Explore the vast range of titles available.

Immune dysregulation is an important component of the pathophysiology of COVID-19. A large body of literature has reported the effect of immune-based therapies in patients with COVID-19, with some remarkable successes such as the use of steroids or anti-cytokine therapies. However, challenges in clinical decision-making arise from the complexity of the disease phenotypes and patient heterogeneity, as well as the variable quality of evidence from immunotherapy studies. This Review aims to support clinical decision-making by providing an overview of the evidence generated by major clinical trials of host-directed therapy. We discuss patient stratification and propose an algorithm to guide the use of immunotherapy strategies in the clinic. This will not only help guide treatment decisions, but may also help to design future trials that investigate immunotherapy in other severe infections. This Review aims to support clinical decision-making by providing an overview of the evidence for immunotherapy strategies in patients with COVID-19.

In an open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial, dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy was compared with standard care in children and adolescents starting first- or second-line therapy for HIV type 1 infection. Dolutegravir-based ART was superior to standard-care ART.

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.DesignInvestigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study.SettingTwenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018.ParticipantsPatients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein.InterventionsRandomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms.Results812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval −5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and −0.6% (−10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms.ConclusionsAll four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.Trial registrationEudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815.

In a trial involving 1033 patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the addition of baricitinib to remdesivir was associated with shorter recovery time, particularly among patients receiving high-flow oxygen, and with a 30% higher odds of improvement at day 15 than remdesivir alone. Adverse events were less frequent with the combination therapy.

There are no studies on withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in patients on long-term triple therapy in the absence of frequent exacerbations. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct de-escalation from long-term triple therapy to indacaterol/glycopyrronium in nonfrequently exacerbating patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This 26-week, randomized, double-blind, triple-dummy study assessed the direct change from long-term triple therapy to indacaterol/glycopyrronium (110/50 μg once daily) or continuation of triple therapy (tiotropium [18 μg] once daily plus combination of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate [50/500 μg] twice daily) in nonfrequently exacerbating patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Primary endpoint was noninferiority on change from baseline in trough FEV . Moderate or severe exacerbations were predefined secondary endpoints. A total of 527 patients were randomized to indacaterol/glycopyrronium and 526 to triple therapy. Inhaled corticosteroids withdrawal led to a reduction in trough FEV of -26 ml (95% confidence interval, -53 to 1 ml) with confidence limits exceeding the noninferiority margin of -50 ml. The annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations did not differ between treatments (rate ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.40). Patients with ≥300 blood eosinophils/μl at baseline presented greater lung function loss and higher exacerbation risk. Adverse events were similar in the two groups. In patients with COPD without frequent exacerbations on long-term triple therapy, the direct de-escalation to indacaterol/glycopyrronium led to a small decrease in lung function, with no difference in exacerbations. The higher exacerbation risk in patients with ≥300 blood eosinophils/μl suggests that these patients are likely to benefit from triple therapy. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 02603393).

