Efficacy and Durability of Dolutegravir- or Darunavir-Based Regimens in ART-Naïve AIDS- or Late-Presenting HIV-Infected Patients.

BACKGROUND: Since limited data are available, we aimed to compare the efficacy and durability of dolutegravir and darunavir in advanced naïve patients. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter study including AIDS- or late-presenting (def. CD4 ≤ 200/µL) HIV-infected patients starting dolutegravir or ritonavir/cobicistat-boosted darunavir+2NRTIs. Patients were followed from the date of first-line therapy initiation (baseline, BL) to the discontinuation of darunavir or dolutegravir, or for a maximum of 36 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Overall 308 patients (79.2% males, median age 43 years, 40.3% AIDS-presenters, median CD4 66 cells/µL) were enrolled; 181 (58.8%) and 127 (41.2%) were treated with dolutegravir and darunavir, respectively. Incidence of treatment discontinuation (TD), virological failure (VF, defined as a single HIV-RNA > 1000 cp/mL or two consecutive HIV-RNA > 50 cp/mL after 6 months of therapy or after virological suppression had been achieved), treatment failure (the first of TD or VF), and optimal immunological recovery (defined as CD4 ≥ 500/µL + CD4 ≥ 30% + CD4/CD8 ≥ 1) were 21.9, 5.2, 25.6 and 1.4 per 100 person-years of follow-up, respectively, without significant differences between dolutegravir and darunavir (p > 0.05 for all outcomes). However, a higher estimated probability of TD for central nervous system (CNS) toxicity (at 36 months: 11.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.002) was observed for dolutegravir, whereas darunavir showed a higher probability of TD for simplification (at 36 months: 21.3% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Dolutegravir and darunavir showed similar efficacy in AIDS- and late-presenting patients. A higher risk of TD due to CNS toxicity was observed with dolutegravir, and a higher probability of treatment simplification with darunavir.

Real-life experience with remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19 among older adults: a multicentre retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of remdesivir on COVID-19 mortality remains conflicting. Elderly individuals are at risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to assess the effect of remdesivir on COVID-19 mortality among elderly individuals, using real-world data. METHODS: Retrospective multinational cohort of individuals aged ≥65 years, hospitalized with COVID-19 in six medical centres between January 2020 and May 2021. Associations with in-hospital mortality were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model with propensity score adjustment for remdesivir therapy and while implementing generalized estimating equations to control for centre effect. Sensitivity analysis was performed by stratification according to the degree of respiratory support. RESULTS: Of 3010 individuals included, 2788 individuals required either oxygen supplementation or non-invasive/invasive mechanical ventilation, 489 (16%) were treated with remdesivir, and 836 (28%) died. Median age was 77 (IQR 70-84) years and 42% were women. Remdesivir was the only therapeutic intervention associated with decreased mortality [adjusted OR (aOR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.37-0.66, P < 0.001]. This protective effect was shown for individuals requiring oxygen support and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, while no association was found among individuals necessitating invasive mechanical ventilation.Risk factors for mortality included invasive ventilation (aOR 5.18, 95% CI 2.46-10.91, P < 0.001), higher serum creatinine (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09-1.43, P = 0.001) and dyspnoea (aOR 1.40, 95% CI 1.07-1.84, P = 0.015) on presentation, and other non-modifiable factors, such as comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Among elderly individuals hospitalized with COVID-19, remdesivir carries survival benefit for those with moderate to severe disease. Its role among individuals with critical illness should be further assessed.

Predictors of survival in elderly patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to the hospital: derivation and validation of the FLAMINCOV score.

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of 30-day survival in elderly patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including patients with COVID-19 aged ≥65 years hospitalized in six European sites (January 2020 to May 2021). Data on demographics, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were collected. A predictive score (FLAMINCOV) was developed using logistic regression. Regression coefficients were used to calculate the score. External validation was performed in a cohort including elderly patients from a major COVID-19 centre in Israel. Discrimination was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the derivation and validation cohorts. Survival risk groups based on the score were derived and applied to the validation cohort. RESULTS: Among 3010 patients included in the derivation cohort, 30-day survival was 74.5% (2242/3010). The intensive care unit admission rate was 7.6% (228/3010). The model predicting survival included independent functional status (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 3.93-6.03), a oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen (SpO2/FiO2) ratio of >235 (OR, 3.75; 95% CI, 3.04-4.63), a C-reactive protein level of <14 mg/dL (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.91-3.04), a creatinine level of <1.3 (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.62-2.52) mg/dL, and absence of fever (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.09-1.66). The score was validated in 1174 patients. The FLAMINCOV score ranges from 0 to 15 and showed good discrimination in the derivation (AUC, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.77-0.81; p < 0.001) and validation cohorts (AUC, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.76-0.81; p < 0.001). Thirty-day survival ranged from 39.4% (203/515) to 95.3% (634/665) across four risk groups according to score quartiles in the derivation cohort. Similar proportions were observed in the validation set. DISCUSSION: The FLAMINCOV score identifying elderly with higher or lower chances of survival may allow better triage and management, including intensive care unit admission/exclusion.

