Molecular epidemiology, phylogeny, and phylodynamics of CRF63_02A1, a recently originated HIV-1 circulating recombinant form spreading in Siberia

The HIV-1 epidemic in Russia is dominated by the former Soviet Union subtype A (A(FSU)) variant, but other genetic forms are circulating in the country. One is the recently described CRF63_02A1, derived from recombination between a CRF02_AG variant circulating in Central Asia and A(FSU), which has spread in the Novosibirsk region, Siberia. Here we phylogenetically analyze pol and env segments from 24 HIV-1 samples from the Novosibirsk region collected in 2013, with characterization of three new near full-length genome CRF63_02A1 sequences, and estimate the time of the most recent common ancestor (tMRCA) and the demographic growth of CRF63_02A1 using a Bayesian method. The analyses revealed that CRF63_02A1 is highly predominant in the Novosibirsk region (81.2% in pol sequences) and is transmitted both among injecting drug users and by heterosexual contact. Similarity searches with database sequences combined with phylogenetic analyses show that CRF63_02A1 is circulating in East Kazakhstan and the Eastern area of Russia bordering China. The analyses of near full-length genome sequences show that its mosaic structure is more complex than reported, with 18 breakpoints. The tMRCA of CRF63_02A1 was estimated around 2006, with exponential growth in 2008-2009 and subsequent stabilization. These results provide new insights into the molecular epidemiology, phylogeny, and phylodynamics of CRF63_02A1.We thank the personnel at the Genomic Unit of Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain, for technical assistance in sequencing, and Bonnie Mathieson, from the Office of AIDS Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland for her support of this study. This work was funded by Office of AIDS Research, National Institutes of Health, through the training program “Molecular Epidemiology of HIV-1 in Eastern Europe and Its Significance for Vaccine Development.”S

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable