Choice of the initial antiretroviral treatment for HIV-positive individuals in the era of integrase inhibitors

BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe the most frequently prescribed initial antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens in recent years in HIV-positive persons in the Cohort of the Spanish HIV/AIDS Research Network (CoRIS) and to investigate factors associated with the choice of each regimen. METHODS: We analyzed initial ART regimens prescribed in adults participating in CoRIS from 2014 to 2017. Only regimens prescribed in >5% of patients were considered. We used multivariable multinomial regression to estimate Relative Risk Ratios (RRRs) for the association between sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and the choice of the initial regimen. RESULTS: Among 2874 participants, abacavir(ABC)/lamivudine(3TC)/dolutegavir(DTG) was the most frequently prescribed regimen (32.1%), followed by tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC)/elvitegravir(EVG)/cobicistat(COBI) (14.9%), TDF/FTC/rilpivirine (RPV) (14.0%), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/FTC/EVG/COBI (13.7%), TDF/FTC+DTG (10.0%), TDF/FTC+darunavir/ritonavir or darunavir/cobicistat (bDRV) (9.8%) and TDF/FTC+raltegravir (RAL) (5.6%). Compared with ABC/3TC/DTG, starting TDF/FTC/RPV was less likely in patients with CD4100.000 copies/mL. TDF/FTC+DTG was more frequent in those with CD4100.000 copies/mL. TDF/FTC+RAL and TDF/FTC+bDRV were also more frequent among patients with CD4<200 cells//muL and with transmission categories other than men who have sex with men. Compared with ABC/3TC/DTG, the prescription of other initial ART regimens decreased from 2014-2015 to 2016-2017 with the exception of TDF/FTC+DTG. Differences in the choice of the initial ART regimen were observed by hospitals' location. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of initial ART regimens is consistent with Spanish guidelines' recommendations, but is also clearly influenced by physician's perception based on patient's clinical and sociodemographic variables and by the prescribing hospital location

Effectiveness of the combination elvitegravir/cobicistat/tenofovir/emtricitabine (EVG/COB/TFV/FTC) plus darunavir among treatment-experienced patients in clinical practice : A multicentre cohort study

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness and tolerability of the combination elvitegravir/cobicistat/tenofovir/emtricitabine plus darunavir (EVG/COB/TFV/FTC + DRV) in treatment-experienced patients from the cohort of the Spanish HIV/AIDS Research Network (CoRIS). Methods: Treatment-experienced patients starting treatment with EVG/COB/TFV/FTC + DRV during the years 2014-2018 and with more than 24 weeks of follow-up were included. TFV could be administered either as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or tenofovir alafenamide. We evaluated virological response, defined as viral load (VL) < 50 copies/ml and < 200 copies/ml at 24 and 48 weeks after starting this regimen, stratified by baseline VL (< 50 or ≥ 50 copies/ml at the start of the regimen). Results: We included 39 patients (12.8% women). At baseline, 10 (25.6%) patients had VL < 50 copies/ml and 29 (74.4%) had ≥ 50 copies/ml. Among patients with baseline VL < 50 copies/ml, 85.7% and 80.0% had VL < 50 copies/ml at 24 and 48 weeks, respectively, and 100% had VL < 200 copies/ml at 24 and 48 weeks. Among patients with baseline VL ≥ 50 copies/ml, 42.3% and 40.9% had VL < 50 copies/ml and 69.2% and 68.2% had VL < 200 copies/ml at 24 and 48 weeks. During the first 48 weeks, no patients changed their treatment due to toxicity, and 4 patients (all with baseline VL ≥ 50 copies/ml) changed due to virological failure. Conclusions: EVG/COB/TFV/FTC + DRV was well tolerated and effective in treatment-experienced patients with undetectable viral load as a simplification strategy, allowing once-daily, two-pill regimen with three antiretroviral drug classes. Effectiveness was low in patients with detectable viral loads

