HIV Testing by Public Health Centers and Municipalities and New HIV Cases During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 outbreak, facility capacity for HIV testing has been limited. Furthermore, people may have opted against HIV testing during this period to avoid COVID-19 exposure. We investigated the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on HIV testing and the number of reported HIV cases in Japan. METHODS: We analyzed quarterly HIV/AIDS-related data from 2015 to the second quarter of 2020 using an anomaly detection approach. The data included the number of consultations, the number of HIV tests performed by public health centers or municipalities, and the number of newly reported HIV cases with and without an AIDS diagnosis. We further performed the same analysis for 2 subgroups: men who have sex with men (MSM) and non-Japanese persons. RESULTS: The number of HIV tests (9,584 vs. 35,908 in the year-before period) and consultations (11,689 vs. 32,565) performed by public health centers significantly declined in the second quarter of 2020, whereas the proportion of new HIV cases with an AIDS diagnosis (36.2% vs. 26.4%) significantly increased after removing the trend and seasonality effects. HIV cases without an AIDS diagnosis decreased (166 vs. 217), but the reduction was not significant. We confirmed similar trends for the men who have sex with men and non-Japanese subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the current HIV testing system in Japan seems to have missed more cases of HIV before developing AIDS. Continuously monitoring the situation and securing sufficient test resources by use of self-testing is essential to understand the clear epidemiological picture of HIV incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Detection of significant antiviral drug effects on COVID-19 with reasonable sample sizes in randomized controlled trials: A modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Development of an effective antiviral drug for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global health priority. Although several candidate drugs have been identified through in vitro and in vivo models, consistent and compelling evidence from clinical studies is limited. The lack of evidence from clinical trials may stem in part from the imperfect design of the trials. We investigated how clinical trials for antivirals need to be designed, especially focusing on the sample size in randomized controlled trials. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A modeling study was conducted to help understand the reasons behind inconsistent clinical trial findings and to design better clinical trials. We first analyzed longitudinal viral load data for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) without antiviral treatment by use of a within-host virus dynamics model. The fitted viral load was categorized into 3 different groups by a clustering approach. Comparison of the estimated parameters showed that the 3 distinct groups were characterized by different virus decay rates (p-value < 0.001). The mean decay rates were 1.17 d-1 (95% CI: 1.06 to 1.27 d-1), 0.777 d-1 (0.716 to 0.838 d-1), and 0.450 d-1 (0.378 to 0.522 d-1) for the 3 groups, respectively. Such heterogeneity in virus dynamics could be a confounding variable if it is associated with treatment allocation in compassionate use programs (i.e., observational studies). Subsequently, we mimicked randomized controlled trials of antivirals by simulation. An antiviral effect causing a 95% to 99% reduction in viral replication was added to the model. To be realistic, we assumed that randomization and treatment are initiated with some time lag after symptom onset. Using the duration of virus shedding as an outcome, the sample size to detect a statistically significant mean difference between the treatment and placebo groups (1:1 allocation) was 13,603 and 11,670 (when the antiviral effect was 95% and 99%, respectively) per group if all patients are enrolled regardless of timing of randomization. The sample size was reduced to 584 and 458 (when the antiviral effect was 95% and 99%, respectively) if only patients who are treated within 1 day of symptom onset are enrolled. We confirmed the sample size was similarly reduced when using cumulative viral load in log scale as an outcome. We used a conventional virus dynamics model, which may not fully reflect the detailed mechanisms of viral dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. The model needs to be calibrated in terms of both parameter settings and model structure, which would yield more reliable sample size calculation. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that estimated association in observational studies can be biased due to large heterogeneity in viral dynamics among infected individuals, and statistically significant effect in randomized controlled trials may be difficult to be detected due to small sample size. The sample size can be dramatically reduced by recruiting patients immediately after developing symptoms. We believe this is the first study investigated the study design of clinical trials for antiviral treatment using the viral dynamics model.

Potential anti-COVID-19 agents, cepharanthine and nelfinavir, and their usage for combination treatment.

Antiviral treatments targeting the coronavirus disease 2019 are urgently required. We screened a panel of already approved drugs in a cell culture model of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and identified two new agents having higher antiviral potentials than the drug candidates such as remdesivir and chroloquine in VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells: the anti-inflammatory drug cepharanthine and human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor nelfinavir. Cepharanthine inhibited SARS-CoV-2 entry through the blocking of viral binding to target cells, while nelfinavir suppressed viral replication partly by protease inhibition. Consistent with their different modes of action, synergistic effect of this combined treatment to limit SARS-CoV-2 proliferation was highlighted. Mathematical modeling in vitro antiviral activity coupled with the calculated total drug concentrations in the lung predicts that nelfinavir will shorten the period until viral clearance by 4.9 days and the combining cepharanthine/nelfinavir enhanced their predicted efficacy. These results warrant further evaluation of the potential anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of cepharanthine and nelfinavir.

A quantitative model used to compare within-host SARS-CoV-2, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV dynamics provides insights into the pathogenesis and treatment of SARS-CoV-2.

The scientific community is focused on developing antiviral therapies to mitigate the impacts of the ongoing novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. This will be facilitated by improved understanding of viral dynamics within infected hosts. Here, using a mathematical model in combination with published viral load data, we compare within-host viral dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 with analogous dynamics of MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. Our quantitative analyses using a mathematical model revealed that the within-host reproduction number at symptom onset of SARS-CoV-2 was statistically significantly larger than that of MERS-CoV and similar to that of SARS-CoV. In addition, the time from symptom onset to the viral load peak for SARS-CoV-2 infection was shorter than those of MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. These findings suggest the difficulty of controlling SARS-CoV-2 infection by antivirals. We further used the viral dynamics model to predict the efficacy of potential antiviral drugs that have different modes of action. The efficacy was measured by the reduction in the viral load area under the curve (AUC). Our results indicate that therapies that block de novo infection or virus production are likely to be effective if and only if initiated before the viral load peak (which appears 2-3 days after symptom onset), but therapies that promote cytotoxicity of infected cells are likely to have effects with less sensitivity to the timing of treatment initiation. Furthermore, combining a therapy that promotes cytotoxicity and one that blocks de novo infection or virus production synergistically reduces the AUC with early treatment. Our unique modeling approach provides insights into the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 and may be useful for development of antiviral therapies.

Estimation of the incubation period of COVID-19 using viral load data.

The incubation period, or the time from infection to symptom onset, of COVID-19 has usually been estimated by using data collected through interviews with cases and their contacts. However, this estimation is influenced by uncertainty in the cases' recall of exposure time. We propose a novel method that uses viral load data collected over time since hospitalization, hindcasting the timing of infection with a mathematical model for viral dynamics. As an example, we used reported data on viral load for 30 hospitalized patients from multiple countries (Singapore, China, Germany, and Korea) and estimated the incubation period. The median, 2.5, and 97.5 percentiles of the incubation period were 5.85 days (95 % CI: 5.05, 6.77), 2.65 days (2.04, 3.41), and 12.99 days (9.98, 16.79), respectively, which are comparable to the values estimated in previous studies. Using viral load to estimate the incubation period might be a useful approach, especially when it is impractical to directly observe the infection event.