Anti-influenza hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin for adults with influenza A or B infection (FLU-IVIG): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Since the 1918 influenza pandemic, non-randomised studies and small clinical trials have suggested that convalescent plasma or anti-influenza hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) might have clinical benefit for patients with influenza infection, but definitive data do not exist. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hIVIG in a randomised controlled trial. Methods: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was planned for 45 hospitals in Argentina, Australia, Denmark, Greece, Mexico, Spain, Thailand, UK, and the USA over five influenza seasons from 2013–14 to 2017–18. Adults (≥18 years of age) were admitted for hospital treatment with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B infection and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard care plus either a single 500-mL infusion of high-titre hIVIG (0·25 g/kg bodyweight, 24·75 g maximum; hIVIG group) or saline placebo (placebo group). Eligible patients had a National Early Warning score of 2 points or greater at the time of screening and their symptoms began no more than 7 days before randomisation. Pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded, as well as any patients for whom the treatment would present a health risk. Separate randomisation schedules were generated for each participating clinical site using permuted block randomisation. Treatment assignments were obtained using a web-based application by the site pharmacist who then masked the solution for infusion. Patients and investigators were masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was a six-category ordinal outcome of clinical status at day 7, ranging in severity from death to resumption of normal activities after discharge. The choice of day 7 was based on haemagglutination inhibition titres from a pilot study. It was analysed with a proportional odds model, using all six categories to estimate a common odds ratio (OR). An OR greater than 1 indicated that, for a given category, patients in the hIVIG group were more likely to be in a better category than those in the placebo group. Prespecified primary analyses for safety and efficacy were based on patients who received an infusion and for whom eligibility could be confirmed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02287467. Findings: 313 patients were enrolled in 34 sites between Dec 11, 2014, and May 28, 2018. We also used data from 16 patients enrolled at seven of the 34 sites during the pilot study between Jan 15, 2014, and April 10, 2014. 168 patients were randomly assigned to the hIVIG group and 161 to the placebo group. 21 patients were excluded (12 from the hIVIG group and 9 from the placebo group) because they did not receive an infusion or their eligibility could not be confirmed. Thus, 308 were included in the primary analysis. hIVIG treatment produced a robust rise in haemagglutination inhibition titres against influenza A and smaller rises in influenza B titres. Based on the proportional odds model, the OR on day 7 was 1·25 (95% CI 0·79–1·97; p=0·33). In subgroup analyses for the primary outcome, the OR in patients with influenza A was 0·94 (0·55–1·59) and was 3·19 (1·21–8·42) for those with influenza B (interaction p=0·023). Through 28 days of follow-up, 47 (30%) of 156 patients in the hIVIG group and in 45 (30%) of 152 patients in the placebo group had the composite safety outcome of death, a serious adverse event, or a grade 3 or 4 adverse event (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·70–1·60; p=0·79). Six (4%) patients in the hIVIG group and five (3%) in the placebo group died, but these deaths were not necessarily related to treatment. Interpretation: When administered alongside standard care (most commonly oseltamivir), hIVIG was not superior to placebo for adults hospitalised with influenza infection. By contrast with our prespecified subgroup hypothesis that hIVIG would result in more favourable responses in patients with influenza A than B, we found the opposite effect. The clinical benefit of hIVIG for patients with influenza B is supported by antibody affinity analyses, but confirmation is warranted. Funding: NIAID and NIH. Partial support was provided by the Medical Research Council (MRC_UU_12023/23) and the Danish National Research Foundation

Host and disease factors are associated with cognitive function in European HIV-infected adults prior to initiation of antiretroviral therapy

Deficits in cognitive function remain prevalent in HIV-infected individuals. The aim of this European multicentre study was to assess factors associated with cognitive function in antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve HIV-infected subjects at the time of enrolment in the NEAT 001/Agence Nationale de Recherche sur le SIDA (ANRS) 143 study