Do All Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 Disease Benefit from Adding Tocilizumab to Glucocorticoids? A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines recommend the tocilizumab use in patients with a CRP of >7.5 mg/dL. We aimed to estimate the causal effect of glucocorticoids + tocilizumab on mortality overall and after stratification for PaO2/FiO2 ratio and CRP levels. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. The primary endpoint was day 28 mortality. Survival analysis was conducted to estimate the conditional and average causal effect of glucocorticoids + tocilizumab vs. glucocorticoids alone using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models with a time-varying variable for the intervention. The hypothesis of the existence of effect measure modification by CRP and PaO2/FiO2 ratio was tested by including an interaction term in the model. RESULTS: In total, 992 patients, median age 69 years, 72.9% males, 597 (60.2%) treated with monotherapy, and 395 (31.8%), adding tocilizumab upon respiratory deterioration, were included. At BL, the two groups differed for median values of CRP (6 vs. 7 mg/dL; p < 0.001) and PaO2/FiO2 ratio (276 vs. 235 mmHg; p < 0.001). In the unadjusted analysis, the mortality was similar in the two groups, but after adjustment for key confounders, a significant effect of glucocorticoids + tocilizumab was observed (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.38-0.90). Although the study was not powered to detect interactions (p = 0.41), there was a signal for glucocorticoids + tocilizumab to have a larger effect in subsets, especially participants with high levels of CRP at intensification. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm that glucocorticoids + tocilizumab vs. glucocorticoids alone confers a survival benefit only in patients with a CRP > 7.5 mg/dL prior to treatment initiation and the largest effect for a CRP > 15 mg/dL. Large randomized studies are needed to establish an exact cut-off for clinical use.

Development of post-COVID-19 cardiovascular events: an analysis of clinical features and risk factors from a single hospital retrospective study.

Cardiovascular complications after a SARS-CoV-2 infection are a phenomenon of relevant scientific interest. The aim of this study was to analyze the onset of post-COVID-19 cardiovascular events in patients hospitalized in a tertiary care center. This is a retrospective study conducted on patients hospitalized over a period of three months. The patients were older than 18 years of age and had a diagnosis of COVID-19 infection confirmed from a nasopharyngeal swab sample. Anamnestic and clinical-laboratory data were collected. Cardiovascular events at 30 days were defined as follows: arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, myocarditis, and pulmonary embolism. Univariate analysis (Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate) and multivariate analysis (multinomial logistic regression) were applied to the data. A total of 394 patients were included; they were mostly males and had a median age of 65.5 years. Previous cardiovascular disease was present in 14.7% of patients. Oxygen therapy was required for 77.9%, and 53% received anticoagulant therapy. The overall 30-day mortality was 20.3%. A cardiovascular event developed in 15.7% of the subjects. These were mainly pulmonary embolism (9.4%), followed by arrhythmias (3.3%), myocardial infarction (2.3%), and myocarditis (0.8%). Patients who developed cardiovascular events upon univariate analysis were significantly older, with major comorbidities, a more compromised respiratory situation, and a higher mortality rate. Multivariate analysis revealed independent factors that were significantly associated with the development of cardiovascular events: hypertension, endotracheal intubation, and age older than 75 years. In patients with COVID-19, the development of a cardiovascular event occurs quite frequently and is mainly seen in elderly subjects with comorbidities (especially hypertension) in the presence of a severe respiratory picture.

Has COVID-19 changed the approach to HIV diagnosis?: A multicentric Italian experience.

