No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

We describe a case of delayed onset, acute demyelinating neuropathy secondary to novel SARS-CoV-2 infection. A previously healthy 46-year-old man presented with bilateral leg pain and loss of sensation in his feet 53 days after having COVID-19 pneumonitis. He developed painful sensory symptoms followed by a rapidly progressive lower motor neuron weakness involving all limbs, face and respiratory muscles, needing ventilatory support. In keeping with a diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome, cerebrospinal fluid examination showed albuminocytologic dissociation and nerve conduction studies supported the diagnosis of an acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. The delayed neurological dysfunction seen in our patient following SARS-CoV-2 infection may indicate a novel mechanism of disease that is part of the emerging ‘long COVID-19 syndrome’.

BackgroundWhile the importance of record linkage is widely recognised, few studies have attempted to quantify how linkage errors may have impacted on their own findings and outcomes. Even where authors of linkage studies have attempted to estimate sensitivity and specificity based on subjects with known status, the effects of false negatives and positives on event rates and estimates of effect are not often described.MethodsWe present quantification of the effect of sensitivity and specificity of the linkage process on event rates and incidence, as well as the resultant effect on relative risks. Formulae to estimate the true number of events and estimated relative risk adjusted for given linkage sensitivity and specificity are then derived and applied to data from a prisoner mortality study. The implications of false positive and false negative matches are also discussed.DiscussionComparisons of the effect of sensitivity and specificity on incidence and relative risks indicate that it is more important for linkages to be highly specific than sensitive, particularly if true incidence rates are low. We would recommend that, where possible, some quantitative estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of the linkage process be performed, allowing the effect of these quantities on observed results to be assessed.

ObjectiveTo estimate the rate of combination antiretroviral treatment change and factors associated with combination antiretroviral treatment change among patients recruited in the Australian HIV Observational Database (AHOD). MethodsAnalyses were based on patients in the AHOD who had commenced combination antiretroviral treatment after 1 January 1997. Combination antiretroviral treatment change was de®ned as the addition or change of at least one antiretroviral drug. A random-effect Poisson regression model was used to assess factors associated with increased rates of combination antiretroviral treatment change. ResultsA total of 596 patients in the AHOD were included in the analysis, with a median follow-up of 2.3 years. The overall rate of antiretroviral treatment change in this group was 0.45 combinations per year. In a multivariate analysis, a low CD4 count (, 200 cells/mL) at baseline was associated with an increased rate of treatment change [rate ratio (RR) 1.43; 95% con®dence interval (CI), 1.13, 1.80; P 0.003)]. Combinations including a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor were also associated with slower rates of change than treatment combinations including a protease inhibitor (RR 0.64, 95% CI, 0.51, 0.80, P , 0.001). ConclusionInitiating combination antiretroviral at a CD4 cell count , 200 cells/mL may be associated with poorer patient outcomes. However, the possibility that clinician or patient concerns about low immunological status led to faster rates of treatment change in this group cannot be discounted.

The reduction in HIV DNA reservoirs generated by the early initiation of ART was sustained for 3 years of therapy. Although the PHI cohort trended to lower levels of pVL, and pVL was associated with CD8(+) T-cell activation, no differences in T-cell activation were observed between the PHI and CHI groups.

ObjectiveTo determine the durability over 96 weeks of safety and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and raltegravir (RAL) which was demonstrated to have non-inferior efficacy relative to a regimen of LPV/r with nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N(t)RTIs) (Control) in primary analysis at 48 weeks.DesignOpen label, centrally randomised trial.SettingRecruitment was from 37 primary and secondary care sites from Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe and Latin America.Subjects541 HIV-1 infected adults virologically failing first-line non-NRTI + 2N(t)RTI, with no previous exposure to protease inhibitors or integrase strand transfer inhibitors were analysed, 425 completed 96 weeks follow up on randomised therapy.InterventionRandomisation was 1:1 to Control or RAL.Main outcome measuresDifferences between the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA (VL) <200 copies/mL by intention to treat were compared with a non-inferiority margin of −12%. Differences in biochemical, haematological and metabolic changes were assessed using T-tests.ResultsVL <200 copies/mL at 96 weeks was: RAL 80.4%, Control 76.0% (difference: 4.4 [95%CI −2.6, 11.3]) and met non-inferiority criteria. The RAL arm had a significantly higher mean change (difference Control-RAL; 95%CI) in haemoglobin (−2.9; −5.7, −1.1), total lymphocytes (−0.2; −0.3, −0.0), total cholesterol (−0.5; −0.8, −0.3), HDL cholesterol (−0.1; −0.1, −0.0) and LDL cholesterol (−0.3; −0.5, −0.2).ConclusionAt 96 weeks, both RAL and Control maintained efficacy greater than 75% and continued to demonstrate similar safety profiles. These results support the use of a combination LPV/r and RAL regimen as an option following failure of 1st line NNRTI + 2N(t)RTIs.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00931463