Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

Background: Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aimed to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. Methods: Rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified published and unpublished RCTs by September 14, 2020 (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, PubMed, Cochrane COVID-19 registry). All-cause mortality was extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses included patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Results: Sixty-two trials were potentially eligible. We included 16 unpublished trials (1596 patients) and 10 publications/preprints (6317 patients). The combined summary OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine was 1.08 (95%CI: 0.99, 1.18; I-square=0%; 24 trials; 7659 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I-square=0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. Conclusions: We found no benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine on the survival of COVID-19 patients. For hydroxychloroquine, the confidence interval is compatible with increased mortality (OR 1.18) or negligibly reduced mortality (OR 0.99). Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

BackgroundAnal cancer has become one of the most common non-AIDS-defined tumors among Human Immunodeficiency Virus-positive (HIV+) individuals, and a rise in its incidence among HIV+ Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) has been shown, despite the introduction of Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART). Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infections are highly prevalent among HIV+ MSM and recent studies have shown high rates of HPV-associated anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) and anal cancer among this population.MethodsIn the present study we determined the prevalence and nature of HPV co-infections in the anal canal of 324 HIV+ MSM attending a high specialty medical center in Mexico City, DNA extraction and amplification with generic primers for HPV was performed, followed by detection of specific types and co-infections with INNO-Lipa, and identification of variants by amplification and sequencing of the E6 and LCR region of HPV 16.ResultsWe found a very high prevalence of HPV infections among this cohort (86%), with more than one fourth of them (28%) positive for type 16. Among HPV16-positive patients, European variants were the most prevalent, followed by Asian-American ones. Among these individuals (HPV-16+), we identified co-infections with other 21 HPV types namely; 11, 51, 52, 6, 66, 68, 74, 18, 45, 35, 26, 44, 70, 53, 54, 82, 31, 33, 56, 58, 59.ConclusionsHIV+ MSM show a very high rate of HPV infections in the anal canal and those with type 16 exhibited a multiplicity of associated types. This study emphasizes the need for an early detection of HPV infections among HIV+ MSM in order to establish its utility to prevent anal neoplasia and cancer.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-014-0671-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe Histoplasma urine antigen (HUAg) is the preferred method to diagnose progressive disseminated histoplasmosis (PDH) in HIV patients. In 2007, IMMY ALPHA Histoplasma EIA was approved for clinical for on-site use, and therefore useful for regions outside the United States. However, ALPHA-HUAg is considered inferior to the MVista-HUAg which is only available on referral. We aim to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ALPHA-HUAg.Methodology/Principal findingsWe conducted a multicenter, prospective, diagnostic test study in two secondary and eight tertiary-care facilities in Mexico. We included HIV patient with PDH suspicion and evaluated ALPHA-HUAg diagnostic accuracy using as reference standard the Histoplasma capsulatum growth on blood, bone marrow, and tissue cultures or compatible histopathologic exam (PDH–proven). We evaluated the results of 288 patients, 29.5% (85/288; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.3–35.1) had PDH. The sensitivity of ALPHA-HUAg was 67.1% (95% CI, 56–76.8%) and the specificity was 97.5% (95% CI, 94.3%-99.1%). The positive likelihood ratio was 27.2 (95% CI; 11.6–74.4). In 10.5% of the PDH–proven patients, a co-existing opportunistic infection was diagnosed, mostly disseminated Mycobacterium avium complex infection.Conclusions/SignificanceWe observed a high specificity but low sensitivity of IMMY-HUAg. The test may be useful to start early antifungals, but a culture-based approach is necessary since co-infections are frequent and a negative IMMY-HUAg result does not rule out PDH.

