Summary Background Dolutegravir (S/GSK1349572) is a new HIV-1 integrase inhibitor that has antiviral activity with once daily, unboosted dosing. SPRING-1 is an ongoing study designed to select a dose ...for phase 3 assessment. We present data from preplanned primary and interim analyses. Methods In a phase 2b, multicentre, dose-ranging study, treatment-naive adults were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive 10 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg dolutegravir or 600 mg efavirenz. Dose but not drug allocation was masked. Randomisation was by a central integrated voice-response system according to a computer-generated code. Study drugs were given with either tenofovir plus emtricitabine or abacavir plus lamivudine. Our study was done at 34 sites in France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, and the USA beginning on July 9, 2009. Eligible participants were seropositive for HIV-1, aged 18 years or older, and had plasma HIV RNA viral loads of at least 1000 copies per mL and CD4 counts of at least 200 cells per μL. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with viral load of less than 50 copies per mL at week 16 and we present data to week 48. Analyses were done on the basis of allocation group and included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00951015. Findings 205 patients were randomly allocated and received at least one dose of study drug: 53, 51, and 51 to receive 10 mg, 25 mg, and 50 mg dolutegravir, respectively, and 50 to receive efavirenz. Week 16 response rates to viral loads of at most 50 copies per mL were 93% (144 of 155 participants) for all doses of dolutegravir (with little difference between dose groups) and 60% (30 of 50) for efavirenz; week 48 response rates were 87% (139 of 155) for all doses of dolutegravir and 82% (41 of 50) for efavirenz. Response rates between nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor subgroups were similar. We identified three virological failures in the dolutegravir groups and one in the efavirenz group—we did not identify any integrase inhibitor mutations. We did not identify any dose-related clinical or laboratory toxic effects, with more drug-related adverse events of moderate-or-higher intensity in the efavirenz group (20%) than the dolutegravir group (8%). We did not judge that any serious adverse events were related to dolutegravir. Interpretation Dolutegravir was effective when given once daily without a pharmacokinetic booster and was well tolerated at all assessed doses. Our findings support the assessment of once daily 50 mg dolutegravir in phase 3 trials. Funding Shionogi-GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals, LLC, now Shionogi-ViiV Healthcare, LLC.
BACKGROUND:The 2-drug regimen dolutegravir + lamivudine was noninferior to dolutegravir + tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine in achieving HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL in treatment-naive adults in ...the 48-week primary analysis of the GEMINI trials. We present results from the prespecified 96-week secondary analyses.
SETTING:One hundred eighty-seven centers in 21 countries.
METHODS:GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 are identical, double-blind phase III studies. Participants with screening HIV-1 RNA ≤500,000 copies/mL were randomized 1:1 to once-daily dolutegravir + lamivudine or dolutegravir + tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine.
RESULTS:At week 96, dolutegravir + lamivudine (N = 716) was noninferior to dolutegravir + tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (N = 717) in achieving HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL (Snapshot algorithm; −10% noninferiority margin) in the pooled analysis (proportion of responders, 86.0% vs 89.5%, respectively; adjusted treatment difference 95% CI, −3.4% −6.7 to 0.0007), GEMINI-1 (−4.9% −9.8 to 0.03), and GEMINI-2 (−1.8% −6.4 to 2.7). Proportions of participants in the HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL Snapshot category were largely unchanged from week 48 to 96. Eleven participants taking dolutegravir + lamivudine and 7 taking dolutegravir + tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine met confirmed virologic withdrawal criteria through week 96; none had treatment-emergent resistance mutations. Dolutegravir + lamivudine had a lower rate of drug-related adverse events than dolutegravir + tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (19.6% vs 25.0%; relative risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI0.64 to 0.95). Renal and bone biomarker changes favored dolutegravir + lamivudine.
CONCLUSIONS:Consistent with 48-week data, dolutegravir + lamivudine demonstrated long-term, noninferior efficacy vs dolutegravir + tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine without increased risk of treatment-emergent resistance, supporting its use in treatment-naive HIV-1–infected individuals.
