Temesgen, Zelalem

Abstract Background Increased prevalence of reduced bone mineral density (BMD) is well documented in persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), or both. This study's purpose was to determine if an association exists between dietary calcium intake and BMD in these patients. Methods Participants were individuals with virologically suppressed HIV or untreated HCV monoinfections, those with HIV/HCV coinfection, and noninfected controls. The Hertzler-Frary dietary calcium questionnaire documented calcium intake with calcium amounts based on the US Department of Agriculture nutrient database. BMD was measured at baseline by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and χ2 tests were used to assess the relationship between BMD and infection status. One-way analysis of covariance was used to compare calcium intake data with the prevalence of normal BMD and osteoporosis by infection group. Adjustments were made for race, age, body mass index, and smoking status. Spearman correlation was used to identify relationships between calcium intake from foods/beverages and BMD. Results A total of 452 men were recruited into the study. Osteoporosis and osteopenia were prevalent, but there was no association between infection group and BMD result (χ2(6) = 6.813; P = .34). Only HCV-infected patients with osteoporosis had lower calcium intake than patients with normal BMD (mean difference, 409 mg/d [95% confidence interval, 35–784 mg/d]; P = .03). Conclusions In this study population, dietary calcium intake was correlated with reduced BMD only in patients with HCV monoinfection.

Abstract Background Rifampin-resistant tuberculosis is a leading cause of morbidity worldwide; only one-third of persons start treatment, and outcomes are often inadequate. Several trials demonstrate 90% efficacy using an all-oral, 6-month regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid (BPaL), but significant toxicity occurred using 1200-mg linezolid. After US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2019, some US clinicians rapidly implemented BPaL using an initial 600-mg linezolid dose adjusted by serum drug concentrations and clinical monitoring. Methods Data from US patients treated with BPaL between 14 October 2019 and 30 April 2022 were compiled and analyzed by the BPaL Implementation Group (BIG), including baseline examination and laboratory, electrocardiographic, and clinical monitoring throughout treatment and follow-up. Linezolid dosing and clinical management was provider driven, and most patients had linezolid adjusted by therapeutic drug monitoring. Results Of 70 patients starting BPaL, 2 changed to rifampin-based therapy, 68 (97.1%) completed BPaL, and 2 of the 68 (2.9%) experienced relapse after completion. Using an initial 600-mg linezolid dose daily adjusted by therapeutic drug monitoring and careful clinical and laboratory monitoring for adverse effects, supportive care, and expert consultation throughout BPaL treatment, 3 patients (4.4%) with hematologic toxicity and 4 (5.9%) with neurotoxicity required a change in linezolid dose or frequency. The median BPaL duration was 6 months. Conclusions BPaL has transformed treatment for rifampin-resistant or intolerant tuberculosis. In this cohort, effective treatment required less than half the duration recommended in 2019 US guidelines for drug-resistant tuberculosis. Use of individualized linezolid dosing and monitoring likely enhanced safety and treatment completion. The BIG cohort demonstrates that early implementation of new tuberculosis treatments in the United States is feasible.

Objective: Our study aimed to assess the impact of pharmacogenomic panel testing in people with HIV (PWH). Design: Prospective, observational intervention assessment Methods: One hundred PWH were provided a comprehensive pharmacogenomic panel during routine care visits within the HIV specialty clinic of a large academic medical center. The panel determined the presence of specific genetic variants that could predict response or toxicity to commonly prescribed antiretroviral therapy (ART) and non-ART medications. An HIV specialty pharmacist reviewed the results with participants and the care team. The pharmacist (1) recommended clinically actionable interventions based on the participants’ current drug therapy, (2) assessed for genetic explanations for prior medication failures, adverse effects, or intolerances, and (3) advised on potential future clinically actionable care interventions based on individual genetic phenotypes. Results: Ninety-six participants (median age 53 years, 74% white, 84% men, 89% viral load <50 copies/ml) completed panel testing, yielding 682 clinically relevant pharmacogenomic results (133 major, 549 mild–moderate). Ninety participants (89 on ART) completed follow-up visits with 65 (72%) receiving clinical recommendations based on current medication profiles. Of the 105 clinical recommendations, 70% advised additional monitoring for efficacy or toxicity, and 10% advised alteration of drug therapy. Panel results offered explanation for prior ART inefficacy in one participant and ART intolerance in 29%. Genetic explanation for non-ART toxicity was seen in 21% of participants, with genetic contributors to inefficacy of non-ART therapy identified in 39% of participants. Conclusion: Preliminary data in a small cohort of PWH demonstrates benefit of routine pharmacogenomic panel testing.