Background The progressive disseminated histoplasmosis (PDH) has been associated with severe disease and high risk of death among people living with HIV (PLWHIV). Therefore, the purpose of this multicenter, prospective, double-blinded study done in ten Mexican hospitals was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of detecting Histoplasma capsulatum antigen in urine using the IMMY ALPHA Histoplasma EIA kit (IAHE), clarus Histoplasma GM Enzyme Immunoassay (cHGEI IMMY) and MiraVista Histoplasma Urine Antigen LFA (MVHUALFA); as well as the Hcp100 and 1281-1283220SCAR nested PCRs in blood, bone-marrow, tissue biopsies and urine. Methodology/Principal findings We included 415 PLWHIV older than 18 years of age with suspicion of PDH. Using as diagnostic standard recovery of H. capsulatum in blood, bone marrow or tissue cultures, or histopathological exam compatible, detected 108 patients (26%, [95%CI, 21.78–30.22]) with proven-PDH. We analyzed 391 urine samples by the IAHE, cHGEI IMMY and MVHUALFA; the sensitivity/specificity values obtained were 67.3% (95% CI, 57.4–76.2) / 96.2% (95% CI, 93.2–98.0) for IAHE, 91.3% (95% CI, 84.2–96.0) / 90.9% (95% CI, 87.0–94.0) for cHGEI IMMY and 90.4% (95% CI, 83.0–95.3) / 92.3% (95% CI, 88.6–95.1) for MVHUALFA. The Hcp100 nested PCR was performed on 393, 343, 75 and 297, blood, bone marrow, tissue and urine samples respectively; the sensitivity/specificity values obtained were 62.9% (95%CI, 53.3–72.5)/ 89.5% (95%CI, 86.0–93.0), 65.9% (95%CI, 56.0–75.8)/ 89.0% (95%CI, 85.2–92.9), 62.1% (95%CI, 44.4–79.7)/ 82.6% (95%CI, 71.7–93.6) and 34.9% (95%CI, 24.8–46.2)/ 67.3% (95%CI, 60.6–73.5) respectively; and 1281-1283220SCAR nested PCR was performed on 392, 344, 75 and 291, respectively; the sensitivity/specificity values obtained were 65.3% (95% CI, 55.9–74.7)/ 58.8% (95%CI, 53.2–64.5), 70.8% (95%CI, 61.3–80.2)/ 52.9% (95%CI, 46.8–59.1), 71.4% (95%CI, 54.7–88.2)/ 40.4% (95%CI, 26.4–54.5) and 18.1% (95%CI, 10.5–28.1)/ 90.4% (95%CI, 85.5–94.0), respectively. Conclusions/Significance The cHGEI IMMY and MVHUALFA tests showed excellent performance for the diagnosis of PDH in PLWHIV. The integration of these tests in clinical laboratories will certainly impact on early diagnosis and treatment.

Background We evaluated clinical effectiveness of regdanvimab (CT-P59), a SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing monoclonal antibody, in reducing disease progression and clinical recovery time in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, primarily alpha variant. Methods This was phase 3 of a phase 2/3 parallel-group, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, were randomized to single dose regdanvimab 40 mg/kg (n = 656) or placebo (n = 659), alongside standard-of-care. Primary endpoint: COVID-19 disease progression (clinical symptoms requiring hospitalization or oxygen therapy, or mortality) up to day 28 among “high risk” patients. Key secondary endpoints: disease progression (all randomized patients) and time to recovery (high-risk and all randomized patients). Results Of 1315 patients randomized to regdanvimab or placebo, 880 were high risk (regdanvimab, n = 446; placebo, n = 434); the majority (regdanvimab, n = 371; placebo n = 381) were infected with alpha variant. The proportion with disease progression was lower (14/446 [3.1%; 95% CI, 1.9–5.2] vs. 48/434 [11.1%; 95% CI, 8.4–14.4]; P < 0.001) and time to recovery was shorter (median, 9.27 days [95% CI, 8.27–11.05] vs. not reached [95% CI, 12.35–not calculable]; P < 0.001) with regdanvimab than placebo. Consistent improvements were seen in all randomized and non–high-risk patients who received regdanvimab. Viral load reductions were more rapid with regdanvimab. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 11/1302 patients (4/652 [0.6%] regdanvimab, 7/650 [1.1%] placebo). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were reported in 5/1302 patients (4 [0.6%] regdanvimab, 1 [0.2%] placebo). Conclusions Regdanvimab was an effective treatment for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, significantly reducing disease progression and clinical recovery time without notable safety concerns prior to the emergence of the omicron variant. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04602000; EudraCT number, 2020-003369-20

Introduction The novel coronavirus pandemic (COVID–19) represents a major public health problem and it is key to find a treatment that reduces mortality. Our objective was to estimate whether treatment with 400 mg/day of Hydroxychloroquine for 10 days reduces in-hospital mortality in subjects with severe respiratory disease due to COVID-19 compared with placebo. Material and methods A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of severe disease by COVID-19 through an intention-to-treat analysis. Eligible for the study were adults aged more than 18 years with COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR and lung injury requiring hospitalization with or without mechanical ventilation. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes: days of mechanical ventilation, days of hospitalization and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events. Results A total of 214 patients with COVID-19 were recruited, randomized and analyzed. They were hypoxemic with a mean SpO2 of 65% ± 20, tachycardic (pulse rate 108±17 min-1) and tachypneic (32 ±10 min-1); 162 were under mechanical ventilation at randomization. Thirty-day mortality was similar in both groups (38% in Hydroxychloroquine vs. 41% in placebo, hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% Confidence Interval [95%CI] 0.51–1.53). In the surviving participants, no significant difference was found in secondary outcomes. Conclusion No beneficial effect or significant harm could be demonstrated in our randomized controlled trial including 214 patients, using relatively low doses of Hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19.

Influenza A (H1N1pdm09)-related critical illness still predominantly affects relatively young to middle-aged patients and is associated with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. The local critical care system and available resources may be influential determinants of patient outcome.