Prevalence of people living with multidrug-resistant HIV and limited treatment options in Spain.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine the prevalence and characteristics of people with HIV on antiretroviral therapy (ART) with multidrug resistance (MDR; confirmed resistance to three or more [or resistance to two or more plus contraindication to one or more] core ART classes) and limited treatment options (LTOs) in Spain. METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective, multicentre, cross-sectional chart review study undertaken in five reference Spanish centres. Participants were people with HIV on ART with MDR and LTOs (detectable viral load [HIV-RNA >200 copies/mL], treatment-limiting drug-drug interaction [DDI], or intolerance precluding the use of one or more ART classes). Prevalence, demographic/clinical characteristics, and treatment options were assessed. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify MDR-associated variables. RESULTS: Of 14 955 screened people with HIV, 69 (0.46%) presented with MDR and 23 (0.15%) had LTOs. The population analysed was 73.9% male with a median age of 54.0 years; the median time since HIV diagnosis was 26.5 years, and median CD4+ cell count was 511.0 cells/µL. The only factor significantly associated with MDR (univariate analysis) was CD4+ cell count. Injection drug use was the most common transmission route. Comorbidities (mainly endocrine and cardiovascular disorders; 34.8% affecting HIV management) and concomitant treatments were frequent. No recent opportunistic infections were reported. Patients had been exposed to the following ART: nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (100%), protease inhibitors (95.6%), non-nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (87.0%), and integrase strand transfer inhibitors (82.6%). The available fully active drugs were dolutegravir (39.1%), bictegravir (30.4%), and raltegravir (21.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of people with HIV with MDR and LTOs in Spain is very low, with approximately half of those studied not exhibiting virological suppression. Low CD4+ cell counts were associated with MDR. These findings may help address the impact and treatment needs of these patients and prevent clinical progression and transmission of MDR HIV.

Long-term impact of immediate versus deferred antiretroviral therapy on kidney health in people with HIV.

People with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are at risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD) due to HIV and antiretroviral therapy (ART) nephrotoxicity. Immediate ART initiation reduces mortality and is now the standard of care, but the long-term impact of prolonged ART exposure on CKD is unknown. To evaluate this, the Strategic Timing of Antiretroviral Treatment (START) trial randomized 4,684 ART-naïve adults with CD4 cell count under 500 cells/mm3 to immediate versus deferred ART. We previously reported a small but statistically significantly greater decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over a median of 2.1 years in participants randomized to deferred versus immediate ART. Here, we compare the incidence of CKD events and changes in eGFR and urine albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) in participants randomized to immediate versus deferred ART during extended follow-up. Over a median of 9.3 years, eight participants experienced kidney failure or kidney-related death, three in the immediate and five in the deferred ART arms, respectively. Over a median of five years of more comprehensive follow-up, the annual rate of eGFR decline was 1.19 mL/min/1.73m2/year, with no significant difference between treatment arms (difference deferred - immediate arm 0.055; 95% confidence interval -0.106, 0.217 mL/min/1.73m2). Results were similar in models adjusted for baseline covariates associated with CKD, including UACR and APOL1 genotype. Similarly, there was no significant difference between treatment arms in incidence of confirmed UACR 30 mg/g or more (odds ratio 1.13; 95% confidence interval 0.85, 1.51). Thus, our findings provide the most definitive evidence to date in support of the long-term safety of early ART with respect to kidney health.

RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template. METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again. RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease. CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines.

Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and severity of COVID-19 in people with HIV infection

BackgroundEffective, safe, and affordable antivirals are needed for COVID-19. Tenofovir has not been studied in randomized trials despite evidence consistent with its effectiveness against COVID-19. MethodsWe studied HIV-positive individuals on antiretroviral therapy (ART) in 2020 at 69 HIV clinics in Spain. We collected data on sociodemographics, ART, CD4-cell count, HIV-RNA viral load, comorbidities and the following outcomes: laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. We compared the 48-week risks for individuals receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/ FTC, abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC), and other regimes. All estimates were adjusted for clinical and sociodemographic characteristics via inverse probability weighting. ResultsOf 51,558 eligible individuals, 39.6% were on TAF/FTC, 11.9% on TDF/FTC, 26.6% on ABC/3TC, 21.8% on other regimes. There were 2,402 documented SARS-CoV-2 infections (425 hospitalizations, 45 ICU admissions, 37 deaths). Compared with TAF/FTC, the estimated risk ratios (RR) (95% CI) of hospitalization were 0.66 (0.43, 0.91) for TDF/FTC and 1.29 (1.02, 1.58) for ABC/3TC, the RRs of ICU admission were 0.28 (0.11, 0.90) for TDF/FTC and 1.39 (0.70, 2.80) for ABC/3TC, and the RRs of death were 0.37 (0.23, 1.90) for TDF/FTC and 2.02 (0.88-6.12) for ABC/3TC. The corresponding RRs of hospitalization for TDF/FTC were 0.49 (0.24, 0.81) in individuals [≥]50 years and 1.15 (0.59, 1.93) in younger individuals. ConclusionOur findings suggest that, compared with other antiretrovirals, TDF/FTC lowers COVID-19 severity among HIV-positive individuals with virological control. This protective effect may be restricted to individuals aged 50 years and older.

