Since May 2022, an outbreak of monkeypox has been ongoing in non-endemic countries. We report four cases in Italy in young adult men reporting condomless sexual intercourse. The patients are in good ...clinical condition with no need for specific antiviral drugs. Biological samples from seminal fluid were positive for monkeypox viral DNA. For many other viruses found in semen there is no evidence of sexual transmission. The possibility of sexual transmission of monkeypox virus needs to be investigated.
Introduction
PI/r monotherapy has been suggested as an attainable maintenance strategy in patients achieving stable HIV suppression in plasma. The objective of trial was to compare the virological ...outcome of two different PI/r QD monotherapy strategies (LPV/r or DRV/r) with maintaining a triple PI/r‐based ARV regimen.
Material and Methods
Phase III, open‐label, non‐inferiority (−12% margin), randomized trial of HIV adults with HIV‐RNA <50 cp/mL for at least 48 weeks while on PI/r‐based cART, CD4 nadir >100 cell/mm3, without previous PIs virological failure. Eligible patients were randomized to continue PI/r+2NRTIs (Arm A), to switch to LPV/r 800/200 mg QD monotherapy (Arm B), or to switch to DRV/r 800/100 mg QD monotherapy (Arm C). Primary endpoint was proportion of patients with plasma HIV‐1 RNA <50 cp/mL (TLOVR) at 48w by intent to treat (ITT) analysis (missing/re‐induction=failure). FDA snapshot and ITT switch‐included analysis (ITT‐SI) were also used. In ITT‐SI, patients who had <50 copies/mL at 96w were counted as successes even if they had confirmed HIV‐RNA elevations and had subsequently successfully intensified by NRTI.
Results
Due to slow recruitment, only 103 patients were included. No differences were observed between the three arms with respect to gender, age, HIV transmission, CD4 nadir and at screening. At randomization, 61 patients were receiving TDF/FTC (60%), 19 ZDV/3TC (18%), 8 ABV/3TC (8%), 75 LPV/r (73%), 13 ATV/r (13%), 4 DRV/r (4%). Differences in proportion of virological success by groups using Arm A as comparator according to FDA TLOVR were reported in Figure 1. Similar results were obtained by Snapshot analysis. Of 14 patients with virological failure, 8 patients restarted triple therapy with 2NRTI and 7/8 regained a VL <50 cp/mL over time. According to ITT‐SI analysis, 96 week differences 95% CI were −5.7 −29.6; +18.2 in Arm B, and +19.6 −1.6; +40.8 in Arm C. A GRT was performed in 6/14 patients (one not amplifiable; four without mutations; one showed E138A).
Conclusions
Compared to maintaining a PI/r‐based triple ARV regimen, LPV/r QD monotherapy tended to have higher rate of virological failure and of discontinuation due to adverse event. In contrast, the response rate at week 96 during DRV/r QD mono‐therapy was non‐inferior to that of triple PI/r‐based ARV therapy. A re‐induction with 2NRTI was adequate to obtain an undetectable viremia in most of patients with virological failure.
Abstract
Background
Data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity in PLWH are currently limited. Aim of the study was to investigate immunogenicity according to current CD4 T-cell count
Methods
PLWH on ...ART attending a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination program, were included in a prospective immunogenicity evaluation after receiving BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. Participants were stratified by current CD4 T-cell count (poor CD4 recovery, PCDR: <200/mm3; intermediate CD4 recovery, ICDR: 200–500/mm3; high CD4 recovery, HCDR: >500/mm3). RBD-binding IgG, SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) and IFN-γ release were measured. As control group, HIV-negative healthcare workers (HCWs) were used
Findings
Among 166 PLWH, after 1 month from the booster dose, detectable RBD-binding IgG were elicited in 86.7% of PCDR, 100% of ICDR, 98.7% of HCDR, and a neutralizing titre ≥1:10 elicited in 70.0%, 88.2%, and 93.1%, respectively. Compared to HCDR, all immune response parameters were significantly lower in PCDR. After adjusting for confounders, current CD4 T-cell <200/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of anti-RDB, nAbs and IFN-γ response. As compared with HCWs, PCDR elicited a consistently reduced immunogenicity for all parameters, ICDR only a reduced RBD-binding antibody response, whereas HCDR elicited a comparable immune response for all parameters
Conclusion
Humoral and cell-mediated immune response against SARS-CoV-2 were elicited in most of PLWH, albeit significantly poorer in those with CD4 T-cell <200/mm3 versus those with >500 cell/mm3 and HIV-negative controls. A lower RBD-binding antibody response than HCWs was also observed in PLWH with CD4 T-cell 200–500/mm3, whereas immune response elicited in PLWH with a CD4 T-cell >500/mm3 was comparable to HIV-negative population
Humoral and cell-mediated immune-response against SARS-CoV-2 were elicited in PLWH, significantly poorer in those with CD4 T-cell <200/mm3vs those with >500 cell/mm3and HIV-negative controls; immune response in PLWH with a CD4 T-cell >500/mm3 was comparable to HIV-negative population.