Background: Since the confirmation of the first patient infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Spain in January 2020, the epidemic has grown rapidly, with the greatest impact on the region of Madrid. This ...article describes the first 2226 adult patients with COVID-19, consecutively admitted to La Paz University Hospital in Madrid. Methods: Our cohort included all patients consecutively hospitalized who had a final outcome (death or discharge) in a 1286-bed hospital of Madrid (Spain) from 25 February (first case admitted) to 19 April 2020. The data were manually entered into an electronic case report form, which was monitored prior to the analysis. Results: We consecutively included 2226 adult patients admitted to the hospital who either died (460) or were discharged (1766). The patients’ median age was 61 years, and 51.8% were women. The most common comorbidity was arterial hypertension (41.3%), and the most common symptom on admission was fever (71.2%). The median time from disease onset to hospital admission was 6 days. The overall mortality was 20.7% and was higher in men (26.6% vs. 15.1%). Seventy-five patients with a final outcome were transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) (3.4%). Most patients admitted to the ICU were men, and the median age was 64 years. Baseline laboratory values on admission were consistent with an impaired immune-inflammatory profile. Conclusions: We provide a description of the first large cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Europe. Advanced age, male sex, the presence of comorbidities and abnormal laboratory values were more common among the patients with fatal outcomes.
OBJECTIVE:This study evaluated maintenance with lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy vs. continuing lopinavir/ritonavir and 2 nucleosides in HIV-infected patients with suppressed HIV replication.
...DESIGN:Randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter, pilot clinical trial.
METHODS:Adult patients were eligible if they had no history of virologic failure while receiving a protease inhibitor, were receiving 2 nucleosides + lopinavir/ritonavir (400/100 mg b.i.d.) for >1 month and had maintained serum HIV RNA <50 copies/mL for >6 months prior to enrollment.
RESULTS:Forty-two patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to continue or stop the nucleosides. At baseline there were no significant differences between groups in median CD4 cells/μL (baseline or nadir), pre-HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy) HIV log10 viremia, or time with HIV RNA <50 copies/mL prior to enrollment. After 48 weeks of follow-up, percentage of patients remaining at <50 HIV RNA copies/mL (intention to treat, M = F) was 81% for the monotherapy group (95% CI64% to 98%) vs. 95% for the triple-therapy group (95% CI86% to 100%); P = 0.34. Patients in whom monotherapy failed had significantly worse adherence than patients who remained virally suppressed on monotherapy. Monotherapy failures did not show primary resistance mutations in the protease gene and were successfully reinduced with prerandomization nucleosides. Mean change in CD4 cells/μL+70 (monotherapy) and +8 (triple) (P = 0.27). Mean serum fasting lipids remained stable in both groups. No serious adverse events were observed.
CONCLUSION:Most of the patients maintained with lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy remain with undetectable viral load after 48 weeks. Failures of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy were not associated with the development of primary resistance mutations in the protease gene and could be successfully reinduced adding back prior nucleosides.
To assess efficacy and safety of dolutegravir (DTG) + lamivudine (3TC) vs. DTG + tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) in treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 in the prespecified ...144-week secondary analyses of GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2.
Identical, multicenter, phase III, randomized, non-inferiority studies (double-blind through 96 weeks).
Participants with HIV-1 RNA ≤500 000 copies/ml and no major viral resistance mutations to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, or protease inhibitors were randomized 1:1 to once-daily DTG + 3TC or DTG + TDF/FTC.
At week 144, DTG + 3TC (N = 716) was noninferior to DTG + TDF/FTC (N = 717) in proportion of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml (Snapshot algorithm) in the pooled analysis (82% vs. 84%, respectively; adjusted treatment difference 95% confidence interval (CI), -1.8% -5.8, 2.1), GEMINI-1 (-3.6% -9.4, 2.1), and GEMINI-2 (0.0% -5.3, 5.3). Twelve DTG + 3TC participants and nine DTG + TDF/FTC participants met protocol-defined confirmed virologic withdrawal (CVW) criteria; none developed treatment-emergent resistance. One DTG + 3TC participant who did not meet CVW criteria developed M184V at week 132 and R263R/K at week 144, conferring a 1.8-fold change in susceptibility to DTG; non-adherence to therapy was reported. Significantly fewer drug-related adverse events occurred with DTG + 3TC vs. DTG + TDF/FTC (20% vs. 27%; relative risk 95% CI, 0.76 0.63-0.92). Renal and bone biomarker changes favored DTG + 3TC.