Evolutionary and phenotypic characterization of spike mutations in a new SARS-CoV-2 Lineage reveals two Variants of Interest

Molecular epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 aims to monitor the appearance of new variants with the potential to change the virulence or transmissibility of the virus. During the first year of SARS-CoV-2 evolution, numerous variants with possible public health impact have emerged. We have detected two mutations in the Spike protein at amino acid positions 1163 and 1167 that have appeared independently multiple times in different genetic backgrounds, indicating they may increase viral fitness. Interestingly, the majority of these sequences appear in transmission clusters, with the genotype encoding mutations at both positions increasing in frequency more than single-site mutants. This genetic outcome that we denote as Lineage B.1.177.637, belongs to clade 20E and includes 12 additional single nucleotide polymorphisms but no deletions with respect to the reference genome (first sequence in Wuhan). B.1.177.637 appeared after the first wave of the epidemic in Spain, and subsequently spread to eight additional countries, increasing in frequency among sequences in public databases. Positions 1163 and 1167 of the Spike protein are situated in the HR2 domain, which is implicated in the fusion of the host and viral membranes. To better understand the effect of these mutations on the virus, we examined whether B.1.177.637 altered infectivity, thermal stability, or antibody sensitivity. Unexpectedly, we observed reduced infectivity of this variant relative to the ancestral 20E variant in vitro while the levels of viral RNA in nasopharyngeal swabs did not vary significantly. In addition, we found the mutations do not impact thermal stability or antibody susceptibility in vaccinated individuals but display a moderate reduction in sensitivity to neutralization by convalescent sera from early stages of the pandemic. Altogether, this lineage could be considered a Variant of Interest (VOI), we denote VOI1163.7. Finally, we detected a sub-cluster of sequences within VOI1163.7 that have acquired two additional changes previously associated with antibody escape and it could be identified as VOI1163.7.V2. Overall, we have detected the spread of a new Spike variant that may be advantageous to the virus and whose continuous transmission poses risks by the acquisition of additional mutations that could affect pre-existing immunity.

SARS-CoV-2 and ECMO: early results and experience.

INTRODUCTION: In this paper, we describe our experience and early outcomes with critically unwell severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) patients who required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We present our standard practices around ECMO decision-making, retrieval, cannulation, ventilation, anticoagulation, tracheostomy, imaging and steroids. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using data from the hospital notes on all SARS-CoV-2 patients who required extracorporeal support at St Bartholomew's Hospital between 1 March 2020 and 31 July 2020. In total, this included 18 patients over this time period. RESULTS: In total, 18 patients were managed with extracorporeal support and of these 14 survived (78%) with 4 deaths (22%). The mean duration from hospital admission to intubation was 4.1 ± 3.4 days, mean time from intubation to ECMO 2.3 ± 2 days and mean run on ECMO 17.7 ± 9.4 days. Survivor mean days from intubation to extubation was 20.6 ± 9.9 days and survivor mean days from intubation to tracheostomy decannulation 46.6 ± 15.3 days. Time from hospital admission to discharge in survivors was a mean of 57.2 ± 25.8 days. Of the patients requiring extracorporeal support, the initial mode was veno-venous (VV) in 15 (83%), veno-arterial (VA) in 2 (11%) and veno-venous-arterial (VVA) in 1 (6%). On VV extracorporeal support, 2 (11%) required additional VVA. Renal replacement therapy was required in 10 (56%) of the patients. Anticoagulation target anti-Xa of 0.2-0.4 was set, with 10 (56%) patients having a deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism detected and 2 (11%) patients suffering an intracranial haemorrhage. Tracheostomy was performed in 9 (50%) of the patients and high-dose methylprednisolone was given to 7 (39%) of the patients. CONCLUSION: In our cohort of patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 respiratory failure, a long period of invasive ventilation and extracorporeal support was required but achieving good outcomes despite this. There was a significant burden of thromboembolic disease and renal injury. A significant proportion of patients required tracheostomy and steroids to facilitate weaning.