Pre-ART Levels of Inflammation and Coagulation Markers Are Strong Predictors of Death in a South African Cohort with Advanced HIV Disease

BACKGROUND: Levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and D-dimer predict mortality in HIV patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART) with relatively preserved CD4+ T cell counts. We hypothesized that elevated pre-ART levels of these markers among patients with advanced HIV would be associated with an increased risk of death following the initiation of ART. METHODS: Pre-ART plasma from patients with advanced HIV in South Africa was used to measure hsCRP, IL-6 and D-dimer. Using a nested case-control study design, the biomarkers were measured for 187 deaths and two controls matched on age, sex, clinical site, follow-up time and CD4+ cell counts. Odds ratios were estimated using conditional logistic regression. In addition, for a random sample of 100 patients, biomarkers were measured at baseline and 6 months following randomization to determine whether ART altered their levels. RESULTS: Median baseline biomarkers levels for cases and controls, respectively, were 11.25 vs. 3.6 mg/L for hsCRP, 1.41 vs. 0.98 mg/L for D-dimer, and 9.02 vs. 4.20 pg/mL for IL-6 (all p<0.0001). Adjusted odds ratios for the highest versus lowest quartile of baseline biomarker levels were 3.5 (95% CI: 1.9-6.7) for hsCRP, 2.6 (95%CI 1.4-4.9) for D-dimer, and 3.8 (95% CI: 1.8-7.8) for IL-6. These associations were stronger for deaths that occurred more proximal to the biomarker measurements. Levels of D-dimer and IL-6, but not hsCRP, were significantly lower at month 6 after commencing ART compared to baseline (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced HIV disease, elevated pre-ART levels of hsCRP, IL-6 and D-dimer are strongly associated with early mortality after commencing ART. Elevated levels of inflammatory and coagulation biomarkers may identify patients who may benefit from aggressive clinical monitoring after commencing ART. Further investigation of strategies to reduce biomarkers of inflammation and coagulation in patients with advanced HIV disease is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Parent study: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00342355

Risk of Early Death Associated with Baseline Biomarker Levels.

<p>See <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0024243#pone-0024243-t003" target="_blank">Table 3</a>, footnote.</p

Phidisa II Study Design and Flow Diagram for Case-Control Substudy.

<p>Phidisa II Study Design and Flow Diagram for Case-Control Substudy.</p

Risk of Late Death Associated with Baseline Biomarker Levels.

<p>See <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0024243#pone-0024243-t003" target="_blank">Table 3</a>, footnote 1.</p

Median Baseline Characteristics of Deaths and Matched Controls.

a<p>p-value obtained from univariate conditional logistic model. NA = not applicable as characteristic was a matching factor.</p

Baseline levels of hsCRP, IL-6 and D-dimer for Deaths and Matched Controls.

a<p>p-value obtained from a conditional logistic model with a single covariate corresponding to log₁₀ transformed biomarker level.</p

Risk of Death Associated with Baseline Biomarker Levels.

<p>Odds ratios are derived from separate conditional logistic regression models for each biomarker (two unadjusted univariate and two adjusted models for each biomarker, one with quartiles and one with continuous level of biomarker after log₁₀ transformation); adjusted models include HIV disease state, hemoglobin, platelet, aspartate aminotransferase, and white blood cell count (dichotomized at the median). Percentile cut-off points (IQR on log10 scale) are hsCRP: <1.80, 1.80–5.15, 5.15–20.05, ≥20.05 (0.36–1.31); D-dimer: <0.71, 0.71–1.11, 1.11–1.92, ≥1.92 (0.15–0.28); IL-6: <2.14, 2.14–4.92, 4.92–11.22, ≥11.22 (0.33–1.05).</p

Partnership for Research on Ebola VACcination (PREVAC): protocol of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial evaluating three vaccine strategies against Ebola in healthy volunteers in four West African countries

International audienceAbstract Introduction The Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in 2014–2016 in West Africa was the largest on record and provided an opportunity for large clinical trials and accelerated efforts to develop an effective and safe preventative vaccine. Multiple questions regarding the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of EVD vaccines remain unanswered. To address these gaps in the evidence base, the Partnership for Research on Ebola Vaccines (PREVAC) trial was designed. This paper describes the design, methods, and baseline results of the PREVAC trial and discusses challenges that led to different protocol amendments. Methods This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial of three vaccine strategies against the Ebola virus in healthy volunteers 1 year of age and above. The three vaccine strategies being studied are the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine, with and without a booster dose at 56 days, and the Ad26.ZEBOV,MVA-FN-Filo vaccine regimen with Ad26.ZEBOV given as the first dose and the MVA-FN-Filo vaccination given 56 days later. There have been 4 versions of the protocol with those enrolled in Version 4.0 comprising the primary analysis cohort. The primary endpoint is based on the antibody titer against the Ebola virus surface glycoprotein measured 12 months following the final injection. Results From April 2017 to December 2018, a total of 5002 volunteers were screened and 4789 enrolled. Participants were enrolled at 6 sites in four countries (Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali). Of the 4789 participants, 2560 (53%) were adults and 2229 (47%) were children. Those < 18 years of age included 549 (12%) aged 1 to 4 years, 750 (16%) 5 to 11 years, and 930 (19%) aged 12–17 years. At baseline, the median (25th, 75th percentile) antibody titer to Ebola virus glycoprotein for 1090 participants was 72 (50, 116) EU/mL. Discussion The PREVAC trial is evaluating—placebo-controlled—two promising Ebola candidate vaccines in advanced stages of development. The results will address unanswered questions related to short- and long-term safety and immunogenicity for three vaccine strategies in adults and children. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02876328 . Registered on 23 August 2016

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88–1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee