Rationale and design of the PRAETORIAN-COVID trial:A double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with valsartan for PRevention of Acute rEspiraTORy dIstress syndrome in hospitAlized patieNts with SARS-COV-2 Infection Disease

There is much debate on the use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in severe acute respiratory syndrome–coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)–infected patients. Although it has been suggested that ARBs might lead to a higher susceptibility and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection, experimental data suggest that ARBs may reduce acute lung injury via blocking angiotensin-II–mediated pulmonary permeability, inflammation, and fibrosis. However, despite these hypotheses, specific studies on ARBs in SARS-CoV-2 patients are lacking. Methods: The PRAETORIAN-COVID trial is a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled 1:1 randomized clinical trial in adult hospitalized SARS-CoV-2–infected patients (n = 651). The primary aim is to investigate the effect of the ARB valsartan compared to placebo on the composite end point of admission to an intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, or death within 14 days of randomization. The active-treatment arm will receive valsartan in a dosage titrated to blood pressure up to a maximum of 160 mg bid, and the placebo arm will receive matching placebo. Treatment duration will be 14 days, or until the occurrence of the primary end point or until hospital discharge, if either of these occurs within 14 days. The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04335786, 2020). The PRAETORIAN-COVID trial is a double-blind, placebo-controlled 1:1 randomized trial to assess the effect of valsartan compared to placebo on the occurrence of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and death in hospitalized SARS-CoV-2–infected patients. The results of this study might impact the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 patients globally

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

Unexplained Hyponatremia: Seek and You Will Find

Background: Hyponatremia is a common diagnostic challenge. Methods: An index case is presented to discuss the diagnostic approach to chronic and unexplained hyponatremia. Results: The index case concerns a 60-year-old man with chronic hepatitis C and previous alcohol use who was referred because of weight loss, poor dietary intake, dizzy spells, and unexplained hyponatremia (serum sodium 124-129 mmol/l). A low urine sodium concentration (20 mmol/l) and a low fractional sodium excretion (0.07%) were observed repeatedly, while urine osmolality was high (>400 mosm/kg). The central questions in this case are: what is the differential diagnosis, which tests are needed to confirm or exclude a diagnosis, and how would you proceed if no obvious cause is found? Conclusions: The diagnosis of this case of unexplained hyponatremia was unexpected, but important because it was treatable. The challenges and caveats of the diagnostic approach to hyponatremia are discussed. A diagnostic algorithm to guide clinicians who are confronted with similar cases is presented. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Base

Effects of potent neutralizing antibodies from convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection

In a randomized clinical trial of 86 hospitalized COVID-19 patients comparing standard care to treatment with 300mL convalescent plasma containing high titers of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, no overall clinical benefit was observed. Using a comprehensive translational approach, we unravel the virological and immunological responses following treatment to disentangle which COVID-19 patients may benefit and should be the focus of future studies. Convalescent plasma is safe, does not improve survival, has no effect on the disease course, nor does plasma enhance viral clearance in the respiratory tract, influence SARS-CoV-2 antibody development or serum proinflammatory cytokines levels. Here, we show that the vast majority of patients already had potent neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at hospital admission and with comparable titers to carefully selected plasma donors. This resulted in the decision to terminate the trial prematurely. Treatment with convalescent plasma should be studied early in the disease course or at least preceding autologous humoral response development

Effects of potent neutralizing antibodies from convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection

In a randomized clinical trial of 86 hospitalized COVID-19 patients comparing standard care to treatment with 300mL convalescent plasma containing high titers of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, no overall clinical benefit was observed. Using a comprehensive translational approach, we unravel the virological and immunological responses following treatment to disentangle which COVID-19 patients may benefit and should be the focus of future studies. Convalescent plasma is safe, does not improve survival, has no effect on the disease course, nor does plasma enhance viral clearance in the respiratory tract, influence SARS-CoV-2 antibody development or serum proinflammatory cytokines levels. Here, we show that the vast majority of patients already had potent neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at hospital admission and with comparable titers to carefully selected plasma donors. This resulted in the decision to terminate the trial prematurely. Treatment with convalescent plasma should be studied early in the disease course or at least preceding autologous humoral response development