COVID-19 in hospitalized HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients : A matched study

CatedresObjectives: We compared the characteristics and clinical outcomes of hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 with [people with HIV (PWH)] and without (non-PWH) HIV co-infection in Spain during the first wave of the pandemic. Methods: This was a retrospective matched cohort study. People with HIV were identified by reviewing clinical records and laboratory registries of 10 922 patients in active-follow-up within the Spanish HIV Research Network (CoRIS) up to 30 June 2020. Each hospitalized PWH was matched with five non-PWH of the same age and sex randomly selected from COVID-19@Spain, a multicentre cohort of 4035 patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19. The main outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Results: Forty-five PWH with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 were identified in CoRIS, 21 of whom were hospitalized. A total of 105 age/sex-matched controls were selected from the COVID-19@Spain cohort. The median age in both groups was 53 (Q1-Q3, 46-56) years, and 90.5% were men. In PWH, 19.1% were injecting drug users, 95.2% were on antiretroviral therapy, 94.4% had HIV-RNA < 50 copies/mL, and the median (Q1-Q3) CD4 count was 595 (349-798) cells/μL. No statistically significant differences were found between PWH and non-PWH in number of comorbidities, presenting signs and symptoms, laboratory parameters, radiology findings and severity scores on admission. Corticosteroids were administered to 33.3% and 27.4% of PWH and non-PWH, respectively (P = 0.580). Deaths during admission were documented in two (9.5%) PWH and 12 (11.4%) non-PWH (P = 0.800). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that well-controlled HIV infection does not modify the clinical presentation or worsen clinical outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalization

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX). Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

GWAS and meta-analysis identifies 49 genetic variants underlying critical COVID-19

