IMPORTANCEAcutely ill inpatients with COVID-19 typically receive antithrombotic therapy, although the risks and benefits of this intervention among outpatients with COVID-19 have not been established. OBJECTIVE To assess whether anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy can safely reduce major adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes among symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was designed as a minimal-contact, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. The trial was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and June 2021; final follow-up was August 5, 2021. Prior to initiating treatment, participants were required to have platelet count greater than 100 000/mm 3 and estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 .INTERVENTIONS Random allocation in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause. The primary analyses for efficacy and bleeding events were limited to participants who took at least 1 dose of trial medication. RESULTSOn June 18, 2021, the trial data and safety monitoring board recommended early terminationbecauseoflowerthananticipatedeventrates;atthattime,657symptomaticoutpatients with COVID-19 had been randomized (median age, 54 years [IQR,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]; 59% women). The median times from diagnosis to randomization and from randomization to initiation of study treatment were 7 days and 3 days, respectively. Twenty-two randomized participants (3.3%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 prior to initiating treatment. Among the 558 patients who initiated treatment, the adjudicated primary composite end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group. The risk differences compared with placebo for the primary end point were 0.0% (95% CI not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% CI, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5.0%) in the 5-mg apixaban group. Risk differences compared with placebo for bleeding events were 2.0% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%), 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%), and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) among participants who initiated therapy in the aspirin, prophylactic apixaban, and therapeutic apixaban groups, respectively, although none were major. Findings inclusive of all randomized patients were similar.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEV...

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study the activity of polyI:polyC12U administered with zidovudine was evaluated in the treatment of HIV infection. Thirty-six HIV-positive, pre-AIDS individuals (100-500 CD4+ cells/mm3) who had had at least six months of zidovudine therapy received polyI:polyC12U (400 or 700 mg) or placebo twice weekly with zidovudine. PolyI:polyC12U subjects with baseline CD4+ counts > or = 300/mm3 showed a trend towards reduced CD4+ loss versus placebo recipients. PolyI:polyC12U subjects were more likely to exhibit positive delayed-type hypersensitivity responses than placebo recipients. Placebo subjects crossing over to polyI:polyC12U therapy demonstrated improved CD4+ and delayed-type hypersensitivity responses. PolyI:polyC12U subjects with baseline CD4+ counts > or = 300/mm3 were less likely to develop AIDS than similar placebo subjects. PolyI:polyC12U therapy of HIV-positive subjects restored or stabilized immune function as indexed by delayed-type hypersensitivity reactivity and, in individuals with CD4+ counts > 300/mm3, abrogated CD4+ loss and reduced disease progression. PolyI:polyC12U was generally well-tolerated in this zidovudine-treated population. No subject discontinued therapy due to an adverse reaction or aberrant laboratory parameter.

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a physically debilitating illness associated with immunologic abnormalities, viral reactivation, and impairment of cognition. In a randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of 92 patients meeting the CFS case definition of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the response of several laboratory and clinical variables to an antiviral and immunomodulatory drug, poly(I).poly(C12U), was determined. Measures of clinical response included Karnofsky performance score, a cognition scale derived from a self-administered instrument assessing symptomatology (SCL-90-R), an activities of daily living scale, and exercise treadmill performance. After 24 weeks, patients receiving poly(I).poly(C12U) had higher scores for both global performance and perceived cognition than did patients receiving placebo. In particular, patients given poly(I).poly(C12U) had increased Karnofsky performance scores (P < .03), exhibited a greater ability to do work during exercise treadmill testing (P = .01), displayed an enhanced capacity to perform the activities of daily living (P < .04), had a reduced cognitive deficit (P = .05), and required less use of other medications (P < .05).

No abstract

Switching to ATV/r had no demonstrable benefit on abdominal adiposity. Maintenance of efficacy, less limb fat loss and marked reduction in proatherogenic lipids was observed with ATV/r compared with continuing a PI/r regimen.

This phase IIb study explored the antiviral activity and safety of the investigational CC chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) antagonist aplaviroc (APL) in antiretroviral-naïve patients harbouring R5-or R5X4-tropic virus. MethodsA total of 191 patients were randomized 2:2:2:1 to one of three APL dosing regimens or to lamivudine (3TC)/zidovudine (ZDV) twice daily (bid), each in combination with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 400 mg/100 mg bid. Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed. ResultsThis study was terminated prematurely because of APL-associated idiosyncratic hepatotoxicity. A total of 141 patients initiated treatment early enough to have been able to complete 12 weeks on treatment [modified intent-to-treat (M-ITT) population]; of these, 133 completed the 12-week treatment phase. The proportion of subjects in the M-ITT population with HIV-1 RNA o400 copies/mL at week 12 was 50, 48, 54 and 75% in the APL 200 mg bid, APL 400 mg bid, APL 800 mg once a day (qd) and 3TC/ZDV arms, respectively. Similar responses were seen in the few subjects harbouring R5X4-tropic virus (n 5 17). Common clinical adverse events (AEs) were diarrhoea, nausea, fatigue and headache. APL demonstrated nonlinear pharmacokinetics with high interpatient variability. ConclusionsWhile target plasma concentrations of APL were achieved, the antiviral activity of APL 1 LPV/r did not appear to be comparable to that of 3TC/ZDV 1 LPV/r. IntroductionUnlike currently available agents which inhibit HIV after infection of the target cell, aplaviroc (APL; 873140), a novel spirodiketopiperazine CC chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) antagonist, inhibits HIV entry into cells, blocking a critical step in the fusion process [1]. For this reason, CCR5 is an attractive potential target for the treatment of HIV infection [2,3].APL demonstrated significant anti-HIV activity in in vitro and severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mouse studies [4,5]. In a phase I/II randomized dose-ranging study of APL monotherapy in R5-tropic antiretroviral (ARV)-naïve (n 5 19) and ARV-experienced (n 5 21) patients, 10 days of APL led to dose-dependent decreases in HIV-1 *Data were presented in part at the 10th European AIDS Conference, Dublin, Ireland,[17][18][19][20] DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-1293.2008.00660.x HIV Medicine (2009 (RTV). In a drug interaction study in healthy volunteers, repeat-dose coadministration of APL with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) increased the plasma APL area under the curve (AUC) by 7.7-fold without significant changes in LPV or RTV plasma exposure [8]. The combination of APL and LPV/r was well tolerated over the 7-day dosing interval of this study.Triple-drug antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens that contain LPV/r are potent, durable and associated with a high barrier to genetic resistance when used in ARV-naïve patients [9,10]. In a pilot study, Gathe et al. reported that LPV/r may be effective as monotherapy in some ARV-naïve patients [11]. Thus, the nucleoside-sparing, two-drug combination of APL with LPV/r merited study in HIVinfected pati...

BackgroundTraditional first line regimens containing a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor or protease inhibitor may not be suitable for a subset of antiretroviral-naïve patients such as those with certain co-morbidities, women of child-bearing potential, and intolerability to components of standard first line therapy. This study was conducted to determine if alternate treatment options may meet the needs of both general and special patient populations. The ACTION study was a randomized, open-label, multicenter, 48-week trial that compared the safety and efficacy of a triple nucleoside regimen versus a protease inhibitor plus a dual nucleoside regimen in HIV-1 treatment-naïve subjects.Results279 HIV-infected subjects with HIV-1 RNA (VL) >5000 but < 200,000 copies/mL (c/mL) and CD4+ count ≥ 100 cells/mm3 were randomized (1:1) to receive abacavir sulfate/lamivudine/zidovudine (ABC/3TC/ZDV) twice-daily or atazanavir (ATV) once-daily plus lamivudine/zidovudine (3TC/ZDV) twice-daily. Protocol-defined virologic failure was based on multiple failure criteria.Non-inferiority of ABC/3TC/ZDV to ATV+3TC/ZDV was established with 62% vs. 59% of subjects achieving a VL < 50 c/mL at week 48, [ITT(E), M/S = F, 95% CI: -5.9, 10.4]. Similar results were observed in the 230 (82%) subjects with baseline VL<100,000 c/mL (ABC/3TC/ZDV vs. ATV+3TC/ZDV), 66% vs. 59%; 95% CI: -5.6, 19.5. However, ABC/3TC/ZDV did not meet the non-inferiority criterion compared to ATV+3TC/ZDV in the 48 subjects with baseline VL ≥ 100,000 c/mL, 39% vs. 60%; 95% CI: -49.2, 7.4, respectively. Protocol-defined virologic failure was similar between groups.ConclusionABC/3TC/ZDV demonstrated comparable virologic efficacy to ATV+3TC/ZDV in this population over 48 weeks. In those with a baseline VL ≥ 100,000 c/mL, subjects in the ATV+3TC/ZDV showed better virologic efficacy. Both regimens offer benefits in select therapy-naïve subjects.Trial Registration[Clinical Trials Identifier, NCT00082394].

No abstract