Prevalence and factors associated with symptom persistence: A prospective study of 429 mild COVID-19 outpatients.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent symptoms have recently emerged as a clinical issue in COVID-19. We aimed to assess the prevalence and risk factors in symptomatic non-hospitalized individuals with mild COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients, from March to May 2020, with weekly phone calls from clinical onset until day 30 and up to day 60 in case of persistent symptoms. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients with complete recovery at day 30 and day 60 and factors associated with persistent symptoms. RESULTS: We enrolled 429 individuals mostly women (72.5%) and healthcare workers (72.5%), with a median age of 41.6 years [IQR 30-51.5]. Symptoms included: cough (69.7%), asthenia (68.8%), anosmia (64.8%), headaches (64.6%), myalgia (62.7%), gastrointestinal symptoms (61.8%), fever (61.5%), and ageusia (60.8%). Mean duration of disease was 27 days (95%CI: 25-29). The rate of persistent symptoms was 46.8% at day 30 and 6.5% at day 60 consisting in asthenia (32.6%), anosmia (32.6%), and ageusia (30.4%). The probability of complete recovery was 56.3% (95%CI: 51.7-61.1) at day 30 and 85.6% (95%CI: 81.2-89.4) at day 60. Factors associated with persistent symptoms were age>40 (HR 0.61), female sex (HR 0.70), low cycle threshold (HR 0.78), and ageusia (HR 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 - even in its mild presentation - led to persistent symptoms (up to one month) in nearly half of individuals. Identification of risk factors such as age, gender, ageusia and viral load is crucial for clinical management and argues for the development of antiviral agents.

Switch from etravirine twice daily to once daily in non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-resistant HIV-infected patients with suppressed viremia: the Monetra study.

BACKGROUND: Etravirine (ETR) is recommended as twice-daily dosing in pretreated patients. There are no data regarding the use of ETR once daily in HIV-experienced patients with prior resistance to first-generation non-nucleoside reverse transcripase inhibitors (NNRTIs). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the capacity of once-daily ETR to maintain suppressed viremia over 48 weeks after switching from ETR twice daily in NNRTI-experienced patients. METHODS: In this pilot open-label study, patients with plasma viral load (pVL) <50 copies/mL on a stable ETR 200 mg bid regimen were enrolled to switch to ETR 400 mg qd and followed up over 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with pVL <50 copies/mL at week 24. Secondary endpoints included the rate of pVL< 50 copies/mL at week 48, ETR pharmacokinetic parameters, and tolerability and resistance profile. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were included. They had extensive antiretroviral treatment for a median of 14 years (range, 1-19). All except for 2 had prior resistance to NNRTIs. Seven patients discontinued ETR once daily prior to week 48 for virological failure (3), protocol deviation (3), and side effects (1). At week 24, 95% of patients maintained pVL< 50 copies/mL (95% CI, 78.4-99.7) and 85% at week 48 (95%CI, 65.6-95.8). Two of the 3 patients with virological failure had ETR resistance mutations prior to initiation. The median ETR C(trough) level remained stable after switching from twice daily 515 ng/mL (340-758) to once daily 422 ng/mL (264-655). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that ETR is effective as a once-daily regimen in patients with prior NNRTI experience when HIV is sensitive to ETR. The stability of C(trough) concentrations on a once-daily regimen confirms the once-daily profile of the drug in experienced patients.

GENOPHAR: a randomized study of plasma drug measurements in association with genotypic resistance testing and expert advice to optimize therapy in patients failing antiretroviral therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in association with genotypic resistance testing and expert advice to optimize therapy in multiexperienced patients infected with HIV-1. METHODS: Patients with a viral load>1000 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL and an unchanged antiretroviral therapy regimen over the last 3 months were randomized into two groups: a genotypic group (G) and a geno-pharmacological group (GP). Treatment was selected by an expert committee according to genotypic resistance testing (the G and GP groups) and TDM (the GP group) at week 4. Treatment could be modified at each visit according to toxicity, poor virological response and TDM. Results of TDM were withheld from the G group until week 12. The primary endpoint of the study was the percentage of patients with viral load<200 copies/mL at week 12. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were randomized in the study, with 67 in each group, and included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. At baseline, median values were as follows: viral load (log(10) copies/mL): G=4.1, GP=4.0; CD4 cell count (cells/microL): G=292, GP=294; and number of prior drugs: G=7, GP=8. The median number of resistance mutations was five in the G group [nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)=three; non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs)=one; protease inhibitors (PI)=one] and seven in the GP group (NRTI=four; NNRTI=two; PI=one). At week 8, treatment was adjusted according to the TDM in 13 of the 67 patients in the GP group (19%). By ITT missing equal failure analysis at week 12, and after only one intervention according to plasma concentration results, a viral load<200 copies/mL was achieved in 30 of the 67 patients (45%) in the G group and in 29 of the 67 patients (43%) in the GP group (not significant). In the multivariate analysis, only prior exposure to at least two PIs at baseline gave a poor response to subsequent antiretroviral therapy. At week 24, a viral load<200 copies/mL was achieved in 35 of the 67 patients (52%) in the G group and in 40 of the 67 patients (60%) in the GP group. CONCLUSIONS: A statistically significant benefit of using TDM was not found in this short-term study where patients appeared to be adherent. However, combining genotypic resistance testing with the use of an expert committee to monitor subsequent therapy individually in patients with multiple resistance mutations was associated with high antiviral efficacy.