Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Washington, D.C.: Prevalence of antiretroviral resistance in treatment naïve patients from 2007 to 2010

HIV treatment has been greatly impacted by transmitted resistance to antiretrovirals (ARV). Several studies have documented resistance in naïve individuals and estimates of transmitted drug resistance mutations range from \u3c5% to as high as 25%. Washington, D.C. has one of the highest human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence rates in the United States (3.2% in 2009), but local data regarding the frequency of major mutations and antiretroviral (ARV) resistance has been limited. Medical records of HIV positive, ARV-naïve adults at two facilities in Washington, D.C., The George Washington University Medical Center and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, were retrospectively analyzed in subjects who had genotypic resistance testing from 2007 to 2010. Of 407 ARV-naïve patients, at least one transmitted drug resistance mutation was detected in 17% of our patients, with non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase (NNRTI) mutations observed in 15%. Among patients with at least one reverse transcriptase (RT) or major protease region (Pr) resistance mutation, 85% had resistance against a single ARV class. Dual and triple class resistance mutations were seen in 8 patients (2%) and 3 patients (0.7%), respectively. Most of the multiple class resistance was seen in 2010. A gradual increase in NNRTI resistance was noted during 2008 to 2010. Our prevalence of transmitted RT, major Pr mutations (17.4%) and ARV resistance (8.6%) were high but similar to rates reported by others within the United States. Given the high HIV prevalence in the District of Columbia, this has important implications for treatment of these ARV-naïve patients

True durability: HIV virologic suppression in an urban clinic and implications for timing of intensive adherence efforts and viral load monitoring.

Although the majority of HIV-infected patients who begin potent antiretroviral therapy should expect long-term virologic suppression, the realities in practice are less certain. Durability of viral suppression was examined to define the best timing of targeted adherence strategies and intensive viral load monitoring in an urban clinic population with multiple challenges to ART adherence. We examined the risk of viral rebound for patients who achieved two consecutive viral loads lower than the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) within 390 days. For 791 patients with two viral loads below the LLOQ, viral rebound \u3eLLOQ from the first viral load was 36.9 % (95 % CI 32.2-41.6) in the first year, 26.9 % (95 % CI 21.7-32.1) in the year following one year of viral suppression, and 24.6 % (95 % CI 18.4-30.9) in the year following 2 years of viral suppression. However, for patients with CD4 ≥300 cells/µl who had 3-6 years of virologic suppression, the risk of viral rebound was very low. At the population level, the risk of viral rebound in a complex urban clinic population is surprisingly high even out to 3 years. Intensified monitoring and adherence efforts should target this high risk period. Thereafter, confidence in truly durable virologic suppression is improved

True durability: HIV virologic suppression in an urban clinic and implications for timing of intensive adherence efforts and viral load monitoring

Although the majority of HIV-infected patients who begin potent antiretroviral therapy should expect long-term virologic suppression, the realities in practice are less certain. Durability of viral suppression was examined to define the best timing of targeted adherence strategies and intensive viral load monitoring in an urban clinic population with multiple challenges to ART adherence. We examined the risk of viral rebound for patients who achieved two consecutive viral loads lower than the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) within 390 days. For 791 patients with two viral loads below the LLOQ, viral rebound \u3eLLOQ from the first viral load was 36.9 % (95 % CI 32.2–41.6) in the first year, 26.9 % (95 % CI 21.7–32.1) in the year following one year of viral suppression, and 24.6 % (95 % CI 18.4–30.9) in the year following 2 years of viral suppression. However, for patients with CD4 ≥300 cells/µl who had 3–6 years of virologic suppression, the risk of viral rebound was very low. At the population level, the risk of viral rebound in a complex urban clinic population is surprisingly high even out to 3 years. Intensified monitoring and adherence efforts should target this high risk period. Thereafter, confidence in truly durable virologic suppression is improved

Development and Validation of an Algorithm to Identify Patients Newly Diagnosed with HIV Infection from Electronic Health Records

An algorithm was developed that identifies patients with new diagnoses of HIV infection by the use of electronic health records. It was based on the sequence of HIV diagnostic tests, entry of ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes, and measurement of HIV-1 plasma RNA levels in persons undergoing HIV testing from 2006 to 2012 at four large urban Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities. Source data were obtained from the VHA National Corporate Data Warehouse. Chart review was done by a single trained abstractor to validate site-level data regarding new diagnoses. We identified 1,153 patients as having a positive HIV diagnostic test within the VHA. Of these, 57% were determined to have prior knowledge of their HIV status from testing at non-VHA facilities. An algorithm based on the sequence and results of available laboratory tests and ICD-9-CM entries identified new HIV diagnoses with a sensitivity of 83%, specificity of 86%, positive predictive value of 85%, and negative predictive value of 90%. There were no meaningful demographic or clinical differences between newly diagnosed patients who were correctly or incorrectly classified by the algorithm. We have validated a method to identify cases of new diagnosis of HIV infection in large administrative datasets. This method, which has a sensitivity of 83%, specificity of 86%, positive predictive value of 85%, and negative predictive value of 90% can be used in analyses of the epidemiology of newly diagnosed HIV infection

Deep-sequencing of viral genomes from a large and diverse cohort of treatment-naive HIV-infected persons shows associations between intrahost genetic diversity and viral load.

