33 research outputs found

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

    Get PDF
    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

    Awareness of HIV Testing Guidelines Is Low among Swiss Emergency Doctors: A Survey of Five Teaching Hospitals in French-Speaking Switzerland.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: In Switzerland, 30% of HIV-infected individuals are diagnosed late. To optimize HIV testing, the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) updated 'Provider Induced Counseling and Testing' (PICT) recommendations in 2010. These permit doctors to test patients if HIV infection is suspected, without explicit consent or pre-test counseling; patients should nonetheless be informed that testing will be performed. We examined awareness of these updated recommendations among emergency department (ED) doctors. METHODS: We conducted a questionnaire-based survey among 167 ED doctors at five teaching hospitals in French-Speaking Switzerland between 1(st) May and 31(st) July 2011. For 25 clinical scenarios, participants had to state whether HIV testing was indicated or whether patient consent or pre-test counseling was required. We asked how many HIV tests participants had requested in the previous month, and whether they were aware of the FOPH testing recommendations. RESULTS: 144/167 doctors (88%) returned the questionnaire. Median postgraduate experience was 6.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] 3; 12). Mean percentage of correct answers was 59 ± 11%, senior doctors scoring higher (P=0.001). Lowest-scoring questions pertained to acute HIV infection and scenarios where patient consent was not required. Median number of test requests was 1 (IQR 0-2, range 0-10). Only 26/144 (18%) of participants were aware of the updated FOPH recommendations. Those aware had higher scores (P=0.001) but did not perform more HIV tests. CONCLUSIONS: Swiss ED doctors are not aware of the national HIV testing recommendations and rarely perform HIV tests. Improved recommendation dissemination and adherence is required if ED doctors are to contribute to earlier HIV diagnoses

    The Duffy antigen receptor for chemokines null promoter variant does not influence HIV-1 acquisition or disease progression.

    Get PDF
    Ma’am – We read with great interest the article by He et al. [2008] describing the effects on HIV acquisition and disease progression of a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP, rs2814778, -46T→C) that disrupts the promoter region of the Duffy antigen receptor for chemokines (DARC) gene and abolishes gene expression in red blood cells. He et al. reported that HIV-infected African Americans have a frequency of the null homozygous genotype (-46C/C) of 70% while non-HIV infected individuals have a null genotype frequency of 60%. Based on this frequency difference they argued that the null allele confers susceptibility to infection with HIV-1. They also reported that the null genotype is associated with better outcomes amongst those who do become infected, including longer survival, slower loss of CD4(+) T-lymphocytes, and delayed progression to HIV-associated dementia
    corecore