J Antimicrob Chemother

Objectives NEAT001/ANRS143 demonstrated non-inferiority of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir (800/100 mg) + twice-daily raltegravir (400 mg) versus darunavir/ritonavir + tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (245/200 mg once daily) in treatment-naive patients. We investigated the population pharmacokinetics of darunavir, ritonavir, tenofovir and emtricitabine and relationships with demographics, genetic polymorphisms and virological failure. Methods Non-linear mixed-effects models (NONMEM v. 7.3) were applied to determine pharmacokinetic parameters and assess demographic covariates and relationships with SNPs (SLCO3A1, SLCO1B1, NR1I2, NR1I3, CYP3A5*3, CYP3A4*22, ABCC2, ABCC10, ABCG2 and SCL47A1). The relationship between model-predicted darunavir AUC0–24 and C24 with time to virological failure was evaluated by Cox regression. Results Of 805 enrolled, 716, 720, 347 and 361 were included in the darunavir, ritonavir, tenofovir and emtricitabine models, respectively (11% female, 83% Caucasian). No significant effect of patient demographics or SNPs was observed for darunavir or tenofovir apparent oral clearance (CL/F); coadministration of raltegravir did not influence darunavir or ritonavir CL/F. Ritonavir CL/F decreased by 23% in NR1I2 63396C>T carriers and emtricitabine CL/F was linearly associated with creatinine clearance (P<0.001). No significant relationship was demonstrated between darunavir AUC0–24 or C24 and time to virological failure [HR (95% CI): 2.28 (0.53–9.80), P=0.269; and 1.82 (0.61–5.41), P=0.279, respectively]. Conclusions Darunavir concentrations were unaltered in the presence of raltegravir and not associated with virological failure. Polymorphisms investigated had little impact on study-drug pharmacokinetics. Darunavir/ritonavir + raltegravir may be an appropriate option for patients experiencing NRTI-associated toxicity

Antiretroviral resistance at virological failure in the NEAT 001/ANRS 143 trial: Raltegravir plus darunavir/ritonavir or tenofovir/emtricitabine plus darunavir/ritonavir as first-line ART

OBJECTIVES: To describe the pattern of drug resistance at virological failure in the NEAT001/ANRS143 trial (first-line treatment with ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus either tenofovir/emtricitabine or raltegravir). METHODS: Genotypic testing was performed at baseline for reverse transcriptase (RT) and protease genes and for RT, protease and integrase (IN) genes for patients with a confirmed viral load (VL) >50 copies/mL or any single VL >500 copies/mL during or after week 32. RESULTS: A resistance test was obtained for 110/805 (13.7%) randomized participants qualifying for resistance analysis (61/401 of participants in the raltegravir arm and 49/404 of participants in the tenofovir/emtricitabine arm). No resistance-associated mutation (RAM) was observed in the tenofovir/emtricitabine plus darunavir/ritonavir arm, and all further analyses were limited to the raltegravir plus darunavir arm. In this group, 15/55 (27.3%) participants had viruses with IN RAMs (12 N155H alone, 1 N155H + Q148R, 1 F121Y and 1 Y143C), 2/53 (3.8%) with nucleotide analogue RT inhibitor RAMs (K65R, M41L) and 1/57 (1.8%) with primary protease RAM (L76V). The frequency of IN mutations at failure was significantly associated with baseline VL: 7.1% for a VL of <100,000 copies/mL, 25.0% for a VL of ≥100,000 copies/mL and <500,000 copies/mL and 53.8% for a VL of ≥500,000 copies/mL (PTREND = 0.007). Of note, 4/15 participants with IN RAM had a VL < 200 copies/mL at time of testing. CONCLUSIONS: In the NEAT001/ANRS143 trial, there was no RAM at virological failure in the standard tenofovir/emtricitabine plus darunavir/ritonavir regimen, contrasting with a rate of 29.5% (mostly IN mutations) in the raltegravir plus darunavir/ritonavir NRTI-sparing regimen. The cumulative risk of IN RAM after 96 weeks of follow-up in participants initiating ART with raltegravir plus darunavir/ritonavir was 3.9%

Bone mineral density and inflammatory and bone biomarkers after darunavir-ritonavir combined with either raltegravir or tenofovir-emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1: A substudy of the NEAT001/ANRS143 randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Osteopenia, osteoporosis, and low bone mineral density are frequent in patients with HIV. We assessed the 96 week loss of bone mineral density associated with a nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NtRTI)-sparing regimen. METHODS: Antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV were enrolled in 78 clinical sites in 15 European countries into a randomised (1:1), open-label, non-inferiority trial (NEAT001/ANRS143) assessing the efficacy and safety of darunavir (800 mg once per day) and ritonavir (100 mg once per day) plus either raltegravir (400 mg twice per day; NtRTI-sparing regimen) or tenofovir (245 mg once per day) and emtricitabine (200 mg once per day; standard regimen). For this bone-health substudy, 20 of the original sites in six countries participated, and any patient enrolled at one of these sites who met the following criteria was eligible: plasma viral loads greater than 1000 HIV RNA copies per mL and CD4 cell counts of fewer than 500 cells per μL, except in those with symptomatic HIV infection. Exclusion criteria included treatment for malignant disease, testing positive for hepatitis B virus surface antigen, pregnancy, creatinine clearance less than 60 mL per min, treatment for osteoporosis, systemic steroids, or oestrogen-replacement therapy. The two primary endpoints were the mean percentage changes in lumbar spine and total hip bone mineral density at week 48, assessed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. We did the analysis with an intention-to-treat-exposed approach with antiretroviral modifications ignored. The parent trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01066962, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Aug 2, 2010, and April 18, 2011, we recruited 146 patients to the substudy, 70 assigned to the NtRTI-sparing regimen and 76 to the standard regimen. DXA data were available for 129, 121 and 107 patients at baseline, 48 and 96 weeks respectively. At week 48, the mean percentage loss in bone mineral density in the lumbar spine was greater in the standard group than in the NtRTI-sparing group (mean percentage change -2.49% vs -1.00%, mean percentage difference -1.49, 95% CI -2.94 to -0.04; p=0.046). Total hip bone mineral density loss was similarly greater at week 48 in the standard group than in the NtRTI-sparing group (mean percentage change -3.30% vs -0.73%; mean percentage difference -2.57, 95% CI -3.75 to -1.35; p<0.0001). Seven new fractures occurred during the trial (two in the NtRTI-sparing group and five in the standard group). INTERPRETATION: A raltegravir-based regimen was associated with significantly less loss of bone mineral density than a standard regimen containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, and might be a treatment option for patients at high risk of osteopenia or osteoporosis who are not suitable for NtRTIs such as abacavir or tenofovir alafenamide

