Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Corticosteroids may modulate immune-mediated lung injury and reducing progression to respiratory failure and death. Methods: The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 therapy (RECOVERY) trial is a randomized, controlled, open-label, adaptive, platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We report the preliminary results for the comparison of dexamethasone 6 mg given once daily for up to ten days vs. usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Results: 2104 patients randomly allocated to receive dexamethasone were compared with 4321 patients concurrently allocated to usual care. Overall, 454 (21.6%) patients allocated dexamethasone and 1065 (24.6%) patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (age-adjusted rate ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74 to 0.92; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute mortality rate reductions varied significantly depending on level of respiratory support at randomization (test for trend p<0.001): Dexamethasone reduced deaths by one-third in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.0% vs. 40.7%, RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.51 to 0.82]; p<0.001), by one-fifth in patients receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (21.5% vs. 25.0%, RR 0.80 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.92]; p=0.002), but did not reduce mortality in patients not receiving respiratory support at randomization (17.0% vs. 13.2%, RR 1.22 [95% CI 0.93 to 1.61]; p=0.14). Conclusions: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, dexamethasone reduced 28-day mortality among those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen at randomization, but not among patients not receiving respiratory support.

BackgroundThe risk of tuberculosis (TB) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is thought to be increased following anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, with a proposed differential risk between the anti-TNF drugs etanercept (ETA), infliximab (INF) and adalimumab (ADA).ObjectiveTo compare directly the risk between drugs, to explore time to event, site of infection and the role of ethnicity.MethodsData from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR), a national prospective observational study, were used to compare TB rates in 10 712 anti-TNF treated patients (3913 ETA, 3295 INF, 3504 ADA) and 3232 patients with active RA treated with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.ResultsTo April 2008, 40 cases of TB were reported, all in the anti-TNF cohort. The rate of TB was higher for the monoclonal antibodies ADA (144 events/100 000 person-years) and INF (136/100 000 person-years) than for ETA (39/100 000 person-years). After adjustment, the incidence rate ratio compared with ETA-treated patients was 3.1 (95% CI 1.0 to 9.5) for INF and 4.2 (1.4 to 12.4) for ADA. The median time to event was lowest for INF (5.5 months) compared with ETA (13.4 months) and ADA (18.5 months). 13/40 cases occurred after stopping treatment. 25/40 (62%) cases were extrapulmonary, of which 11 were disseminated. Patients of non-white ethnicity had a sixfold increased risk of TB compared with white patients treated with anti-TNF therapy.ConclusionThe rate of TB in patients with RA treated with anti-TNF therapy was three- to fourfold higher in patients receiving INF and ADA than in those receiving ETA.

Objectives. To evaluate the risk of serious infections (SIs) in patients with RA treated with anti-TNF therapy with emphasis on the risk across different ages.Methods. Using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register, a prospective observational study, we compared the risk of SI between 11 798 anti-TNF-treated patients and 3598 non-biologic DMARD (nbDMARD)-treated patients.Results. A total of 1808 patients had at least one SI (anti-TNF: 1512; nbDMARD: 296). Incidence rates were: anti-TNF 42/1000 patient-years of follow-up (95% CI 40, 44) and nbDMARD 32/1000 patient-years of follow-up (95% CI 28, 36). The adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) for SI in the anti-TNF cohort was 1.2 (95% CI 1.1, 1.5). The risk did not differ significantly between the three agents adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab. The risk was highest during the first 6 months of therapy [adjHR 1.8 (95% CI 1.3, 2.6)]. Although increasing age was an independent risk factor for SI in both cohorts, there was no difference in relative risk of infection in patients on anti-TNF therapy in the older population. There was no difference in hospital stay for SI between cohorts. Mortality within 30 days of SI was 50% lower in the anti-TNF cohort [odds ratio 0.5 (95% CI 0.3, 0.8)].Conclusions. These data add to currently available evidence suggesting that anti-TNF therapy is associated with a small but significant overall risk of SI. This must be balanced against the risks associated with poor disease control or alternative treatments.

