The use of preexposure treatments for HIV prophylaxis

Infection with human immunodeficiency virus remains a global concern with a significant number of incident infections still reported worldwide. The use of prophylaxis prior to exposure to the virus to prevent infection has been a growing area of recent research. Results in nonhuman primates and clinical trials in high-risk patient populations using preexposure prophylaxis have shown promising results in terms of efficacy and safety, especially relating to oral preexposure prophylaxis. The potential use of oral antiretroviral agents traditionally used for human immunodeficiency virus treatment as prophylaxis raises interesting considerations, such as the best agents available for such a role, long-term safety in healthy individuals, and the potential development of resistance to these agents should infection occur. From a public health perspective, the cost-effectiveness of implementing this preventive strategy has not been fully defined at this point in time

Clinical use of CCR5 inhibitors in HIV and beyond

Since the discovery of CCR5 as a coreceptor for HIV entry, there has been interest in blockade of the receptor for treatment and prevention of HIV infection. Although several CCR5 antagonists have been evaluated in clinical trials, only maraviroc has been approved for clinical use in the treatment of HIV-infected patients. The efficacy, safety and resistance profile of CCR5 antagonists with a focus on maraviroc are reviewed here along with their usage in special and emerging clinical situations. Despite being approved for use since 2007, the optimal use of maraviroc has yet to be well-defined in HIV and potentially in other diseases. Maraviroc and other CCR5 antagonists have the potential for use in a variety of other clinical situations such as the prevention of HIV transmission, intensification of HIV treatment and prevention of rejection in organ transplantation. The use of CCR5 antagonists may be potentiated by other agents such as rapamycin which downregulate CCR5 receptors thus decreasing CCR5 density. There may even be a role for their use in combination with other entry inhibitors. However, clinical use of CCR5 antagonists may have negative consequences in diseases such as West Nile and Tick-borne encephalitis virus infections. In summary, CCR5 antagonists have great therapeutic potential in the treatment and prevention of HIV as well as future use in novel situations such as organ transplantation. Their optimal use either alone or in combination with other agents will be defined by further investigation

High Levels of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Blood and Semen of Seropositive Men in Sub-Saharan Africa

High levels of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) replication, as reflected in HIV-1 RNA concentrations in blood and semen, probably contribute to both rapid disease progression and enhanced sexual transmission. Semen and blood were collected from 49 Malawian and 61 US and Swiss (US/Swiss) HIV-1.seropositive men with similar CD4 cell counts and no urethritis or exposure to antiretroviral drugs. Median seminal plasma and blood plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations were > 3-fold (P = .034) and 5-fold (P = .0003) higher, respectively, in the Malawian men. Similar differences were observed in subsets of the Malawian and US/Swiss study groups matched individually for CD4 cell count (P = .035 and P <.002, respectively). These observations may help explain the high rates of HIV-1 sexual transmission and accelerated HIV-1 disease progression in sub-Saharan Afric

A Murine Model to Study Epilepsy and SUDEP Induced by Malaria Infection.

One of the largest single sources of epilepsy in the world is produced as a neurological sequela in survivors of cerebral malaria. Nevertheless, the pathophysiological mechanisms of such epileptogenesis remain unknown and no adjunctive therapy during cerebral malaria has been shown to reduce the rate of subsequent epilepsy. There is no existing animal model of postmalarial epilepsy. In this technical report we demonstrate the first such animal models. These models were created from multiple mouse and parasite strain combinations, so that the epilepsy observed retained universality with respect to genetic background. We also discovered spontaneous sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) in two of our strain combinations. These models offer a platform to enable new preclinical research into mechanisms and prevention of epilepsy and SUDEP

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570