Colorectal Endoscopic Stenting Trial (CReST) for obstructing left-sided colorectal cancer: randomized clinical trial

Background Colorectal cancer often presents with obstruction needing urgent, potentially life-saving decompression. The comparative efficacy and safety of endoluminal stenting versus emergency surgery as initial treatment for such patients is uncertain. Methods Patients with left-sided colonic obstruction and radiological features of carcinoma were randomized to endoluminal stenting using a combined endoscopic/fluoroscopic technique followed by elective surgery 1–4 weeks later, or surgical decompression with or without tumour resection. Treatment allocation was via a central randomization service using a minimization procedure stratified by curative intent, primary tumour site, and severity score (Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation). Co-primary outcome measures were duration of hospital stay and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were stoma formation, stenting completion and complication rates, perioperative morbidity, 6-month survival, 3-year recurrence, resource use, adherence to chemotherapy, and quality of life. Analyses were undertaken by intention to treat. Results Between 23 April 2009 and 22 December 2014, 245 patients from 39 hospitals were randomized. Stenting was attempted in 119 of 123 allocated patients (96.7 per cent), achieving relief of obstruction in 98 of 119 (82.4 per cent). For the 89 per cent treated with curative intent, there were no significant differences in 30-day postoperative mortality (3.6 per cent (4 of 110) versus 5.6 per cent (6 of 107); P = 0.48), or duration of hospital stay (median 19 (i.q.r. 11–34) versus 18 (10–28) days; P = 0.94) between stenting followed by delayed elective surgery and emergency surgery. Among patients undergoing potentially curative treatment, stoma formation occurred less frequently in those allocated to stenting than those allocated to immediate surgery (47 of 99 (47.5 per cent) versus 72 of 106 (67.9 per cent); P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in perioperative morbidity, critical care use, quality of life, 3-year recurrence or mortality between treatment groups. Conclusion Stenting as a bridge to surgery reduces stoma formation without detrimental effects. Registration number: ISRCTN13846816 (http://www.controlled-trials.com)

Opportunistic infections and AIDS malignancies early after initiating combination antiretroviral therapy in high-income countries

Background: There is little information on the incidence of AIDS-defining events which have been reported in the literature to be associated with immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) after combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) initiation. These events include tuberculosis, mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), herpes simplex virus (HSV), Kaposi sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), cryptococcosis and candidiasis. Methods: We identified individuals in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration, which includes data from six European countries and the US, who were HIV-positive between 1996 and 2013, antiretroviral therapy naive, aged at least 18 years, hadCD4+ cell count and HIV-RNA measurements and had been AIDS-free for at least 1 month between those measurements and the start of follow-up. For each AIDS-defining event, we estimated the hazard ratio for no cART versus less than 3 and at least 3 months since cART initiation, adjusting for time-varying CD4+ cell count and HIV-RNA via inverse probability weighting. Results: Out of 96 562 eligible individuals (78% men) with median (interquantile range) follow-up of 31 [13,65] months, 55 144 initiated cART. The number of cases varied between 898 for tuberculosis and 113 for PML. Compared with non-cART initiation, the hazard ratio (95% confidence intervals) up to 3 months after cART initiation were 1.21 (0.90-1.63) for tuberculosis, 2.61 (1.05-6.49) for MAC, 1.17 (0.34-4.08) for CMV retinitis, 1.18 (0.62-2.26) for PML, 1.21 (0.83-1.75) for HSV, 1.18 (0.87-1.58) for Kaposi sarcoma, 1.56 (0.82-2.95) for NHL, 1.11 (0.56-2.18) for cryptococcosis and 0.77 (0.40-1.49) for candidiasis. Conclusion: With the potential exception of mycobacterial infections, unmasking IRIS does not appear to be a common complication of cART initiation in high-income countries