. Minimum duration of nonadherence resulting in a negative drug level test was assessed by simulation of treatment cessation using validated population pharmacokinetic models. RESULTS: LoD was 0.05 mg/L for EFV, 0.06 mg/L for LPV, and 0.02 mg/L for DTG. Region of uncertainty was 0.01-0.06 mg/L for EFV, 0.01-0.07 mg/L for LPV, and 0.01-0.02 mg/L for DTG. Qualitative agreement with reference testing at the LoD in patient samples was 95.2% (79/83) for EFV, 99.3% (140/141) for LPV, and 100% (118/118) for DTG. After simulated treatment cessation, median time to undetectability below LoD was 7 days [interquartile range (IQR) 4-13] for EFV, 30 hours (IQR 24-36) for LPV, and 6 days (IQR 4-7) for DTG. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that qualitative ART drug level testing using immunoassays is feasible in a rural resource-limited setting. Implementation of this technology enables reliable detection of recent nonadherence and may allow for rapid and cost-effective differentiation between patients in need for adherence counseling and patients who require drug resistance testing or alternative treatment.

Vitamin D status and associated factors among HIV-infected children and adolescents on antiretroviral therapy in Kampala, Uganda.

BACKGROUND: A high prevalence of suboptimal serum vitamin D has been reported among HIV infected children even in countries with high sunshine abundance throughout the year. Vitamin D is a potent immune modulator of innate and adaptive immune responses. Vitamin D regulates immune responses through the vitamin D receptor on CD4 cells. We aimed to determine the vitamin D status of HIV infected children and factors associated with suboptimal vitamin D. METHODS: This was a cross sectional study. We enrolled children aged between 6 months and 12 years attending an outpatient paediatric HIV clinic. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) was measured using the electrochemoluminisence method. Suboptimal vitamin D was defined as 25(OH)D <30 ng/ml, vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency were 21-29 ng/ml and <20 ng/ml respectively. Anthropometry, physical exam and medical history were documented. Logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: We enrolled 376 children with mean age (sd) 8.05 years (3.03), a median (IQR) duration of ART of 5.9 years (3.2-8.4). Majority of the children (64%) had been exposed to non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs). A third were severely immunosuppressed (CD4% ≤15%) at ART initiation. At the time of the study, the majority (89%) were virologically suppressed (VL <1000 copies/ml). Prevalence of 25(OH)D <30 ng/ml was 49 (13%) of 375 participants and 11 (3%) had 25(OH)D <20 ng/ml. Lopinavir/ritonavir regimen was independently associated with 25(OH)D <30 ng/ml; OR 0.27 CI (0.13-0.57), p value-0.002. Serum 25(OH)D <20 ng/ml was associated with CD4 count ≤15% at ART initiation OR 6.55(1.30-32.9), p value-0.023 and use of NNRTIs; OR 10.9(1.22-96.2), p value-0.03. CONCLUSION: We found a low prevalence of suboptimal vitamin D compared to earlier reports. Severe immunosuppression at ART initiation and use of NNRTIs increases odds of deficiency. Vitamin D supplementation should be considered in severely immunosuppressed children initiating ART.

Mecanismos de acción de agentes propuestos para el tratamiento farmacológico específico de la infección por SARS-CoV-2 / Mechanisms of action of proposed agents for the specific pharmacological treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection

Resumen Desde la notificación de la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2, agente patógeno responsable del COVID-19, muchos de los tratamientos dirigidos a su manejo han estado sometidos a estudios de manera constante, con el fin de comprobar su eficacia y seguridad. El conocimiento de su virología y etiopatogenia posibilitaría objetivar los pasos moleculares específicos que puedan ser blancos terapéuticos de variados fármacos actualmente disponibles. Esta experiencia proviene principalmente de las infecciones por SARS-CoV y MERS-CoV, con resultados variados 'in vitro' en el SARS-CoV-2, sin evidencia clínica que demuestre efectividad y seguridad de dichos tratamientos. A la fecha, no se ha podido concretar con claridad un esquema de tratamiento específico, debido a que la evidencia surgida ha puesto en jaque cada uno de los fármacos propuestos. Esto ha motivado a continuar en la búsqueda de una estrategia efectiva que permita manejar esta pandemia con la seguridad y eficacia necesaria para que el beneficio terapéutico esté por sobre los posibles efectos adversos que estos esquemas farmacológicos pudiesen presentar. La siguiente revisión pretende mostrar la evidencia disponible a la fecha, definiendo la actividad de cada fármaco en función de su mecanismo de acción.

