Sensitivity of Five Rapid HIV Tests on Oral Fluid or Finger-Stick Whole Blood: A Real-Time Comparison in a Healthcare Setting

BACKGROUND: Health authorities in several countries recently recommended the expansion of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibody testing, including the use of rapid tests. Several HIV rapid tests are now licensed in Europe but their sensitivity on total blood and/or oral fluid in routine healthcare settings is not known. METHODS AND FINDINGS: 200 adults with documented HIV-1 (n=194) or HIV-2 infection (n=6) were prospectively screened with five HIV rapid tests using either oral fluid (OF) or finger-stick whole blood (FSB). The OraQuick Advance rapid HIV1/2 was first applied to OF and then to FSB, while the other tests were applied to FSB, in the following order: Vikia HIV 1/2, Determine HIV 1-2, Determine HIV-1/2 Ag/Ab Combo and INSTI HIV-1/HIV-2. Tests negative on FSB were repeated on paired serum samples. Twenty randomly selected HIV-seronegative subjects served as controls, and the results were read blindly. Most patients had HIV-1 subtype B infection (63.3%) and most were on antiretroviral therapy (68.5%). Sensitivity was 86.5%, 94.5%, 98.5%, 94.9%, 95.8% and 99% respectively, with OraQuick OF, OraQuick FSB, Vikia, Determine, Determine Ag/Ab Combo and INSTI (p<0.0001). OraQuick was less sensitive on OF than on FSB (p=0.008). Among the six patients with three or more negative tests, two had recent HIV infection and four patients on antiretroviral therapy had undetectable plasma viral load. When patients positive in all the tests were compared with patients who had at least one negative test, only a plasma HIV RNA level<200 cp/ml was significantly associated with a false-negative result (p=0.009). When the 33 rapid tests negative on FSB were repeated on serum, all but six (5 negative with OraQuick, 1 with INSTI) were positive. The sensitivity of OraQuick, Determine and Determine Ag/Ab Combo was significantly better on serum than on FSB (97.5%, p=0.04; 100%, p=0.004; and 100%, p=0.02, respectively). CONCLUSION: When evaluated in a healthcare setting, rapid HIV tests were less sensitive on oral fluid than on finger-stick whole blood and less sensitive on finger-stick whole blood than on serum

Sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. Interpretation: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals

Hippocampal pyramidal cells: the reemergence of cortical lamination

The increasing resolution of tract-tracing studies has led to the definition of segments along the transverse axis of the hippocampal pyramidal cell layer, which may represent functionally defined elements. This review will summarize evidence for a morphological and functional differentiation of pyramidal cells along the radial (deep to superficial) axis of the cell layer. In many species, deep and superficial sublayers can be identified histologically throughout large parts of the septotemporal extent of the hippocampus. Neurons in these sublayers are generated during different periods of development. During development, deep and superficial cells express genes (Sox5, SatB2) that also specify the phenotypes of superficial and deep cells in the neocortex. Deep and superficial cells differ neurochemically (e.g. calbindin and zinc) and in their adult gene expression patterns. These markers also distinguish sublayers in the septal hippocampus, where they are not readily apparent histologically in rat or mouse. Deep and superficial pyramidal cells differ in septal, striatal, and neocortical efferent connections. Distributions of deep and superficial pyramidal cell dendrites and studies in reeler or sparsely GFP-expressing mice indicate that this also applies to afferent pathways. Histological, neurochemical, and connective differences between deep and superficial neurons may correlate with (patho-) physiological phenomena specific to pyramidal cells at different radial locations. We feel that an appreciation of radial subdivisions in the pyramidal cell layer reminiscent of lamination in other cortical areas may be critical in the interpretation of studies of hippocampal anatomy and function