Abstract
In order to investigate safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine third dose in people living with HIV (PLWH), we analyze anti-RBD, microneutralization assay and IFN-γ production in ...216 PLWH on ART with advanced disease (CD4 count <200 cell/mm
3
and/or previous AIDS) receiving the third dose of a mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) after a median of 142 days from the second dose. Median age is 54 years, median CD4 nadir 45 cell/mm
3
(20–122), 93% HIV-RNA < 50 c/mL. In 68% of PLWH at least one side-effect, generally mild, is recorded. Humoral response after the third dose was strong and higher than that achieved with the second dose (>2 log
2
difference), especially when a heterologous combination with mRNA-1273 as third shot is used. In contrast, cell-mediated immunity remain stable. Our data support usefulness of third dose in PLWH currently receiving suppressive ART who presented with severe immune dysregulation.
A rapid ART initiation approach can be beneficial in people with advanced HIV disease, in consideration of their high morbidity and mortality. The aim of our study was to evaluate the feasibility, ...efficacy and safety of rapid ART start with BIC/FTC/TAF in this setting.
Pilot, single-centre, single-arm, prospective, phase IV clinical trial conducted in a tertiary Italian hospital. Thirty ART-naïve people presenting with advanced HIV-1 diagnosis (defined as the presence of an AIDS-defining event and/or CD4 cell count <200 µL), were enrolled. Main exclusion criteria were active tuberculosis, cryptococcosis and pregnant/breastfeeding women. BIC/FTC/TAF was started within 7 days from HIV diagnosis. The primary endpoint was clinical or virologic failure (VF). Immunological parameters, safety, feasibility, neurocognitive performances and patient-reported outcomes were assessed as well.
Over the study period, 40 (34%) of 116 patients diagnosed with HIV infection at INMI Spallanzani had advanced disease, of whom 30 (26%) were enrolled. The proportion of participants with HIV-RNA <50 cp/mL was 9/30 (30%) at week (w) 4, 19/30 (63%) at w12, 24/30 (80%) at w24, 23/30 (77%) at w36 and 27/30 (90%) at w48. Two unconfirmed VF occurred. No ART discontinuation due to toxicity or VF was observed. No ART modification was performed based on the review of genotype and no mutations for the study drugs were detected. Mean CD4 cells count changed by 133 cells/μL at BL to 309 cells/μL at w 48 and 83% of participants had a CD4 > 200 cells/µL at w 48. Two participants developed IRIS and one was diagnosed with disseminated TB and needed an ART switch.
Our results support the feasibility, efficacy and safety of BIC/FTC/TAF as a rapid ART strategy in patients with advanced HIV disease.
Abstract
Prophylactic low molecular weight heparin (pLMWH) is currently recommended in COVID-19 to reduce the risk of coagulopathy. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the antinflammatory ...effects of pLMWH could translate in lower rate of clinical progression in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients admitted to a COVID-hospital in Rome with SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild/moderate pneumonia were retrospectively evaluated. The primary endpoint was the time from hospital admission to orotracheal intubation/death (OTI/death). A total of 449 patients were included: 39% female, median age 63 (IQR, 50–77) years. The estimated probability of OTI/death for patients receiving pLMWH was: 9.5% (95% CI 3.2–26.4) by day 20 in those not receiving pLMWH vs. 10.4% (6.7–15.9) in those exposed to pLMWH; p-value = 0.144. This risk associated with the use of pLMWH appeared to vary by PaO
2
/FiO
2
ratio: aHR 1.40 (95% CI 0.51–3.79) for patients with an admission PaO
2
/FiO
2
≤ 300 mmHg and 0.27 (0.03–2.18) for those with PaO
2
/FiO
2
> 300 mmHg; p-value at interaction test 0.16. pLMWH does not seem to reduce the risk of OTI/death mild/moderate COVID-19 pneumonia, especially when respiratory function had already significantly deteriorated. Data from clinical trials comparing the effect of prophylactic vs. therapeutic dosage of LMWH at various stages of COVID-19 disease are needed.
Among interleukin-6 inhibitors suggested for use in COVID-19, there are few robust evidences for the efficacy of sarilumab. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in severe ...COVID-19.
In this phase 3, open-labeled, randomized clinical trial, conducted at 5 Italian hospitals, adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (excluding mechanically ventilated) were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous sarilumab (400 mg, repeatable after 12 h) plus standard of care (SOC) (arm A) or to continue SOC (arm B). Randomization was web-based. As post-hoc analyses, the participants were stratified according to baseline inflammatory parameters. The primary endpoint was analysed on the modified Intention-To-Treat population, including all the randomized patients who received any study treatment (sarilumab or SOC). It was time to clinical improvement of 2 points on a 7-points ordinal scale, from baseline to day 30. We used Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test to compare the primary outcome between two arms, and Cox regression stratified by clinical center and adjusted for severity of illness, to estimate the hazard ratio (HR). The trial was registered with EudraCT (2020-001390-76).
Between May 2020 and May 2021, 191 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom, excluding nine dropouts, 176 were assigned to arm A (121) and B (55). At day 30, no significant differences in the primary endpoint were found (88% 95% CI 81–94 in arm A vs 85% 74–93, HR 1.07 0.8–1.5 in arm B; log-rank p = 0.50). After stratifying for inflammatory parameters, arm A showed higher probability of improvement than B without statistical significance in the strata with C reactive protein (CRP) < 7 mg/dL (88% 77–96 vs 79% 63–91, HR 1.55 0.9–2.6; log-rank p = 0.049) and in the strata with lymphocytes <870/mmc (90% 79–96) vs (73% 55–89, HR 1.53 0.9–2.7; log-rank p = 0.058). Overall, 39/121 (32%) AEs were reported in arm A and 14/55 (23%) in B (p = 0.195), while serious AEs were 22/121 (18%) and 7/55 (11%), respectively (p = 0.244). There were no treatment-related deaths.
The efficacy of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 was not demonstrated both in the overall and in the stratified for severity analysis population. Exploratory analyses suggested that subsets of patients with lower CRP values or lower lymphocyte counts might have had benefit with sarilumab treatment, but this finding would require replication in other studies. The relatively low rate of concomitant corticosteroid use, could partially explain our results.
This study was supported by INMI “Lazzaro Spallanzani” Ricerca Corrente Linea 1 on emerging and reemerging infections, funded by Italian Ministry of Health.
Background: Among interleukin-6 inhibitors suggested for use in COVID-19, there are few robust evidences for the efficacy of sarilumab. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in ...severe COVID-19. Methods: In this phase 3, open-labeled, randomized clinical trial, conducted at 5 Italian hospitals, adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (excluding mechanically ventilated) were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous sarilumab (400 mg, repeatable after 12 h) plus standard of care (SOC) (arm A) or to continue SOC (arm B). Randomization was web-based. As post-hoc analyses, the participants were stratified according to baseline inflammatory parameters. The primary endpoint was analysed on the modified Intention-To-Treat population, including all the randomized patients who received any study treatment (sarilumab or SOC). It was time to clinical improvement of 2 points on a 7-points ordinal scale, from baseline to day 30. We used Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test to compare the primary outcome between two arms, and Cox regression stratified by clinical center and adjusted for severity of illness, to estimate the hazard ratio (HR). The trial was registered with EudraCT (2020-001390-76). Findings: Between May 2020 and May 2021, 191 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom, excluding nine dropouts, 176 were assigned to arm A (121) and B (55). At day 30, no significant differences in the primary endpoint were found (88% 95% CI 81–94 in arm A vs 85% 74–93, HR 1.07 0.8–1.5 in arm B; log-rank p = 0.50). After stratifying for inflammatory parameters, arm A showed higher probability of improvement than B without statistical significance in the strata with C reactive protein (CRP) < 7 mg/dL (88% 77–96 vs 79% 63–91, HR 1.55 0.9–2.6; log-rank p = 0.049) and in the strata with lymphocytes <870/mmc (90% 79–96) vs (73% 55–89, HR 1.53 0.9–2.7; log-rank p = 0.058). Overall, 39/121 (32%) AEs were reported in arm A and 14/55 (23%) in B (p = 0.195), while serious AEs were 22/121 (18%) and 7/55 (11%), respectively (p = 0.244). There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation: The efficacy of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 was not demonstrated both in the overall and in the stratified for severity analysis population. Exploratory analyses suggested that subsets of patients with lower CRP values or lower lymphocyte counts might have had benefit with sarilumab treatment, but this finding would require replication in other studies. The relatively low rate of concomitant corticosteroid use, could partially explain our results. Funding: This study was supported by INMI “Lazzaro Spallanzani” Ricerca Corrente Linea 1 on emerging and reemerging infections, funded by Italian Ministry of Health.
L’ostéopétrose maligne infantile se caractérise par une densification osseuse anormale et excessive résultant d’un dysfonctionnement des ostéoclastes. Elle se manifeste, dès les premiers mois de vie, ...par un retentissement sur le squelette, des troubles neuro-sensoriels, des anomalies orthodontiques, du système nerveux et de l’hématopoïèse. Son diagnostic repose sur des critères cliniques, radiologiques, biologiques et génétiques. Le cytologiste est impliqué dans la démarche diagnostique par la recherche des anomalies quantitatives de la numération formule sanguine et morphologiques du frottis sanguin et du myélogramme. Maladie grave et létale, son traitement repose sur la greffe de cellules hématopoïétiques.
Malignant osteopetrosis in children is characterized by abnormal and excessive bone densification resulting from osteoclast dysfunction. It manifests itself, from the first months of life, by a repercussion on the skeleton, neurosensory disorders, orthodental anomalies, nervous system and hematopoiesis. Its diagnosis is based on clinical, radiological, biological and genetic criteria. The cytologist is involved in the diagnostic process by looking for quantitative abnormalities of the blood count and morphological abnormalities of the blood smear and the bone marrow aspiration. A serious and lethal disease, its treatment is based on hematopoietic cell transplantation.
PDF
