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.)

Intravenous Aviptadil and Remdesivir for Treatment of COVID-19-Associated Hypoxaemic Respiratory Failure in the USA (Tesico): A Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHODS: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health

Rare coding variants in PLCG2, ABI3, and TREM2 implicate microglial-mediated innate immunity in Alzheimer's disease

We identified rare coding variants associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in a 3-stage case-control study of 85,133 subjects. In stage 1, 34,174 samples were genotyped using a whole-exome microarray. In stage 2, we tested associated variants (P<1×10-4) in 35,962 independent samples using de novo genotyping and imputed genotypes. In stage 3, an additional 14,997 samples were used to test the most significant stage 2 associations (P<5×10-8) using imputed genotypes. We observed 3 novel genome-wide significant (GWS) AD associated non-synonymous variants; a protective variant in PLCG2 (rs72824905/p.P522R, P=5.38×10-10, OR=0.68, MAFcases=0.0059, MAFcontrols=0.0093), a risk variant in ABI3 (rs616338/p.S209F, P=4.56×10-10, OR=1.43, MAFcases=0.011, MAFcontrols=0.008), and a novel GWS variant in TREM2 (rs143332484/p.R62H, P=1.55×10-14, OR=1.67, MAFcases=0.0143, MAFcontrols=0.0089), a known AD susceptibility gene. These protein-coding changes are in genes highly expressed in microglia and highlight an immune-related protein-protein interaction network enriched for previously identified AD risk genes. These genetic findings provide additional evidence that the microglia-mediated innate immune response contributes directly to AD development

A novel Alzheimer disease locus located near the gene encoding tau protein

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the publisher via the DOI in this recordAPOE ε4, the most significant genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD), may mask effects of other loci. We re-analyzed genome-wide association study (GWAS) data from the International Genomics of Alzheimer's Project (IGAP) Consortium in APOE ε4+ (10 352 cases and 9207 controls) and APOE ε4- (7184 cases and 26 968 controls) subgroups as well as in the total sample testing for interaction between a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and APOE ε4 status. Suggestive associations (P<1 × 10-4) in stage 1 were evaluated in an independent sample (stage 2) containing 4203 subjects (APOE ε4+: 1250 cases and 536 controls; APOE ε4-: 718 cases and 1699 controls). Among APOE ε4- subjects, novel genome-wide significant (GWS) association was observed with 17 SNPs (all between KANSL1 and LRRC37A on chromosome 17 near MAPT) in a meta-analysis of the stage 1 and stage 2 data sets (best SNP, rs2732703, P=5·8 × 10-9). Conditional analysis revealed that rs2732703 accounted for association signals in the entire 100-kilobase region that includes MAPT. Except for previously identified AD loci showing stronger association in APOE ε4+ subjects (CR1 and CLU) or APOE ε4- subjects (MS4A6A/MS4A4A/MS4A6E), no other SNPs were significantly associated with AD in a specific APOE genotype subgroup. In addition, the finding in the stage 1 sample that AD risk is significantly influenced by the interaction of APOE with rs1595014 in TMEM106B (P=1·6 × 10-7) is noteworthy, because TMEM106B variants have previously been associated with risk of frontotemporal dementia. Expression quantitative trait locus analysis revealed that rs113986870, one of the GWS SNPs near rs2732703, is significantly associated with four KANSL1 probes that target transcription of the first translated exon and an untranslated exon in hippocampus (P≤1.3 × 10-8), frontal cortex (P≤1.3 × 10-9) and temporal cortex (P≤1.2 × 10-11). Rs113986870 is also strongly associated with a MAPT probe that targets transcription of alternatively spliced exon 3 in frontal cortex (P=9.2 × 10-6) and temporal cortex (P=2.6 × 10-6). Our APOE-stratified GWAS is the first to show GWS association for AD with SNPs in the chromosome 17q21.31 region. Replication of this finding in independent samples is needed to verify that SNPs in this region have significantly stronger effects on AD risk in persons lacking APOE ε4 compared with persons carrying this allele, and if this is found to hold, further examination of this region and studies aimed at deciphering the mechanism(s) are warranted

Regulatory impediments jeopardizing the conduct of clinical trials in Europe funded by the National Institutes of Health

BACKGROUND: A number of reports have highlighted problems of conducting publicly funded trials in Europe as a consequence of the European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Directive. The impact of the EU Directive on multi-national trials, which include sites in Europe that are funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) have not been described. METHODS: Four problems in the conduct of two international HIV treatment trials funded by NIH in the EU are described: (1) conflicting regulations on the continuing review of protocols by Institutional Review Boards/Research Ethics Committees; (2) US regulations requiring Federalwide Assurances for sites which are only partially funded by NIH; (3) EU guidance on the designation of studies as a trial of an investigational medicinal product; and (4) EU guidance on trial sponsorship and the requirements for insurance and indemnification. Following the description of the problems, recommendations for improving global collaborations are made to the US Office of Human Research Protections, to NIH, and to the EU and its Member States. RESULTS: A lack of harmonization of regulations at multiple levels caused enrollment in one study to be interrupted for several months and delayed for one year the initiation of another study aimed at obtaining definitive evidence to guide the timing of the initiation of antiretroviral therapy for individuals infected with HIV. The delays and the purchase of insurance resulted in substantial increases in trial costs and caused substantial disruption at clinical sites among staff and study participants. LIMITATIONS: The problems cited and recommendations made pertain to trials funded by NIH and conducted by sites in the EU. There are many other challenges in the conduct of international research, public and private, that global harmonization would alleviate. CONCLUSIONS: Disharmony, at multiple levels, in international regulations and guidelines is stifling publicly funded global research. International scientific organizations and government groups should make the documentation and solution of these problems a priority

Regulatory impediments jeopardizing the conduct of clinical trials in Europe funded by the National Institutes of Health

(2) US regulations requiring Federalwide Assurances for sites which are only partially funded by NIH; (3) EU guidance on the designation of studies as a trial of an investigational medicinal product; and (4) EU guidance on trial sponsorship and the requirements for insurance and indemnification. Following the description of the problems, recommendations for improving global collaborations are made to the US Office of Human Research Protections, to NIH, and to the EU and its Member States. Results A lack of harmonization of regulations at multiple levels caused enrollment in one study to be interrupted for several months and delayed for one year the initiation of another study aimed at obtaining definitive evidence to guide the timing of the initiation of antiretroviral therapy for individuals infected with HIV. The delays and the purchase of insurance resulted in substantial increases in trial costs and caused substantial disruption at clinical sites among staff and study participants. Limitations The problems cited and recommendations made pertain to trials funded by NIH and conducted by sites in the EU. There are many other challenges in the conduct of international research, public and private, that global harmonization would alleviate. Conclusions Disharmony, at multiple levels, in international regulations and guidelines is stifling publicly funded global research. International scientific organizations and government groups should make the documentation and solution of these problems a priority. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: 705-718