Problems associated with lifelong antiretroviral therapy, such as need for strict adherence, drug-related toxic effects, difficulties with treatment schedules, and cost, mean that simplification strategies should be sought. We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of dual treatment with atazanavir–ritonavir plus lamivudine as an option to switch to from standard combination antiretroviral therapy in patients with an HIV-1 infection who are virologically suppressed. In this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with chronic HIV-1 infection and no previous treatment failure or resistance, and with HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL for at least 6 months, negative hepatitis B virus surface antigen, and good general health, from 30 hospitals in Spain. Exclusion criteria were switch in antiretroviral therapy during the previous 4 months, previous virological failure, pregnancy or breastfeeding, Gilbert's syndrome, use of contraindicated drugs, grade 4 laboratory abnormalities, and previous intolerance to any of the study drugs. We randomly assigned patients (1:1; stratified by active hepatitis C virus infection and previous treatment; computer-generated random number sequence) to dual treatment with oral atazanavir (300 mg once daily) and ritonavir (100 mg once daily) plus lamivudine (300 mg once daily) or triple treatment with oral atazanavir (300 mg once daily) and ritonavir (100 mg once daily) plus two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors at the discretion of the investigators. The primary endpoint was virological response, defined as HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, in the per-protocol population, with a non-inferiority margin of 12%. We included patients who received at least one dose of the study drug in the safety analysis. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01307488. Between Sept 29, 2011, and May 2, 2013, we randomly assigned 286 patients (143 [50%] to each group). At week 48 in the per-protocol population, 112 (84%) of 133 patients had virological response in the dual-treatment group versus 105 (78%) of 135 in the triple-treatment group (difference 6% [95% CI −5 to 16%), showing non-inferiority at the prespecified level. 14 (5%) patients developed severe adverse events (dual treatment six [4%]; triple treatment eight [6%]), none of which we deemed related to the study drug. Grade 3–4 adverse events were similar between groups (dual treatment 77 [55%] of 140; triple treatment 78 [55%] of 141). Treatment discontinuations were less frequent in the dual-treatment group (three [2%]) than in the triple-treatment group (ten [7%]; p=0·047). In our trial, dual treatment was effective, safe, and non-inferior to triple treatment in patients with an HIV-1 infection who are virologically suppressed who switch antiretroviral therapy because of toxic effects, intolerance, or simplification. This combination has the potential to suppress some of the long-term toxic effects associated with nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, preserve future treatment options, and reduce the cost of antiretroviral therapy. Bristol Myers-Squibb and Fundación SEIMC-GESIDA.

The OlympiAD Phase III study (NCT02000622) established the clinical benefits of olaparib tablet monotherapy (300 mg twice daily) over chemotherapy treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) in patients with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCAm) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received ≤2 chemotherapy lines in the metastatic setting. Here, we report pre-specified analyses of data from Asian (China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan) patients in the study. All patients were randomized 2:1 to olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or single-agent chemotherapy TPC (21-day cycles of either capecitabine, eribulin or vinorelbine). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. The prevalence of gBRCAm in the OlympiAD Asian subgroup screened for study recruitment was 13.5%. Patient demographics and disease characteristics of the Asian subgroup (87/302 patients) were generally well balanced between treatment arms. Asian patients in the olaparib arm achieved longer median progression-free survival, assessed by blinded independent central review, versus the chemotherapy TPC arm (5.7 vs 4.2 months; HR = 0.53 [95% CI: 0.29–0.97]), which was consistent with findings in the global OlympiAD study population. Findings on secondary efficacy and safety/tolerability outcome measures in Asian patients were also similar to those observed in the global OlympiAD study population. The OlympiAD study was not powered to detect race-related differences between treatment groups; however, the consistency of our findings with the global OlympiAD study population suggests that previously reported findings are generalizable to Asian patients.

More than half of breast cancers express low levels of HER2. In a phase 3 trial, the antibody–drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan resulted in longer survival than the physician’s choice of chemotherapy among patients with HER2-low breast cancer.

Lenvatinib plus either pembrolizumab or everolimus was compared with sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell cancer. Progression-free survival was significantly longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib. Lenvatinib plus everolimus was also more effective than sunitinib, but the difference was smaller.

In this clinical trial, rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, was effective in the initial and continued treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism; it may become part of the treatment armamentarium for this common clinical problem. Acute venous thromboembolism (i.e., deep-vein thrombosis [DVT] or pulmonary embolism) is a common disorder with an annual incidence of approximately 1 or 2 cases per 1000 persons in the general population. 1 , 2 Short-term treatment is effective, with the risk of recurrent disease — the major complication — reduced from an estimated 25% to about 3% during the first 6 to 12 months of therapy. 3 The risk of recurrence remains after treatment ends and can reach 5 to 10% during the first year. 4 , 5 Standard treatment for acute venous thromboembolism is limited by the need for parenteral heparin initially, with overlapping . . .