Suchergebnisse

IntroductionSeveral resistance mutations have been shown to affect viral fitness, and the presence of certain mutations might result in clinical benefit for patients kept on a virologically failing regimen due to an exhaustion of drug options. We sought to quantify the effect of resistance mutations on CD4 slopes in patients undergoing episodes of viral failure.Materials and MethodsPatients from the EuroSIDA and UK CHIC cohorts undergoing at least one episode of virological failure (>3 consecutive RNA measurements >500 on ART) with at least three CD4 measurements and a resistance test during the episode were included. Mutations were identified using the IAS‐US (2013) list, and were presumed to be present from detection until the end of an episode. Multivariable linear mixed models with a random intercept and slope adjusted for age, baseline CD4 count, hepatitis C, drug type, RNA (log‐scale), risk group and subtype were used to estimate CD4 slopes. Individual mutations with a population prevalence of >10% were tested for their effect on the CD4 slope.ResultsA total of 2731 patients experiencing a median of 1 (range 1–4) episodes were included in this analysis. The prevalence of any resistance per episode was 88.4%; NNRTI resistance was most common (78.5%). Overall, CD4 counts declined by 17.1 (−19.7; −14.5) cells per year; this decline was less marked with partial viral suppression (current HIV RNA more than 1.5 log below the setpoint; p=0.01). In multivariable models adjusting for viral load, CD4 decline was slower during episodes with detected resistance compared to episodes without detected resistance (21.0 cells/year less, 95% CI 11.75–30.31, p<0.001). Among those with more than one resistance mutation, there was only weak evidence that class‐specific mutations had any effect on the CD4 slope (Table 1). The effects of individual mutations (incl. M184V) were explored, but none were significantly associated with the CD4 slope; for these comparisons, a Bonferroni‐corrected p‐value level was 0.003.ConclusionsIn our study population, detected resistance was associated with slightly less steep CD4 declines. This may be due to a biological effect of resistance on CD4 slopes, or other unmeasured factors such as poor adherence among individuals without resistance. Among individuals with detected drug resistance, we found no evidence suggesting that the presence of individual mutations was associated with beneficial CD4 slope changes.

IntroductionRates of both TB/HIV co‐infection and multi‐drug‐resistant (MDR) TB are increasing in Eastern Europe (EE). Data on the clinical management of TB/HIV co‐infected patients are scarce. Our aim was to study the clinical characteristics of TB/HIV patients in Europe and Latin America (LA) at TB diagnosis, identify factors associated with MDR‐TB and assess the activity of initial TB treatment regimens given the results of drug‐susceptibility tests (DST).Material and MethodsWe enrolled 1413 TB/HIV patients from 62 clinics in 19 countries in EE, Western Europe (WE), Southern Europe (SE) and LA from January 2011 to December 2013. Among patients who completed DST within the first month of TB therapy, we linked initial TB treatment regimens to the DST results and calculated the distribution of patients receiving 0, 1, 2, 3 and ≥4 active drugs in each region. Risk factors for MDR‐TB were identified in logistic regression models.ResultsSignificant differences were observed between EE (n=844), WE (n=152), SE (n=164) and LA (n=253) for use of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) at TB diagnosis (17%, 40%, 44% and 35%, p<0.0001), a definite TB diagnosis (culture and/or PCR positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis; 47%, 71%, 72% and 40%, p<0.0001) and MDR‐TB prevalence (34%, 3%, 3% and 11%, p <0.0001 among those with DST results). The history of injecting drug use [adjusted OR (aOR) = 2.03, (95% CI 1.00–4.09)], prior TB treatment (aOR = 3.42, 95% CI 1.88–6.22) and living in EE (aOR = 7.19, 95% CI 3.28–15.78) were associated with MDR‐TB. For 569 patients with available DST, the initial TB treatment contained ≥3 active drugs in 64% of patients in EE compared with 90–94% of patients in other regions (Figure 1a). Had the patients received initial therapy with standard therapy [Rifampicin, Isoniazid, Pyrazinamide, Ethambutol (RHZE)], the corresponding proportions would have been 64% vs. 86–97%, respectively (Figure 1b).ConclusionsIn EE, TB/HIV patients had poorer exposure to cART, less often a definitive TB diagnosis and more often MDR‐TB compared to other parts of Europe and LA. Initial TB therapy in EE was sub‐optimal, with less than two‐thirds of patients receiving at least three active drugs, and improved compliance with standard RHZE treatment does not seem to be the solution. Improved management of TB/HIV patients requires routine use of DST, initial TB therapy according to prevailing resistance patterns and more widespread use of cART.