Since the beginning of the pandemic by SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen responsible for COVID-19, many of the therapeutic options for its management have been under constant revision, in order to verify their safety and efficiency. Knowledge of the viral structure and pathogenesis make it possible to determine the molecular pathways that may be targeted with current available drugs. The experience with these drugs comes mainly from infections caused by SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, in vitro studies with SARS-CoV-2 that yield variable results, and clinical experience that does not ensure effectiveness and safety of such drugs. To date, it has not been possible to elucidate a specific treatment scheme, because of the constant release of evidence that challenges the usefulness of the proposed drugs. This has motived us to continue seeking for an effective strategy that allows to manage this pandemic in a safe and efficient manner, so that therapeutic benefit surpasses the related adverse drug reactions that can occur. The following review aims to showcase the evidence available to date by defining the activity of each drug based on its mechanism of action.

Lopinavir/Ritonavir for COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To provide the latest evidence on the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir compared to other treatment options for COVID-19. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochran Library, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for the relevant records up to April 2021. Moreover, we scanned MedRxiv, Google Scholar, and clinical registry databases to identify additional records. We have used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias tools to assess the quality of studies. This Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software (version 5.3). RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included. No significant difference was observed between lopinavir/ritonavir and non-antiviral treatment groups in terms of negative rate of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) on day 7 (risk ratio [RR]: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.09; P=0.17), and day 14 (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.05; P=0.25), PCR negative conversion time (mean difference [MD]: 1.09; 95% CI: -0.10 to 2.29; P=0.07), secondary outcomes, and adverse events (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between lopinavir/ritonavir and chloroquine as well as lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine regarding the efficacy outcomes (P>0.05). However, lopinavir/ritonavir showed better efficacy than arbidol for the same outcomes (P<0.05). Lopinavir/ritonavir plus arbidol was effective compared to arbidol alone in terms of the negative rate of PCR on day 7 (P=0.02). However, this difference was not significant regarding other efficacy outcomes (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Lopinavir/ritonavir has no more treatment effects than other therapeutic agents used herein in COVID-19 patients.

Efficacy and Effect of Inhaled Adenosine Treatment in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.

Lack of specific antiviral treatment for COVID-19 has resulted in long hospitalizations and high mortality rate. By harnessing the regulatory effects of adenosine on inflammatory mediators, we have instituted a new therapeutic treatment with inhaled adenosine in COVID-19 patients, with the aim of reducing inflammation, the onset of cytokine storm, and therefore to improve prognosis. The use of inhaled adenosine in COVID19 patients has allowed reduction of length of stay, on average 6 days. This result is strengthened by the decrease in SARS-CoV-2 positive days. In treated patients compared to control, a clear improvement in PaO2/FiO2 was observed together with a reduction in inflammation parameters, such as the decrease of CRP level. Furthermore, the efficacy of inhaled exogenous adenosine led to an improvement of the prognosis indices, NLR and PLR. The treatment seems to be safe and modulates the immune system, allowing an effective response against the viral infection progression, reducing length of stay and inflammation parameters.

Effect of Early Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine or Lopinavir and Ritonavir on Risk of Hospitalization Among Patients With COVID-19: The TOGETHER Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir for the treatment of high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 in developing countries are needed. Objective: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir reduces hospitalization among high-risk patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted in Brazil. Recently symptomatic adults diagnosed with respiratory symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled between June 2 and September 30, 2020. The planned sample size was 1476 patients, with interim analyses planned after 500 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped after the interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 685 patients. Statistical analysis was performed in December 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily for 9 days), lopinavir-ritonavir (loading dose of 800 mg and 200 mg, respectively, every 12 hours followed by 400 mg and 100 mg, respectively, every 12 hours for the next 9 days), or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death assessed at 90 days after randomization. COVID-19-associated hospitalization was analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards model. The trial included the following secondary outcomes: all-cause hospitalization, viral clearance, symptom resolution, and adverse events. Results: Of 685 participants, 632 (92.3%) self-identified as mixed-race, 377 (55.0%) were women, and the median (range) age was 53 (18-94) years. A total of 214 participants were randomized to hydroxychloroquine; 244, lopinavir-ritonavir; and 227, placebo. At first interim analysis, the data safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment of both hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir groups because of futility. The proportion of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 3.7% (8 participants) in the hydroxychloroquine group, 5.7% (14 participants) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 4.8% (11 participants) in the placebo group. We found no significant differences between interventions for COVID-19-associated hospitalization (hydroxychloroquine: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.30-1.88]; lopinavir-ritonavir: HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.53-2.56] as well as for the secondary outcome of viral clearance through day 14 (hydroxychloroquine: odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]; lopinavir-ritonavir: OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.16]). At the end of the trial, there were 3 fatalities recorded, 1 in the placebo group and 2 in the lopinavir-ritonavir intervention group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, neither hydroxychloroquine nor lopinavir-ritonavir showed any significant benefit for decreasing COVID-19-associated hospitalization or other secondary clinical outcomes. This trial suggests that expedient clinical trials can be implemented in low-income settings even during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04403100.