Background Microbiological characterisation of co-infections and secondary infections in patients with COVID-19 is lacking, and antimicrobial use is high. We aimed to describe microbiologically confirmed co-infections and secondary infections, and antimicrobial use, in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study is an ongoing, prospective cohort study recruiting inpatients from 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales, conducted by the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium. Patients with a confirmed or clinician-defined high likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were eligible for inclusion in the ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study. For this specific study, we excluded patients with a recorded negative SARS-CoV-2 test result and those without a recorded outcome at 28 days after admission. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, therapeutic, and outcome data were collected using a prespecified case report form. Organisms considered clinically insignificant were excluded. Findings We analysed data from 48 902 patients admitted to hospital between Feb 6 and June 8, 2020. The median patient age was 74 years (IQR 59–84) and 20 786 (42·6%) of 48 765 patients were female. Microbiological investigations were recorded for 8649 (17·7%) of 48 902 patients, with clinically significant COVID-19-related respiratory or bloodstream culture results recorded for 1107 patients. 762 (70·6%) of 1080 infections were secondary, occurring more than 2 days after hospital admission. Staphylococcus aureus and Haemophilus influenzae were the most common pathogens causing respiratory co-infections (diagnosed ≤2 days after admission), with Enterobacteriaceae and S aureus most common in secondary respiratory infections. Bloodstream infections were most frequently caused by Escherichia coli and S aureus . Among patients with available data, 13 390 (37·0%) of 36 145 had received antimicrobials in the community for this illness episode before hospital admission and 39 258 (85·2%) of 46 061 patients with inpatient antimicrobial data received one or more antimicrobials at some point during their admission (highest for patients in critical care). We identified frequent use of broad-spectrum agents and use of carbapenems rather than carbapenem-sparing alternatives. Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, microbiologically confirmed bacterial infections are rare, and more likely to be secondary infections. Gram-negative organisms and S aureus are the predominant pathogens. The frequency and nature of antimicrobial use are concerning, but tractable targets for stewardship interventions exist. Funding...

Rationale: The impact of COVID-19 on patients with Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD) has not been established. Objectives: To assess outcomes in patients with ILD hospitalized for COVID-19 versus those without ILD in a contemporaneous age, sex and comorbidity matched population. Methods: An international multicenter audit of patients with a prior diagnosis of ILD admitted to hospital with COVID-19 between 1 March and 1 May 2020 was undertaken and compared with patients, without ILD obtained from the ISARIC 4C cohort, admitted with COVID-19 over the same period. The primary outcome was survival. Secondary analysis distinguished IPF from non-IPF ILD and used lung function to determine the greatest risks of death. Measurements and Main Results: Data from 349 patients with ILD across Europe were included, of whom 161 were admitted to hospital with laboratory or clinical evidence of COVID-19 and eligible for propensity-score matching. Overall mortality was 49% (79/161) in patients with ILD with COVID-19. After matching ILD patients with COVID-19 had higher mortality (HR 1.60, Confidence Intervals 1.17-2.18 p=0.003) compared with age, sex and comorbidity matched controls without ILD. Patients with a Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) of <80% had an increased risk of death versus patients with FVC ≥80% (HR 1.72, 1.05-2.83). Furthermore, obese patients with ILD had an elevated risk of death (HR 2.27, 1.39−3.71). Conclusions: Patients with ILD are at increased risk of death from COVID-19, particularly those with poor lung function and obesity. Stringent precautions should be taken to avoid COVID-19 in patients with ILD.

Table of Contents 1. Levels of evidence1.1 Reference2. Introduction3. Auditable targets4. Table summaries4.1 Initial diagnosis4.2 Assessment of ART‐naïve individuals4.3 ART initiation4.4 Initial assessment following commencement of ART4.5 Routine monitoring on ART4.6 References5. Newly diagnosed and transferring HIV‐positive individuals5.1 Initial HIV‐1 diagnosis5.2 Tests to determine whether acquisition of HIV infection is recent5.3 Individuals transferring care from a different HIV healthcare setting5.4 Communication with general practitioners and shared care5.5 Recommendations5.6 References6. Patient history6.1 Initial HIV‐1 diagnosis6.2 Monitoring of ART‐naïve patients6.3 Pre‐ART initiation assessment6.4 Monitoring individuals established on ART6.5 Assessment of adherence6.6 Recommendations6.7 References7. Examination7.1 Recommendations8. Identifying the need for psychological support8.1 References9. Assessment of immune status9.1 CD4 T cell counts9.2 CD4 T cell percentage9.3 References10. HIV viral load10.1 Initial diagnosis/ART naïve10.2 Post ART initiation10.3 Individuals established on ART10.4 Recommendations10.5 References11. Technical aspects of viral load testing11.1 References12. Viral load kinetics during ART and viral load ‘blips’12.1 References13. Proviral DNA load13.1 References14. Resistance testing14.1 Initial HIV‐1 diagnosis14.2 ART‐naïve14.3 Post treatment initiation14.4 ART‐experienced14.5 References15. Subtype determination15.1 Disease progression15.2 Transmission15.3 Performance of molecular diagnostic assays15.4 Response to therapy15.5 Development of drug resistance15.6 References16. Other tests to guide use of specific antiretroviral agents16.1 Tropism testing16.2 HLA B*5701 testing16.3 References17. Therapeutic drug monitoring17.1 Recommendations17.2 References18. Biochemistry testing18.1 Introduction18.2 Liver function18.3 Renal function18.4 Dyslipidaemia in HIV‐infected individuals18.5 Other biomarkers18.6 Bone disease in HIV‐infected patients18.7 References19. Haematology19.1 Haematological assessment and monitoring19.2 Recommendations19.3 References20. Serology20.1 Overview20.2 Hepatitis viruses20.3 Herpes viruses20.4 Measles and rubella20.5 Cytomegalovirus (CMV)20.6 References21. Other microbiological screening21.1 Tuberculosis screening21.2 Toxoplasma serology21.3 Tropical screening21.4 References22. Sexual health screening including anal and cervical cytology22.1 Sexual history taking, counselling and sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening22.2 Cervical and anal cytology22.3 Recommendations22.4 References23. Routine monitoring recommended for specific patient groups23.1 Women23.2 Older age23.3 Injecting drug users23.4 Individuals coinfected with HBV and HCV23.5 Late presenters23.6 References Appendix

Background Studies of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 have found varying mortality outcomes associated with underlying respiratory conditions and inhaled corticosteroid use. Using data from a national, multicentre, prospective cohort, we aimed to characterise people with COVID-19 admitted to hospital with underlying respiratory disease, assess the level of care received, measure in-hospital mortality, and examine the effect of inhaled corticosteroid use. Methods We analysed data from the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study. All patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 across England, Scotland, and Wales between Jan 17 and Aug 3, 2020, were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Patients with asthma, chronic pulmonary disease, or both, were identified and stratified by age (<16 years, 16–49 years, and ≥50 years). In-hospital mortality was measured by use of multilevel Cox proportional hazards, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and medications (inhaled corticosteroids, short-acting β-agonists [SABAs], and long-acting β-agonists [LABAs]). Patients with asthma who were taking an inhaled corticosteroid plus LABA plus another maintenance asthma medication were considered to have severe asthma. Findings 75 463 patients from 258 participating health-care facilities were included in this analysis: 860 patients younger than 16 years (74 [8·6%] with asthma), 8950 patients aged 16–49 years (1867 [20·9%] with asthma), and 65 653 patients aged 50 years and older (5918 [9·0%] with asthma, 10 266 [15·6%] with chronic pulmonary disease, and 2071 [3·2%] with both asthma and chronic pulmonary disease). Patients with asthma were significantly more likely than those without asthma to receive critical care (patients aged 16–49 years: adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·20 [95% CI 1·05–1·37]; p=0·0080; patients aged ≥50 years: adjusted OR 1·17 [1·08–1·27]; p<0·0001), and patients aged 50 years and older with chronic pulmonary disease (with or without asthma) were significantly less likely than those without a respiratory condition to receive critical care (adjusted OR 0·66 [0·60–0·72] for those without asthma and 0·74 [0·62–0·87] for those with asthma; p<0·0001 for both). In patients aged 16–49 years, only those with severe asthma had a significant increase in mortality compared to those with no asthma (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·17 [95% CI 0·73–1·86] for those on no asthma therapy, 0·99 [0·61–1·58] for those on SABAs only, 0·94 [0·62–1·43] for those on inhaled corticosteroids only, 1·02 [0·67–1·54] for those on inhaled corticosteroids plus LABAs, and 1·96 [1·25–3·08] for those with severe asthma). Among patients aged 50 years and older, those with chronic pulmonary disease had a significantly increased mortality risk, regardless of inhaled corticosteroid use, compared to patients without an underlying respiratory condition (adjusted HR 1·1...

An online survey was conducted to compare the safety, tolerability and reactogenicity of available COVID-19 vaccines in different recipient groups. This survey was launched in February 2021 and ran for 11 days. Recipients of a first COVID-19 vaccine dose ≥ 7 days prior to survey completion were eligible. The incidence and severity of vaccination side effects were assessed. The survey was completed by 2002 respondents of whom 26.6% had a prior COVID-19 infection. A prior COVID-19 infection was associated with an increased risk of any side effect (risk ratio 1.08, 95% confidence intervals (1.05–1.11)), fever (2.24 (1.86–2.70)), breathlessness (2.05 (1.28–3.29)), flu-like illness (1.78 (1.51–2.10)), fatigue (1.34 (1.20–1.49)) and local reactions (1.10 (1.06–1.15)). It was also associated with an increased risk of severe side effects leading to hospital care (1.56 (1.14–2.12)). While mRNA vaccines were associated with a higher incidence of any side effect (1.06 (1.01–1.11)) compared with viral vector-based vaccines, these were generally milder (p < 0.001), mostly local reactions. Importantly, mRNA vaccine recipients reported a considerably lower incidence of systemic reactions (RR < 0.6) including anaphylaxis, swelling, flu-like illness, breathlessness and fatigue and of side effects requiring hospital care (0.42 (0.31–0.58)). Our study confirms the findings of recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating that COVID-19 vaccines are generally safe with limited severe side effects. For the first time, our study links prior COVID-19 illness with an increased incidence of vaccination side effects and demonstrates that mRNA vaccines cause milder, less frequent systemic side effects but more local reactions.