Three-year durable efficacy, long-term tolerability, and high barrier to resistance support first-line use of DTG + 3TC for HIV-1 treatment (see Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/QAD/C297; video abstract).
We aimed to assess the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and factors associated with seropositivity and asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among ...people with HIV (PWH).
This was a cross-sectional study carried out within the cohort of the Spanish HIV Research Network. Participants were consecutive PWH with plasma collected from 1st April to 30th September 2020. We determined SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (Abs) in plasma. Illness severity (NIH criteria) was assessed by a review of medical records and, if needed, participant interviews. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of seropositivity among the following variables: sex, age, country of birth, education level, comorbidities (hypertension, chronic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, non-AIDS-related cancer, chronic kidney disease, cirrhosis), route of HIV acquisition, prior AIDS, CD4+ cell count, HIV viral load, nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (N tRTI) backbone, type of third antiretroviral drug, and month of sample collection.
Of 1076 PWH (88.0% males, median age 43 years, 97.7% on antiretroviral therapy, median CD4+ 688 cells/mm3, 91.4% undetectable HIV viral load), SARS-CoV-2 Abs were detected in 91 PWH, a seroprevalence of 8.5% (95%CI 6.9–10.3%). Forty-five infections (45.0%) were asymptomatic. Variables independently associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity were birth in Latin American countries versus Spain (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.30, 95%CI 1.41–3.76, p 0.001), and therapy with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) versus tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/FTC as the N(t)RTI backbone (aOR 0.49, 95%CI 0.26–0.94, p 0.031).
Many SARS-CoV-2 infections among PWH were asymptomatic, and birth in Latin American countries increased the risk of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. Our analysis, adjusted by comorbidities and other variables, suggests that TDF/FTC may prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection among PWH.
Summary Background Daily oral triple therapy is effective at halting HIV disease progression, but can have toxic effects and is costly. We investigated whether dual therapy with lopinavir and ...ritonavir plus lamivudine is non-inferior to standard triple therapy. Methods The GARDEL study (Global AntiRetroviral Design Encompassing Lopinavir/r and Lamivudine vs LPV/r based standard therapy) is a 48 week, phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial in antiretroviral-therapy-naive adults (age ≥18 years) with documented HIV-1 RNA viral load of at least 1000 copies per mL. The study was done at 19 centres in six countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dual therapy or triple therapy by sealed envelopes, in blocks of four, stratified by baseline viral load (<100 000 vs ≥100 000 copies per mL). Dual therapy consisted of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg plus lamivudine 150 mg, both twice daily. Triple therapy consisted of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg twice daily and lamivudine or emtricitabine plus another nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) in fixed-dose combination. Efficacy was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The primary endpoint was virological response rate, defined as the proportion of patients with HIV RNA less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks. Dual therapy was classed as non-inferior to triple therapy if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference between groups was no lower than −12%. Patients and investigators were unmasked to treatment allocation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01237444. Findings Between Dec 10, 2010, and May 15, 2012, 217 patients were randomly assigned to the dual-therapy group and 209 to the triple-therapy group. 198 patients in the dual-therapy group and 175 in the triple-therapy group completed 48 weeks of treatment. At week 48, 189 patients (88·3%) in the dual-therapy group and 169 (83·7%) in the triple-therapy group had viral response (difference 4·6%, 95% CI −2·2 to 11·8; p=0·171). Patients with baseline viral load of at least 100 000 copies per mL showed similar results (87·2% vs 77·9%, respectively; difference 9·3%, 95% CI −2·8 to 21·5; p=0·145). Toxicity-related or tolerability-related discontinuations were more common in the triple-therapy group (n=10 4·9%) than in the dual-therapy group (n=1 0·4%; difference 4·5%, 95% CI −8·1 to −0·9; p=0·011). 65 adverse events in the dual-therapy group and 88 in the triple-therapy group were possibly or probably drug related (p=0·007). Two serious adverse events occurred, both in the dual-therapy arm, one of which (a case of gastritis) was reported as possibly or probably related to drug treatment. Interpretation Dual therapy with lopinavir and ritonavir plus lamivudine regimen warrants further clinical research and consideration as a potential therapeutic option for antiretroviral-therapy-naive patients. Funding Fundación Huésped and AbbVie.