Data availability: Downloadable summary data are available through the GenOMICC data site (https://genomicc.org/data). Summary statistics are available, but without the 23andMe summary statistics, except for the 10,000 most significant hits, for which full summary statistics are available. The full GWAS summary statistics for the 23andMe discovery dataset will be made available through 23andMe to qualified researchers under an agreement with 23andMe that protects the privacy of the 23andMe participants. For further information and to apply for access to the data, see the 23andMe website (https://research.23andMe.com/dataset-access/). All individual-level genotype and whole-genome sequencing data (for both academic and commercial uses) can be accessed through the UKRI/HDR UK Outbreak Data Analysis Platform (https://odap.ac.uk). A restricted dataset for a subset of GenOMICC participants is also available through the Genomics England data service. Monocyte RNA-seq data are available under the title ‘Monocyte gene expression data’ within the Oxford University Research Archives (https://doi.org/10.5287/ora-ko7q2nq66). Sequencing data will be made freely available to organizations and researchers to conduct research in accordance with the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research through a data access agreement. Sequencing data have been deposited at the European Genome–Phenome Archive (EGA), which is hosted by the EBI and the CRG, under accession number EGAS00001007111.Extended data figures and tables are available online at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06034-3#Sec21 .Supplementary information is available online at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06034-3#Sec22 .Code availability: Code to calculate the imputation of P values on the basis of SNPs in linkage disequilibrium is available at GitHub (https://github.com/baillielab/GenOMICC_GWAS).Acknowledgements: We thank the members of the Banco Nacional de ADN and the GRA@CE cohort group; and the research participants and employees of 23andMe for making this work possible. A full list of contributors who have provided data that were collated in the HGI project, including previous iterations, is available online (https://www.covid19hg.org/acknowledgements).Change history: 11 July 2023: A Correction to this paper has been published at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06383-z. -- In the version of this article initially published, the name of Ana Margarita Baldión-Elorza, of the SCOURGE Consortium, appeared incorrectly (as Ana María Baldion) and has now been amended in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.Copyright © The Author(s) 2023, Critical illness in COVID-19 is an extreme and clinically homogeneous disease phenotype that we have previously shown1 to be highly efficient for discovery of genetic associations2. Despite the advanced stage of illness at presentation, we have shown that host genetics in patients who are critically ill with COVID-19 can identify immunomodulatory therapies with strong beneficial effects in this group3. Here we analyse 24,202 cases of COVID-19 with critical illness comprising a combination of microarray genotype and whole-genome sequencing data from cases of critical illness in the international GenOMICC (11,440 cases) study, combined with other studies recruiting hospitalized patients with a strong focus on severe and critical disease: ISARIC4C (676 cases) and the SCOURGE consortium (5,934 cases). To put these results in the context of existing work, we conduct a meta-analysis of the new GenOMICC genome-wide association study (GWAS) results with previously published data. We find 49 genome-wide significant associations, of which 16 have not been reported previously. To investigate the therapeutic implications of these findings, we infer the structural consequences of protein-coding variants, and combine our GWAS results with gene expression data using a monocyte transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) model, as well as gene and protein expression using Mendelian randomization. We identify potentially druggable targets in multiple systems, including inflammatory signalling (JAK1), monocyte–macrophage activation and endothelial permeability (PDE4A), immunometabolism (SLC2A5 and AK5), and host factors required for viral entry and replication (TMPRSS2 and RAB2A).GenOMICC was funded by Sepsis Research (the Fiona Elizabeth Agnew Trust), the Intensive Care Society, a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship (to J.K.B., 223164/Z/21/Z), the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Illumina, LifeArc, the Medical Research Council, UKRI, a BBSRC Institute Program Support Grant to the Roslin Institute (BBS/E/D/20002172, BBS/E/D/10002070 and BBS/E/D/30002275) and UKRI grants MC_PC_20004, MC_PC_19025, MC_PC_1905 and MRNO2995X/1. A.D.B. acknowledges funding from the Wellcome PhD training fellowship for clinicians (204979/Z/16/Z), the Edinburgh Clinical Academic Track (ECAT) programme. This research is supported in part by the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation (grant MC_PC_20029). Laboratory work was funded by a Wellcome Intermediate Clinical Fellowship to B.F. (201488/Z/16/Z). We acknowledge the staff at NHS Digital, Public Health England and the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre who provided clinical data on the participants; and the National Institute for Healthcare Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) and the Chief Scientist’s Office (Scotland), who facilitate recruitment into research studies in NHS hospitals, and to the global ISARIC and InFACT consortia. GenOMICC genotype controls were obtained using UK Biobank Resource under project 788 funded by Roslin Institute Strategic Programme Grants from the BBSRC (BBS/E/D/10002070 and BBS/E/D/30002275) and Health Data Research UK (HDR-9004 and HDR-9003). UK Biobank data were used in the GSMR analyses presented here under project 66982. The UK Biobank was established by the Wellcome Trust medical charity, Medical Research Council, Department of Health, Scottish Government and the Northwest Regional Development Agency. It has also had funding from the Welsh Assembly Government, British Heart Foundation and Diabetes UK. The work of L.K. was supported by an RCUK Innovation Fellowship from the National Productivity Investment Fund (MR/R026408/1). J.Y. is supported by the Westlake Education Foundation. SCOURGE is funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (COV20_00622 to A.C., PI20/00876 to C.F.), European Union (ERDF) ‘A way of making Europe’, Fundación Amancio Ortega, Banco de Santander (to A.C.), Cabildo Insular de Tenerife (CGIEU0000219140 ‘Apuestas científicas del ITER para colaborar en la lucha contra la COVID-19’ to C.F.) and Fundación Canaria Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Canarias (PIFIISC20/57 to C.F.). We also acknowledge the contribution of the Centro National de Genotipado (CEGEN) and Centro de Supercomputación de Galicia (CESGA) for funding this project by providing supercomputing infrastructures. A.D.L. is a recipient of fellowships from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)-Brazil (309173/2019-1 and 201527/2020-0)