Comparing the effectiveness of Atazanavir/Ritonavir/Dolutegravir/Hydroxychloroquine and Lopinavir/Ritonavir/Hydroxychloroquine treatment regimens in COVID-19 patients.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Atazanavir/Ritonavir/Dolutegravir/Hydroxychloroquine and Lopinavir/Ritonavir/Hydroxychloroquine treatment regimens in COVID-19 patients based on clinical and laboratory parameters. We prospectively evaluated the clinical and laboratory outcomes of 62 moderate to severe COVID-19 patients during a 10-day treatment plan. Patients were randomly assigned to either KH (receiving Lopinavir/Ritonavir [Kaletra] plus Hydroxychloroquine) or ADH (receiving Atazanavir/Ritonavir, Dolutegravir, and Hydroxychloroquine) groups. During this period, clinical and laboratory parameters and outcomes such as intensive care unit (ICU) admission or mortality rate were recorded. Compared to the KH group, after the treatment period, patients in the ADH group had higher activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) (12, [95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.97, 17.06), p = <0.01), international normalized ratio (INR) (0.17, [95% CI: 0.07, 0.27), p = <0.01) and lower C-reactive protein (CRP) (-14.29, (95% CI: -26.87, -1.71), p = 0.03) and potassium (-0.53, (95% CI: -1.03, -0.03), p = 0.04) values. Moreover, a higher number of patients in the KH group needed invasive ventilation (6 (20%) vs. 1 (3.1%), p = 0.05) and antibiotic administration (27 (90%) vs. 21(65.6), p = 0.02) during hospitalization while patients in the ADH group needed more corticosteroid administration (9 (28.1%) vs. 2 (6.7%), p = 0.03). There was no difference in mortality rate, ICU admission rate, and hospitalization period between the study groups. Our results suggest that the Atazanavir/Dolutegravir treatment regimen may result in a less severe disease course compared to the Lopinavir/Ritonavir treatment regimen and can be considered as an alternative treatment option beside standard care. However, to confirm our results, larger-scale studies are recommended.

New Drugs 2021, Part 2.

ABSTRACT: The second of a two-part series, this article describes eight recently approved drugs, including the first drug approved for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2, a first-in-class HIV attachment inhibitor, and a new intravenous injection indicated for the treatment of acute pain in adults for whom other treatments are ineffective.

COVID-19 in people living with HIV: Clinical implications of dynamics of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

Little evidence on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in people living with HIV (PLWH) is currently available. We reported clinical and viroimmunological data of all HIV-positive patients admitted to our center with COVID-19 from March 1 to May 12, 2020. Overall, five patients were included: all were virologically-suppressed on antiretroviral therapy and CD4+ count was greater than 350 cell/mm3 in all but two patients. Although all patients had evidence of pneumonia on admission, only one developed respiratory failure. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA was never detected from nasopharyngeal swabs in two patients, whereas in the others, viral clearance occurred within a maximum of 43 days. Immunoglobulin G production was elicited in all patients and neutralizing antibodies in all but one patient. Specific-T-cell response developed in all patients but was stronger in those with the more severe presentations. Similarly, the highest level of proinflammatory cytokines was found in the only patient experiencing respiratory failure. Despite a mild presentation, patients with more pronounced immunosuppression showed high degrees of both cytokines production and immune activation. Our study did not find an increased risk and severity of COVID-19 in PLWH. Adaptative cellular immune response to SARS-CoV-2 appeared to correlate to disease severity. The mild clinical picture showed in advanced HIV patients, despite a significant T-cell activation and inflammatory profile, suggests a potential role of HIV-driven immunological dysregulation in avoiding immune-pathogenetic processes. However, other possible explanations, as a protective role of certain antiretroviral drugs, should be considered. Further larger studies are needed to better clarify the impact of HIV infection on COVID-19.

Risk-adapted adjuvant therapy of luminal early breast cancer in 2020.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The present review summarizes recent original publications addressing the topic of risk-adapted adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer (EBC). As neoadjuvant therapy has become a standard for triple negative and HER2+ EBC, it focusses on luminal EBC. RECENT FINDINGS: Gene expression assays have become standard of care in luminal EBC, at least for patients with node negative disease. Two prospective randomized clinical trials, TAILORx (Oncotype DX) and MINDACT (MammaPrint) have presented additional analyses underlining the clinical utility of the tests. In times of COVID-19, immunohistochemically determined ER, PR, and Ki67 and early Ki67 response to endocrine therapy can be used to safely allocate patients for preoperative endocrine therapy and delay surgeries if resources are scarce. In patients with luminal high-risk disease, adding a CDK 4/6 inhibitor (abemaciclib) improves patient outcome already after short-term follow-up. SUMMARY: Determination of recurrence risk will remain important in luminal EBC for optimal therapy decisions. In the future, risk-adapted treatment concepts will include decision making for chemotherapy but also for endocrine-based approaches.