Effects of potent neutralizing antibodies from convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection

In a randomized clinical trial of 86 hospitalized COVID-19 patients comparing standard care to treatment with 300mL convalescent plasma containing high titers of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, no overall clinical benefit was observed. Using a comprehensive translational approach, we unravel the virological and immunological responses following treatment to disentangle which COVID-19 patients may benefit and should be the focus of future studies. Convalescent plasma is safe, does not improve survival, has no effect on the disease course, nor does plasma enhance viral clearance in the respiratory tract, influence SARS-CoV-2 antibody development or serum proinflammatory cytokines levels. Here, we show that the vast majority of patients already had potent neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at hospital admission and with comparable titers to carefully selected plasma donors. This resulted in the decision to terminate the trial prematurely. Treatment with convalescent plasma should be studied early in the disease course or at least preceding autologous humoral response development.</p

High treatment uptake in human immunodeficiency virus/ hepatitis C virus-coinfected patients after unrestricted access to direct-acting antivirals in the Netherlands

Background The Netherlands has provided unrestricted access to direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) since November 2015. We analyzed the nationwide hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment uptake among patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and HCV. Methods Data were obtained from the ATHENA HIV observational cohort in which >98% of HIV-infected patients ever registered since 1998 are included. Patients were included if they ever had 1 positive HCV RNA result, did not have spontaneous clearance, and were known to still be in care. Treatment uptake and outcome were assessed. When patients were treated more than once, data were included from only the most recent treatment episode. Data were updated until February 2017. In addition, each treatment center was queried in April 2017 for a data update on DAA treatment and achieved sustained virological response. Results Of 23574 HIV-infected patients ever linked to care, 1471 HCV-coinfected patients (69% men who have sex with men, 15% persons who [formerly] injected drugs, and 15% with another HIV transmission route) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, 87% (1284 of 1471) had ever initiated HCV treatment between 2000 and 2017, 76% (1124 of 1471) had their HCV infection cured; DAA treatment results were pending in 6% (92 of 1471). Among men who have sex with men, 83% (844 of 1022) had their HCV infection cured, and DAA treatment results were pending in 6% (66 of 1022). Overall, 187 patients had never initiated treatment, DAAs had failed in 14, and a pegylated interferon-alfa–based regimen had failed in 54. Conclusions Fifteen months after unrestricted DAA availability the majority of HIV/HCV-coinfected patients in the Netherlands have their HCV infection cured (76%) or are awaiting DAA treatment results (6%). This rapid treatment scale-up may contribute to future HCV elimination among these patients

Long-term (180-Day) outcomes in critically Ill patients with COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP randomized clinical trial

Importance The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months

A highly virulent variant of HIV-1 circulating in the Netherlands

We discovered a highly virulent variant of subtype-B HIV-1 in the Netherlands. One hundred nine individuals with this variant had a 0.54 to 0.74 log10 increase (i.e., a ~3.5-fold to 5.5-fold increase) in viral load compared with, and exhibited CD4 cell decline twice as fast as, 6604 individuals with other subtype-B strains. Without treatment, advanced HIV-CD4 cell counts below 350 cells per cubic millimeter, with long-term clinical consequences-is expected to be reached, on average, 9 months after diagnosis for individuals in their thirties with this variant. Age, sex, suspected mode of transmission, and place of birth for the aforementioned 109 individuals were typical for HIV-positive people in the Netherlands, which suggests that the increased virulence is attributable to the viral strain. Genetic sequence analysis suggests that this variant arose in the 1990s from de novo mutation, not recombination, with increased transmissibility and an unfamiliar molecular mechanism of virulence