AbstractBackgroundHydroxychloroquine has been shown to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, but early clinical studies found no benefit treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We set out to evaluate the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for prevention, as opposed to treatment, of COVID-19 mortality.MethodsWe pre-specified and conducted an observational, population-based cohort study using national primary care data and linked death registrations in the OpenSAFELY platform, representing 40% of the general population in England. We used Cox regression to estimate the association between ongoing routine hydroxychloroquine use prior to the COVID-19 outbreak in England and risk of COVID-19 mortality among people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Model adjustment was informed by a directed acyclic graph.ResultsOf 194,637 patients with RA or SLE, 30,569 (15.7%) received ≥ 2 prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine in the six months prior to 1 March 2020. Between 1 March 2020 and 13 July 2020, there were 547 COVID-19 deaths, 70 among hydroxychloroquine users. Estimated standardised cumulative COVID-19 mortality was 0.23% (95% CI 0.18–0.29) among users and 0.22% (95% CI 0.20–0.25) among non-users; an absolute difference of 0.008% (95% CI –0.051-0.066). After accounting for age, sex, ethnicity, use of other immunuosuppressives, and geographic region, no association with COVID-19 mortality was observed (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80–1.33). We found no evidence of interactions with age or other immunosuppressives. Quantitative bias analyses indicated observed associations were robust to missing information regarding additional biologic treatments for rheumatological disease. We observed similar associations with the negative control outcome of non-COVID-19 mortality.ConclusionWe found no evidence of a difference in COVID-19 mortality among patients who received hydroxychloroquine for treatment of rheumatological disease prior to the COVID-19 outbreak in England.Research in contextEvidence before this studyPublished trials and observational studies to date have shown no evidence of benefit of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for hospitalised patients who already have COVID-19. A separate question remains: whether routine ongoing use of hydroxychloroquine in people without COVID-19 protects against new infections or severe outcomes. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed for pharmacoepidemiological studies evaluating hydroxychloroquine for prevention of severe COVID-19 outcomes. The keywords "hydroxychloroquine AND (COVID OR coronavirus OR SARS-CoV-2) AND (prophyl* OR prevent*) AND (rate OR hazard OR odds OR risk)" were used and results were filtered to articles from the last year with abstracts available. 109 papers were identified for screening; none investigated pre-exposure prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Clinical trials of prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine are ongoing; however, the largest trial does not expect to meet recruitment targets due to "…unjustified extrapolation and exaggerated safety concerns together with intense politicisation and negative publicity." In the absence of reported clinical trials, evidence can be generated from real-world data to support the need for randomised clinical trials.Added value of this studyIn this cohort study representing 40% of the population of England, we investigated whether routine use of hydroxychloroquine prior to the COVID-19 outbreak prevented COVID-19 mortality. Using robust pharmacoepidemiological methods, we found no evidence to support a substantial benefit of hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 mortality. At the same time, we have shown no significant harm, and this generates the equipoise to justify continuing randomised trials. We have demonstrated in this study that it is feasible to address specific hypotheses about medicines in a rapid and transparent manner to inform interim clinical decision making and support the need for large-scale, randomised trial data.Implications of all the available evidenceThis is the first study to investigate the ongoing routine use of hydroxychloroquine and risk of COVID-19 mortality in a general population. While we found no evidence of any protective benefit, due to the observational nature of the study, residual confounding remains a possibility. Completion of trials for prevention of severe outcomes is warranted, but prior to the completion of these, we found no evidence to support the use of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of COVID-19 mortality.