Primary objective: to evaluate the efficacy of melatonin as a prophylactic treatment on prevention of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. ...Secondary objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of melatonin as a prophylactic treatment on prevention of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.To evaluate the efficacy of melatonin to prevent the development of severe COVID-19 in the participants enrolled in this study who develop SARS-CoV-2 infection along the trial.To evaluate the duration of COVID-19 symptoms in participants receiving melatonin before the infection.To evaluate seroconversion timing post-symptom onset. Exploratory objectives:To compare severity of COVID-19 between men and women.To evaluate the influence of sleep and diet on prevention from SARS-CoV-2 infection.To evaluate the effect of melatonin on the incidence and characteristics of lymphopenia and increase of inflammatory cytokines related to COVID-19.
This is a two-arm parallel randomised double-blind controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of melatonin versus placebo in the prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 2019 among healthcare workers.
Inclusion Criteria: Male or female participants ≥ 18 and ≤ 80 years of age.Healthcare workers from the public and private Spanish hospital network at risk of SARS-CoV 2 infection.Not having a previous COVID19 diagnosis.Understanding the purpose of the trial and not having taken any pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) including HIV PrEP from March 1
2020 until study enrolment.Having a negative SARS-CoV 2 reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) result or a negative serologic rapid test (IgM/IgG) result before randomization.Premenopausal women must have a negative urinary pregnancy test in the 7 days before starting the trial treatment.Premenopausal women and males with premenopausal couples must commit to using a high efficiency anticonceptive method.
HIV infection.Active hepatitis B infection.Renal failure (CrCl < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) or need for hemodialysis.Osteoporosis.Myasthenia gravis.Pre-existent maculopathy.Retinitis pigmentosa.Bradycardia (less than 50 bpm).Weight less than 40 Kg.Participant with any immunosuppressive condition or hematological disease.Treatment with drugs that may prolong QT in the last month before randomization for more than 7 days including: azithromycin, chlorpromazine, cisapride, clarithromycin, domperidone, droperidol, erythromycin, halofantrine, haloperidol, lumefantrine, mefloquine, methadone, pentamidine, procainamide, quinidine, quinine, sotalol, sparfloxacin, thioridazine, amiodarone.Hereditary intolerance to galactose, Lapp lactase deficiency or glucose or galactose malabsorption.Treatment with fluvoxamine.Treatment with benzodiazepines or benzodiazepine analogues such as zolpidem, zopiclone or zaleplon.Pregnancy.Breastfeeding.History of potentially immune derived diseases such as: lupus, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, vasculitis or rheumatoid arthritis.Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.Known history of hypersensitivity to the study drug or any of its components.Patients that should not be included in the study at the judgment of the research team. Participants will be recruited from the following eight hospitals in Madrid, Spain: Hospital Universitario La Paz, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Hospital Infanta Sofía, Hospital 12 de Octubre, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Hospital Central de la defensa Gómez Ulla,Hospital de La Princesa and Hospital Infanta Leonor.
Experimental: Melatonin (Circadin®, Exeltis Healthcare, Spain): 2 mg of melatonin orally before bedtime for 12 weeks. Comparator: Identical looking placebo (Laboratorios Liconsa, Spain) orally before bedtime for 12 weeks.
Number of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) symptomatic infections confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test or serologic test or according to each centre diagnosis protocol. Primary outcome will be measured until the end of treatment for each participant (until the date of the last dose taken by each patient).