ABSTRACT: The occurrence of COVID-19 pandemic had a significant negative effect on health care systems over the last year. Health care providers were forced to focus mainly on COVID-19 patients, neglecting in many cases equally important diseases, both acute and chronic. Therefore, also screening and diagnostic strategies for HIV could have been significantly impaired.This retrospective, multicenter, observational study aimed at assessing the number and characteristics of new HIV/AIDS diagnoses during COVID-19 pandemic in Italy and compared characteristics of people living with HIV at diagnosis between pre- and post-COVID-19 era (2019 vs 2020).Our results showed a significant reduction of HIV diagnoses during pandemic. By contrast, people living with HIV during pandemic were older and were diagnosed in earlier stage of disease (considering CD4+ T cell count) compared to those who were diagnosed the year before. Moreover, there was a significant decrease of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men, probably for the impact of social distancing and restriction applied by the Italian Government. Late presentation incidence, if numbers in 2020 were lower than those in 2019, is still an issue.Routinely performing HIV testing in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection is identifying and linking to care underdiagnosed people living with HIV earlier. Thus, combined tests (HIV and SARS-CoV-2) should be implemented in patients with SARS-CoV-2 symptoms overlapping HIV's ones. Lastly, our results lastly showed how urgent implementation of a national policy for HIV screening is necessary.

The Impact of COVID-19 on UNAIDS 90-90-90 Targets: Calls for New HIV Care Models.

We compared 90-90-90 targets in 2020, during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, with the targets across the period 2017-2019 in people with HIV. We observed a significant loss in the 90-90-90 objectives in 2020 when compared with 2017-2019 that might be attributable to the COVID-19 crisis.

Machine learning in predicting respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia-Challenges, strengths, and opportunities in a global health emergency.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to estimate a 48 hour prediction of moderate to severe respiratory failure, requiring mechanical ventilation, in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This was an observational prospective study that comprised consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to hospital from 21 February to 6 April 2020. The patients' medical history, demographic, epidemiologic and clinical data were collected in an electronic patient chart. The dataset was used to train predictive models using an established machine learning framework leveraging a hybrid approach where clinical expertise is applied alongside a data-driven analysis. The study outcome was the onset of moderate to severe respiratory failure defined as PaO2/FiO2 ratio <150 mmHg in at least one of two consecutive arterial blood gas analyses in the following 48 hours. Shapley Additive exPlanations values were used to quantify the positive or negative impact of each variable included in each model on the predicted outcome. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients contributed to generate 1068 usable observations which allowed to build 3 predictive models based respectively on 31-variables signs and symptoms, 39-variables laboratory biomarkers and 91-variables as a composition of the two. A fourth "boosted mixed model" included 20 variables was selected from the model 3, achieved the best predictive performance (AUC = 0.84) without worsening the FN rate. Its clinical performance was applied in a narrative case report as an example. CONCLUSION: This study developed a machine model with 84% prediction accuracy, which is able to assist clinicians in decision making process and contribute to develop new analytics to improve care at high technology readiness levels.

Tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: No therapy is approved for COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to assess the role of tocilizumab in reducing the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who received standard of care treatment. METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort study included adults (≥18 years) with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who were admitted to tertiary care centres in Bologna and Reggio Emilia, Italy, between Feb 21 and March 24, 2020, and a tertiary care centre in Modena, Italy, between Feb 21 and April 30, 2020. All patients were treated with the standard of care (ie, supplemental oxygen, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, antiretrovirals, and low molecular weight heparin), and a non-randomly selected subset of patients also received tocilizumab. Tocilizumab was given either intravenously at 8 mg/kg bodyweight (up to a maximum of 800 mg) in two infusions, 12 h apart, or subcutaneously at 162 mg administered in two simultaneous doses, one in each thigh (ie, 324 mg in total), when the intravenous formulation was unavailable. The primary endpoint was a composite of invasive mechanical ventilation or death. Treatment groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analysis after adjusting for sex, age, recruiting centre, duration of symptoms, and baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. FINDINGS: Of 1351 patients admitted, 544 (40%) had severe COVID-19 pneumonia and were included in the study. 57 (16%) of 365 patients in the standard care group needed mechanical ventilation, compared with 33 (18%) of 179 patients treated with tocilizumab (p=0·41; 16 [18%] of 88 patients treated intravenously and 17 [19%] of 91 patients treated subcutaneously). 73 (20%) patients in the standard care group died, compared with 13 (7%; p<0·0001) patients treated with tocilizumab (six [7%] treated intravenously and seven [8%] treated subcutaneously). After adjustment for sex, age, recruiting centre, duration of symptoms, and SOFA score, tocilizumab treatment was associated with a reduced risk of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (adjusted hazard ratio 0·61, 95% CI 0·40-0·92; p=0·020). 24 (13%) of 179 patients treated with tocilizumab were diagnosed with new infections, versus 14 (4%) of 365 patients treated with standard of care alone (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with tocilizumab, whether administered intravenously or subcutaneously, might reduce the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation or death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. FUNDING: None.