QTc prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, or lopinavir/ritonavir: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are drugs that were used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the early pandemic period. It is well-known that these agents can prolong the QTc interval and potentially induce Torsades de Pointes (TdP). We aim to assess the prevalence and risk of QTc prolongation and arrhythmic events in COVID-19 patients treated with these drugs. METHODS: We searched electronic databases from inception to September 30, 2020 for studies reporting peak QTc ≥500 ms, peak QTc change ≥60 ms, peak QTc interval, peak change of QTc interval, ventricular arrhythmias, TdP, sudden cardiac death, or atrioventricular block (AVB). All meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Forty-seven studies (three case series, 35 cohorts, and nine randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) involving 13 087 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of peak QTc ≥500 ms was 9% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3%-18%) and 8% (95%CI, 3%-14%) in patients who received hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin, respectively. Likewise, the use of hydroxychloroquine (risk ratio [RR], 2.68; 95%CI, 1.56-4.60) and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (RR, 3.28; 95%CI, 1.16-9.30) was associated with an increased risk of QTc prolongation compared to no treatment. Ventricular arrhythmias, TdP, sudden cardiac death, and AVB were reported in <1% of patients across treatment groups. The only two studies that reported individual data of lopinavir/ritonavir found no cases of QTc prolongation. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine with or without azithromycin had a relatively high prevalence and risk of QTc prolongation. However, the prevalence of arrhythmic events was very low, probably due to underreporting. The limited information about lopinavir/ritonavir showed that it does not prolong the QTc interval.

Safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: We examined the safety and efficacy of a treatment protocol containing Favipiravir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We did a multicenter randomized open-labeled clinical trial on moderate to severe cases infections of SARS-CoV-2. Patients with typical ground glass appearance on chest computerized tomography scan (CT scan) and oxygen saturation (SpO2) of less than 93% were enrolled. They were randomly allocated into Favipiravir (1.6 gr loading, 1.8 gr daily) and Lopinavir/Ritonavir (800/200 mg daily) treatment regimens in addition to standard care. In-hospital mortality, ICU admission, intubation, time to clinical recovery, changes in daily SpO2 after 5 min discontinuation of supplemental oxygen, and length of hospital stay were quantified and compared in the two groups. RESULTS: 380 patients were randomly allocated into Favipiravir (193) and Lopinavir/Ritonavir (187) groups in 13 centers. The number of deaths, intubations, and ICU admissions were not significantly different (26, 27, 31 and 21, 17, 25 respectively). Mean hospital stay was also not different (7.9 days [SD = 6] in the Favipiravir and 8.1 [SD = 6.5] days in Lopinavir/Ritonavir groups) (p = 0.61). Time to clinical recovery in the Favipiravir group was similar to Lopinavir/Ritonavir group (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 - 1.17) and likewise the changes in the daily SpO2 after discontinuation of supplemental oxygen (p = 0.46) CONCLUSION: Adding Favipiravir to the treatment protocol did not reduce the number of ICU admissions or intubations or In-hospital mortality compared to Lopinavir/Ritonavir regimen. It also did not shorten time to clinical recovery and length of hospital stay.

¿SARS-CoV-2 o Pneumocystis jirovecii? A propósito de un caso / SARS-CoV-2 or Pnuemocystis jirovecii? A case report

No disponible

Lopinavir/ritonavir: Repurposing an old drug for HIV infection in COVID-19 treatment.