In 1989, one in four (25%) infants born to women living with HIV were infected; by the age of 2 years, there was 25% mortality among them due to HIV. These and other pieces of data prompted the development of interventions to offset vertical transmission, including the landmark Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trial Group Study (PACTG 076) in 1994. This study reported a 67.5% reduction in perinatal HIV transmission with prophylactic antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal zidovudine. Numerous studies since then have provided compelling evidence to further optimize interventions, such that annual transmission rates of 0% are now reported by many health departments in the US and elimination has been validated in several countries around the world. Despite this success, the elimination of HIV’s vertical transmission on the global scale remains a work in progress, limited by socioeconomic factors such as the prohibitive cost of antiretrovirals. Here, we review some of the key trials underpinning the development of guidelines in the US as well as globally, and discuss the evidence through a historic lens.

Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) results from SARS-CoV-2-induced hyperinflammatory immune response, orchestrated by granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). GM-CSF increases interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels, ultimately leading to increased C-reactive protein (CRP). The LIVE-AIR trial demonstrated that lenzilumab, the GM-CSF neutralizing antibody, improved the likelihood of survival without invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen but not IMV. This sub-analysis correlated levels of cytokines before and after lenzilumab treatment. Methods LIVE-AIR was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (NCT04351152). Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia, requiring only supplemental oxygen, were randomized to receive lenzilumab (1800 mg in three equally divided doses of 600 mg, q8h) or placebo IV infusion, in addition to standard of care which included remdesivir and corticosteroids. Blood taken at baseline (BL) and subsequent to treatment through day 10 (D10) were obtained and analyzed by high sensitivity enzyme immunoassay for GM-CSF, IL-6, and CRP. Results Baseline IL-6 levels (Loge-transformed for all cytokines and biomarkers) were linearly correlated with higher baseline GM-CSF levels (slope=0.60, p&lt; 0.001). Baseline CRP levels were linearly correlated with higher baseline IL-6 levels (slope=0.29, p &lt; 0.001). GM-CSF levels decreased with lenzilumab treatment on day 1 (D1) which persisted through D10 (Table). In contrast, GM-CSF increased with placebo treatment. IL-6 levels decreased only with lenzilumab treatment. CRP following lenzilumab or placebo treatment decreased on D1 to similar levels and further decreased on D10 only with lenzilumab treatment. Cytokine Levels Associated with Lenzilumab Treatment Conclusion Lenzilumab decreased GM-CSF as well as downstream cytokines and systemic biomarkers of inflammation during the hyperinflammatory immune response of COVD-19. Disclosures Dale Chappell, MD, MBA, Humanigen, Inc: Employee|Humanigen, Inc: Ownership Interest Adrian Kilcoyne, MD, Humanigen, Inc: Employee Frank Cerasoli, PhD, Humanigen, Inc: Advisor/Consultant John Lukas, PhD, Humanigen, Inc: Advisor/Consultant Cameron Durrant, MD, Humanigen, Inc: Employee|Humanigen, Inc: Ownership Interest Zelalem Temesgen, MD, Gilead: unrestricted educational grant (to the institution)|Humanigen, Inc: Grant/Research Support|Merck: unrestricted educational grant (to the institution)|ViiV: Advisor/Consultant Christopher Polk, MD, Gilead: Advisor/Consultant Jason Baker, MD, Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Humanigen, Inc: Grant/Research Support Vincent Marconi, MD, Gilead: Grant/Research Support.

Objective The objective of this study was to determine whether a triple therapy regimen incorporating twice-daily saquinavir is as effective as a three-times daily regimen. Methods This was an open-label, Phase III, multicentre, 48-week study involving 837 HIV-1-infected patients randomised to one of the following: saquinavir soft gel capsule (SGC) 1200 mg three-times daily, plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) (arm A); saquinavir SGC 1600 mg twice-daily, plus two NRTIs (arm B); saquinavir SGC 1200 mg twice-daily and nelfinavir 1250 mg twice-daily, plus a single NRTI (arm C). The primary outcome measure was the virological response in arm A versus B and in arm A versus C with respect to the percentage of patients whose plasma HIV-1 RNA levels fell below the level of quantification for the Amplicor assay (<400 copies/ml) at weeks 24 and 48. Results At 48 weeks, the percentage of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels <400 copies/ml was 47.1% (arm A), 45.3% (arm B) and 42.7% (arm C) in the intention-to-treat analysis. The treatment difference between arm B–arm A was -1.8% (95% confidence intervals -10.1, 6.5) and for arm C–arm A was -4.5% (95% confidence intervals -12.7, 3.7) in the intention-to-treat analysis. These differences fell within the maximum allowable difference (±12%) for arm B compared with arm A. At week 24, the percentage of patients with HIV-1 RNA levels <400 copies/ml was 59.6% (arm A), 57.6% (arm B) and 51.3% (arm C). Conclusions A twice-daily triple therapy regimen incorporating saquinavir SGC plus two NRTIs was of equivalent efficacy to the three-times daily regimen studied. All regimens were generally well tolerated.