No effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on darunavir plasma trough concentrations: a case report.

COVID-19 may be associated with worst outcomes in people living with HIV compared with HIV-negative patients. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir can be safely co-administered with all the HIV antiretroviral drugs, without considering dose adjustment. However, no studies have formally investigated the effect of a double booster (ritonavir plus cobicistat) regimen on darunavir concentrations. We presented a case describing the lack of effects of adding nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on darunavir plasma trough concentrations in a patient with HIV already on treatment with a booster-based antiretroviral regimen. We believe this could be a reassuring message for physicians, allowing them to prevent unnecessary denial of COVID-19 treatment or inappropriate discontinuation of co-medications in patients with HIV.

Different effects of the companion antiretroviral drugs on dolutegravir trough concentrations.

BACKGROUND: Dolutegravir is widely used in different dual and triple antiretroviral regimens. Here, we sought to investigate the effect of the companion antiretroviral drug(s) on dolutegravir plasma trough concentrations in persons with HIV, with a focus on dual regimens. METHODS: Dolutegravir concentrations collected from October 2015 to March 2023 ( n  = 900) were stratified according to the main antiretroviral classes (NRTIs, NNRTIs, protease inhibitors) and according to single drugs. Dolutegravir concentrations measured in persons with HIV concomitantly treated with lamivudine were considered as the reference group. RESULTS: Dolutegravir trough concentrations were significantly higher in persons with HIV given protease inhibitors compared with the reference [1886 (1036-2940) versus 1575 (1026-2226) ng/ml; P  = 0.004]. The highest dolutegravir concentrations were measured in persons with HIV concomitantly treated with unboosted atazanavir [2908 (2130-4135) ng/ml]. Conversely, co-administration of darunavir/ritonavir resulted in significantly lower dolutegravir exposure [909 (496-1397) ng/ml; P  = 0.002 versus reference]. Among NNRTIs, the higher dolutegravir concentrations were measured in presence of rilpivirine [2252 (1489-2686); P  < 0.001 versus reference]. CONCLUSION: Dolutegravir trough concentrations are differently affected by individual antiretroviral drugs, with some drug combinations (i.e. dolutegravir/darunavir/cobicistat, or dolutegravir/rilpivirine) providing significantly higher than expected dolutegravir exposure. Such combinations might be advantageous when there are concerns about dolutegravir plasma exposure or resistance.

Mortality rates among COVID-19 patients hospitalised during the first three waves of the epidemic in Milan, Italy: A prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: This paper describes how mortality among hospitalised COVID-19 patients changed during the first three waves of the epidemic in Italy. METHODS: This prospective cohort study used the Kaplan-Meier method to analyse the time-dependent probability of death of all of the patients admitted to a COVID-19 referral centre in Milan, Italy, during the three consecutive periods of: 21 February-31 July 2020 (first wave, W1), 1 August 2020-31 January 2021 (second wave, W2), and 1 February-30 April 2021 (third wave, W3). Cox models were used to examine the association between death and the period of admission after adjusting for age, biological sex, the time from symptom onset to admission, disease severity upon admission, obesity, and the comorbidity burden. RESULTS: Of the 2,023 COVID-19 patients admitted to our hospital during the study period, 553 (27.3%) were admitted during W1, 838 (41.5%) during W2, and 632 (31.2%) during W3. The crude mortality rate during W1, W2 and W3 was respectively 21.3%, 23.7% and 15.8%. After adjusting for potential confounders, hospitalisation during W2 or W3 was independently associated with a significantly lower risk of death than hospitalisation during W1 (adjusted hazard ratios [AHRs]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.95, and 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.77). Among the patients aged >75 years, there was no significant difference in the probability of death during the three waves (AHRs during W2 and W3 vs W1: 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.33, and 0.88, 95% CI 0.59-1.32), whereas those presenting with critical disease during W2 and W3 were at significantly lower risk of dying than those admitted during W1 (AHRs 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.88, and 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalisation during W2 and W3 was associated with a reduced risk of COVID-19 death in comparison with W1, but there was no difference in survival probability in patients aged >75 years.