Currently, there is no specific antiviral treatment for COVID-19. However, drugs previously developed to treat other viral infections are being tested to verify if they might also be effective against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Twenty years ago, the F.D.A. approved Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) to treat HIV infection. LPV and ritonavir were initially purposed to inhibit 3-chymotrypsin-like protease (3CLpro) of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV and preliminary promising data on its efficacy for treating people infected with those viruses were available. Therefore, due to the high genetic similarities among those viruses and SARS-CoV-2, early during COVID-19 pandemic LPV/r was also proposed as one emergency treatment. We reviewed data from the literature about LPV/r treatment and SARS-CoV-2 infection, mainly focused on the efficacy and safety of this drugs for COVID-19 treatment. We can conclude that although up to date no clear benefit has been observed with the LPV/r treatment beyond standard care, its efficacy against SARS-COV-2 infection deserves further evaluations, particularly during the very early phase of the disease.

Growth, clinical and neurodevelopmental outcomes at school age are similar for children who received 1-year lamivudine or lopinavir/ritonavir HIV prophylaxis in early life.

In the ANRS 12174 trial, HIV-exposed uninfected African neonates who received lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) prophylaxis for 1 year exhibited slower growth from birth to week 50 compared with those receiving lamivudine (3TC). We assessed whether this difference in growth persisted over time, and was accompanied by differences in neuropsychological and clinical outcomes. Between February 2017 and February 2018, we conducted a cross-sectional clinical evaluation among former trial participants who completed the 50-week follow-up and who were not HIV-infected. In addition to clinical examination, neuropsychological outcomes were assessed using the tests Kaufman-ABCII, Test of Variables of Attention, Movement Assessment Battery for Children and the Strengths and Difficulties questionnaire, parent version. Of 1101 eligible children, aged 5-7 years, 553 could be traced and analysed (274 in the LPV/r and 279 in the 3TC groups). Growth, clinical and neuropsychological outcomes did not differ between treatment groups. At school age, children exposed to LPV/r and 3TC at birth for 1 year had comparable growth and neuropsychological outcomes without evidence of long-term side-effects of LPV/r. It provides reassuring data on clinical outcomes for all HIV-infected children treated with this antiretroviral drug in early life.

Impact of postpartum tenofovir-based antiretroviral therapy on bone mineral density in breastfeeding women with HIV enrolled in a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: We set out to evaluate the effect of postnatal exposure to tenofovir-containing antiretroviral therapy on bone mineral density among breastfeeding women living with HIV. DESIGN: IMPAACT P1084s is a sub-study of the PROMISE randomized trial conducted in four African countries (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01066858). METHODS: IMPAACT P1084s enrolled eligible mother-infant pairs previously randomised in the PROMISE trial at one week after delivery to receive either maternal antiretroviral therapy (Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate / Emtricitabine + Lopinavir/ritonavir-maternal TDF-ART) or administer infant nevirapine, with no maternal antiretroviral therapy, to prevent breastmilk HIV transmission. Maternal lumbar spine and hip bone mineral density were measured using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at postpartum weeks 1 and 74. We studied the effect of the postpartum randomization on percent change in maternal bone mineral density in an intention-to-treat analysis with a t-test; mean and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) are presented. RESULTS: Among 398/400 women included in this analysis, baseline age, body-mass index, CD4 count, mean bone mineral density and alcohol use were comparable between study arms. On average, maternal lumbar spine bone mineral density declined significantly through week 74 in the maternal TDF-ART compared to the infant nevirapine arm; mean difference (95%CI) -2.86 (-4.03, -1.70) percentage points (p-value <0.001). Similarly, maternal hip bone mineral density declined significantly more through week 74 in the maternal TDF-ART compared to the infant nevirapine arm; mean difference -2.29% (-3.20, -1.39) (p-value <0.001). Adjusting for covariates did not change the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: Bone mineral density decline through week 74 postpartum was greater among breastfeeding HIV-infected women randomized to receive maternal TDF-ART during breastfeeding compared to those mothers whose infants received nevirapine prophylaxis.

CD8+ T cells predicted the conversion of common covid-19 to severe.

