Discontinuing cotrimoxazole preventive therapy in HIV-infected adults who are stable on antiretroviral treatment in Uganda (COSTOP): A randomised placebo controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Cotrimoxazole (CTX) preventive therapy (CPT) reduces opportunistic infections and malaria in HIV-infected patients. In Africa, policies on sustained CPT during antiretroviral therapy (ART) differ between countries. We assessed the safety of discontinuing CPT in stable patients on ART in Uganda. METHODS: COSTOP was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Patients aged ≥18 years, on CPT, and stable on ART (CD4 counts ≥250 cells/μL); were randomised to daily oral placebo (PLC group) or cotrimoxazole 960 mg/tablet (CTX group). Co-primary outcomes were: (i) time to first cotrimoxazole-preventable infection, with non- inferiority of PLC defined as the upper one-sided 95% confidence limit of the adjusted hazard ratio(aHR) ≤1.25; and (ii) time to first grade 3/4 haematological adverse event. FINDINGS: 2180 subjects (1091 PLC; 1089 CTX) were enrolled. 932 PLC and 943 CTX completed the trial after 12 months minimum follow up. Ninety-eight participants (59 PLC; 39 CTX) experienced 120 cotrimoxazole- preventable events, mainly bacterial pneumonia (72 events, 4 deaths PLC); (48 events, 2 deaths CTX). The aHR for time to first event was 1.57 (upper one-sided 95% confidence limit 2.21) in per protocol population (similar results in ITT population). 551 participants (318 CTX; 233 PLC) experienced 1043 haematological adverse events (616 CTX; 427 PLC). Time to the first adverse event, mainly neutropenia, was shorter in the CTX group (aHR 0.70 95%CI 0.59-0.82; log-rank χ2 = 18.08; P<0.0001). 362 (276 PLC, 86 CTX) participants experienced at least one episode of confirmed clinical malaria (P<0.0001). INTERPRETATION: In ART stable patients with CD4 counts ≥250 cells/μL, continued CPT significantly reduces risk of severe bacterial infections and protects against malaria, while discontinuing CPT reduces haematological adverse events

Tixagevimab–cilgavimab for treatment of patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Background: Tixagevimab–cilgavimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody combination hypothesised to improve outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We aimed to compare tixagevimab–cilgavimab versus placebo, in patients receiving remdesivir and other standard care. Methods: In a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, adults with symptoms for up to 12 days and hospitalised for COVID-19 at 81 sites in the USA, Europe, Uganda, and Singapore were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous tixagevimab 300 mg–cilgavimab 300 mg or placebo, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care. Patients were excluded if they had acute organ failure including receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressor therapy, mechanical circulatory support, or new renal replacement therapy. The study drug was prepared by an unmasked pharmacist; study participants, site study staff, investigators, and clinical providers were masked to study assignment. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery up to day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home after hospital discharge, with co-primary analyses for the full cohort and for participants who were neutralising antibody-negative at baseline. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as participants who received a complete or partial infusion of tixagevimab–cilgavimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978 and the participant follow-up is ongoing. Findings: From Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021, 1455 patients were randomly assigned and 1417 in the primary modified intention-to-treat population were infused with tixagevimab–cilgavimab (n=710) or placebo (n=707). The estimated cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 89% for tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 86% for placebo group participants at day 90 in the full cohort (recovery rate ratio [RRR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·97–1·20]; p=0·21). Results were similar in the seronegative subgroup (RRR 1·14 [0·97–1·34]; p=0·13). Mortality was lower in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group (61 [9%]) versus placebo group (86 [12%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50–0·97]; p=0·032). The composite safety outcome occurred in 178 (25%) tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 212 (30%) placebo group participants (HR 0·83 [0·68–1·01]; p=0·059). Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (5%) participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group and 38 (5%) in the placebo group. Interpretation: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and other standard care, tixagevimab–cilgavimab did not improve the primary outcome of time to sustained recovery but was safe and mortality was lower. Funding: US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Operation Warp Speed