Patients who meet all inclusion and no exclusion criteria will be randomised, stratified by centres, sex and age (<50 and ≥ 50 years old). The randomisation sequence was created using SAS version 9.4 statistical software (procedure 'PROC PLAN') with a 1:1 allocation. No randomisation seed was specified. The randomisation seed was generated taking the hour of the computer where the program was executed. Randomization will be done centrally through the electronic system RedCAP® in order to conceal the sequence until interventions are assigned BLINDING (MASKING): Participants, caregivers, and those assessing the outcomes are blinded to group assignment.
A total of 450 participants are planned to be enrolled in this clinical trial, 225 in the experimental arm and 225 in the placebo arm.
Protocol version 3.0, 17th of April 2020. Recruitment ongoing. First participant was recruited on the 21st of April 2020. The final participant is anticipated to be recruited on the 31st of May 2020. As of May 18th, 2020, a total of 312 participants have been enrolled (154 at Hospital La Paz, 85 at Hospital Infanta Sofía and 73 at Hospital 12 de Octubre).
EU Clinical Trials Register: 2020-001530-35; Date of trial registration: 13th of April 2020; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001530-35/ES FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.
To estimate the critical care bed capacity that would be required to admit all critical COVID-19 cases in a setting of unchecked SARS-CoV-2 transmission, both with and without elderly-specific ...protection measures.
Using electronic health records of all 2432 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in a large hospital in Madrid, Spain, between February 28 and April 23, 2020, we estimated the number of critical care beds needed to admit all critical care patients. To mimic a hypothetical intervention that halves SARS-CoV-2 infections among the elderly, we randomly excluded 50% of patients aged 65 years and older.
Critical care requirements peaked at 49 beds per 100 000 on April 1-2 weeks after the start of a national lockdown. After randomly excluding 50% of elderly patients, the estimated peak was 39 beds per 100 000.
Under unchecked SARS-CoV-2 transmission, peak critical care requirements in Madrid were at least fivefold higher than prepandemic capacity. Under a hypothetical intervention that halves infections among the elderly, critical care peak requirements would have exceeded the prepandemic capacity of most high-income countries.
Pandemic control strategies that rely exclusively on protecting the elderly are likely to overwhelm health care systems.
Influenza epidemics annually impact a substantial portion of adults worldwide, leading to numerous hospitalizations and fatalities. While the primary goal of vaccination is to prevent influenza virus ...infection, breakthrough infections can still occur despite vaccination. Evaluating the vaccine effectiveness in preventing severe cases among hospitalized patients is crucial for enhancing vaccination strategies.
This single-center, observational, cross-sectional, and retrospective study analyzed data from 1,357 patients admitted to La Paz University Hospital for influenza infection between 2009 and 2019. Patients' demographics, clinical variables, comorbidities, vaccination status, and influenza-related outcomes were assessed. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the vaccine-independent protective effects.
Influenza vaccination independently prevented severe complications, including pneumonia, bacterial superinfection, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and multiple organ failure in hospitalized patients (odds ratio = 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.47-0.76). Vaccinated patients had significantly lower intensive care unit admission rates (odds ratio = 0.42, 95% confidence interval: 0.18-0.92). However, there were no significant differences in mortality rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients (P = .385).
Our study provides robust evidence supporting the influenza vaccine protective effect against severe outcomes in hospitalized patients during epidemic flu. Vaccination is associated with a significant reduction in severe complications and intensive care unit admissions, emphasizing its importance as a preventive measure. Improving vaccination coverage, especially in specific comorbidities and age groups, could further enhance the vaccine effectiveness in preventing severe influenza cases.
•Influenza Vaccination Lowers Complication Risk: Spanish study finds vaccination reduces severe complications in flu patients.•Effective Defense Against Respiratory Issues: Vaccination lowers pneumonia, ARDS, and organ failure risk.•Substantial Decrease in ICU Admissions: Influenza vaccination linked to fewer ICU admissions, easing health care strain.•Strengthening Influenza Prevention Strategies: Research emphasizes enhancing vaccination coverage for maximum effectiveness.•Age and Comorbidities Impact Disease Severity: Advanced age and specific comorbidities contribute to severe influenza cases, requiring tailored prevention.
PDF