To evaluate the predictive effect of T-lymphoid subsets on the conversion of common covid-19 to severe. The laboratory data were collected retrospectively from common covid-19 patients in the First People's Hospital of Zaoyang, Hubei Province, China and the Third People's Hospital of Kunming, Yunnan Province, China, between January 20, 2020 and March 15, 2020 and divided into training set and validation set. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to investigate the risk factors for the conversion of common covid-19 to severe in the training set, the prediction model was established and verified externally in the validation set. 60 (14.71%) of 408 patients with common covid-19 became severe in 6-10 days after diagnosis. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that lactate (P = 0.042, OR = 1097.983, 95% CI 1.303, 924,798.262) and CD8+ T cells (P = 0.010, OR = 0.903, 95% CI 0.835, 0.975) were independent risk factors for general type patients to turn to severe type. The area under ROC curve of lactate and CD8+ T cells was 0.754 (0.581, 0.928) and 0.842 (0.713, 0.970), respectively. The actual observation value was highly consistent with the prediction model value in curve fitting. The established prediction model was verified in 78 COVID-19 patients in the verification set, the area under the ROC curve was 0.906 (0.861, 0.981), and the calibration curve was consistent. CD8+ T cells, as an independent risk factor, could predict the transition from common covid-19 to severe.

Combination therapy of IFNß1 with lopinavir-ritonavir, increases oxygenation, survival and discharging of sever COVID-19 infected inpatients.

Interferon Beta-1a (IFN-ß1-a), an immunomodulatory mediator with antiviral effects, has shown in vivo and in vitro activities especially on coronavirus including SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 defined as the disease caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2. The virus has been illustrated inhibits the production of IFN-ß1-a from inflammatory cells. We conducted a retrospective study of all adult confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized patients who received combination of three doses of 12 million international units of IFN-ß1-a and Lopinavir 400 mg and Ritonavir 100 mg every 12 h (case group) for 14 days besides standard care and age- and sex- matched COVID-19 patients with receiving lopinavir/ritonavir (control group) at Masih Daneshvari Hospital as a designated hospital for COVID-19 between Feb 19 and Apr 30, 2020. Multivariate analysis was done to determine the impact of IFN-ß1-a on outcome and all-cause mortality. 152 cases in IFN-ß1-a group and 304 cases as control group were included. IFN-ß1-a group stayed at hospital longer and required noninvasive ventilation more than control group (13 vs. 6 days, p = 0.001) and (34% vs. 24%, p = 0.04), respectively. During treatment, 57 (12.5%) patients died. The death rate in case and control groups was 11% and 13% respectively. In multivariate analysis, not receiving IFN-ß1-a (HR 5.12, 95% CI: 2.77-9.45), comorbidity (HR 2.28, 95% CI: 1.13-4.60) and noninvasive ventilation (HR 2.77, 95% CI: 1.56-4.93) remained significantly associated with all-cause mortality. In this study, risk of death decreased by using IFN-ß1-a in COVID-19 patients. More clinical study will be necessary to measure efficacy of IFN-ß1-a in COVID-19 treatment.

Safety and efficacy of oral lopinavir/ritonavir in pediatric patients with coronavirus disease: a nationwide comparative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Because of the limited treatment options available, oral lopinavir/ritonavir (LPR) was used for treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in pediatric patients. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of LPR in COVID-19 pediatric patients with mild symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter analysis included hospitalized children with mild COVID-19 who received LPR at one of 13 hospitals in China from January 1, 2020, to June 1, 2020. Patients treated with LPR were matched with patients not treated with LPR (1:4) according to age, sex, and length of symptom onset and hospitalization. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were applied to compare differences between groups. Kaplan-Meier probability curves and Cox regression models were used to analyze nasal swab turning negative time (recovery time) and hospital discharge days. RESULTS: In total, 23 patients treated with LPR were matched with 92 untreated controls. The median age of patients was 6 years, and 56.52% of them were male. All patients were discharged from the hospital after being cured. The treatment group had a longer nasal swab turning negative time (hazard ratio [HR] 5.33; 95% CI: 1.94-14.67; p = 0.001) than the control group. LPR treatment was also associated with a longer hospitalization time (HR 2.01; 95% CI: 1.24-3.29; p = 0.005). After adjusting for the influence of LPR treatment, adverse drug reaction events were associated with a longer nasopharyngeal swab negative time (HR 4.67; 95% CI 1.35-16.11; p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: For children with mild COVID-19, LPR is inferior to conventional treatment in reducing virus shedding time and hospitalization duration and is associated with increased adverse reactions.