BACKGROUND Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV) typically results from transmission of a small and genetically uniform viral population. Following transmission, the virus population becomes more diverse because of recombination and acquired mutations through genetic drift and selection. Viral intrahost genetic diversity remains a major obstacle to the cure the HIV; however, the association between intrahost diversity and disease progression markers has not been investigated in large and diverse cohorts for which the majority of the genome has been deep-sequenced. Viral load (VL) is a key progression marker and understanding of its relationship to viral intrahost genetic diversity could help design future strategies for HIV monitoring and treatment. METHODS We analysed deep-sequenced viral genomes from 2,650 treatment-naive HIV-infected persons to measure the intrahost genetic diversity of 2,447 genomic codon positions as calculated by Shannon entropy. We tested for associations between VL and amino acid (AA) entropy accounting for sex, age, race, duration of infection, and HIV population structure. RESULTS We confirmed that the intrahost genetic diversity is highest in the env gene. Furthermore, we showed that mean Shannon entropy is significantly associated with VL, especially in infections of >24 months duration. We identified 16 significant associations between VL (p-value<2.0x10-5) and Shannon entropy at AA positions which in our association analysis explained 13% of the variance in VL. Finally, equivalent analysis based on variation in HIV consensus sequences explained only 2% of VL variance. CONCLUSIONS Our results elucidate that viral intrahost genetic diversity is associated with VL and could be used as a better disease progression marker than HIV consensus sequence variants, especially in infections of longer duration. We emphasize that viral intrahost diversity should be considered when studying viral genomes and infection outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION Samples included in this study were derived from participants who consented in the clinical trial, START (NCT00867048) (23), run by the International Network for Strategic Initiatives in Global HIV Trials (INSIGHT). All the participant sites are listed here: http://www.insight-trials.org/start/my_phpscript/participating.php?by=site

Advancing Crop Transformation in the Era of Genome Editing

Plant transformation has enabled fundamental insights into plant biology and revolutionized commercial agriculture. Unfortunately, for most crops, transformation and regeneration remain arduous even after more than 30 years of technological advances. Genome editing provides novel opportunities to enhance crop productivity but relies on genetic transformation and plant regeneration, which are bottlenecks in the process. Here, we review the state of plant transformation and point to innovations needed to enable genome editing in crops. Plant tissue culture methods need optimization and simplification for efficiency and minimization of time in culture. Currently, specialized facilities exist for crop transformation. Single-cell and robotic techniques should be developed for high-throughput genomic screens. Plant genes involved in developmental reprogramming, wound response, and/or homologous recombination should be used to boost the recovery of transformed plants. Engineering universal Agrobacterium tumefaciens strains and recruiting other microbes, such as Ensifer or Rhizobium, could facilitate delivery of DNA and proteins into plant cells. Synthetic biology should be employed for de novo design of transformation systems. Genome editing is a potential game-changer in crop genetics when plant transformation systems are optimized

Anti-HIV-1 ADCC antibodies following latency reversal and treatment interruption

There is growing interest in utilizing antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) to eliminate infected cells following reactivation from HIV-1 latency. A potential barrier is that HIV-1-specific ADCC antibodies decline in patients on long-term antiretroviral therapy (ART) and may not be sufficient to eliminate reactivated latently infected cells. It is not known whether reactivation from latency with latency-reversing agents (LRAs) could provide sufficient antigenic stimulus to boost HIV-1-specific ADCC. We found that treatment with the LRA panobinostat or a short analytical treatment interruption (ATI), 21 to 59 days, was not sufficient to stimulate an increase in ADCC-competent antibodies, despite viral rebound in all subjects who underwent the short ATI. In contrast, a longer ATI, 2 to 12 months, among subjects enrolled in the Strategies for Management of Antiretroviral Therapy (SMART) trial robustly boosted HIV-1 gp120-specific Fc receptor-binding antibodies and ADCC against HIV-1-infected cells in vitro. These results show that there is a lag between viral recrudescence and the boosting of ADCC antibodies, which has implications for strategies toward eliminating latently infected cells

Long-Term Benefits from Early Antiretroviral Therapy Initiation in HIV Infection

BACKGROUND: For people with HIV and CD4+ counts >500 cells/mm3, early initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) reduces serious AIDS and serious non-AIDS (SNA) risk compared with deferral of treatment until CD4+ counts are 500 cells/mm3, excess risk of AIDS and SNA associated with delaying treatment initiation was diminished after ART initiation, but persistent excess risk remained. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others.)

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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. INTERPRETATION: Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Speed

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (ITAC): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited. METHODS: In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581. FINDINGS: From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77–1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66–1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14–4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29–0·90; pinteraction=0·001). INTERPRETATION: When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health