MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 16-April-2020 to 30-April- 2020, patients with suspected or confirmed for COVID-19 indicated for in-patient treatment with hydroxychloroquine with or without lopinavir-ritonavir to the Sarawak General Hospital were monitored with KardiaMobile smartphone electrocardiogram (AliveCor®, Mountain View, CA) or standard 12-lead electrocardiogram. The baseline and serial QTc intervals were monitored till the last dose of medications or until the normalization of the QTc interval.

RESULTS: Thirty patients were treated with hydroxychloroquine, and 20 (66.7%) patients received a combination of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir therapy. The maximum QTc interval was significantly prolonged compared to baseline (434.6±28.2msec vs. 458.6±47.1msec, p=0.001). The maximum QTc interval (456.1±45.7msec vs. 464.6±45.2msec, p=0.635) and the delta QTc (32.6±38.5msec vs. 26.3±35.8msec, p=0.658) were not significantly different between patients on hydroxychloroquine or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Five (16.7%) patients had QTc of 500msec or more. Four (13.3%) patients required discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine and 3 (10.0%) patients required discontinuation of lopinavirritonavir due to QTc prolongation. However, no torsade de pointes was observed.

METHODS: Solidarity enrolled consenting adults (aged ≥18 years) recently hospitalised with, in the view of their doctor, definite COVID-19 and no contraindication to any of the study drugs, regardless of any other patient characteristics. Participants were randomly allocated, in equal proportions between the locally available options, to receive whichever of the four study drugs (lopinavir, hydroxychloroquine, IFN-β1a, or remdesivir) were locally available at that time or no study drug (controls). All patients also received the local standard of care. No placebos were given. The protocol-specified primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, subdivided by disease severity. Secondary endpoints were progression to ventilation if not already ventilated, and time-to-discharge from hospital. Final log-rank and Kaplan-Meier analyses are presented for remdesivir, and are appended for all four study drugs. Meta-analyses give weighted averages of the mortality findings in this and all other randomised trials of these drugs among hospital inpatients. Solidarity is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN83971151, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948.

FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021, 14 304 potentially eligible patients were recruited from 454 hospitals in 35 countries in all six WHO regions. After the exclusion of 83 (0·6%) patients with a refuted COVID-19 diagnosis or encrypted consent not entered into the database, Solidarity enrolled 14 221 patients, including 8275 randomly allocated (1:1) either to remdesivir (ten daily infusions, unless discharged earlier) or to its control (allocated no study drug although remdesivir was locally available). Compliance was high in both groups. Overall, 602 (14·5%) of 4146 patients assigned to remdesivir died versus 643 (15·6%) of 4129 assigned to control (mortality rate ratio [RR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·82-1·02], p=0·12). Of those already ventilated, 151 (42·1%) of 359 assigned to remdesivir died versus 134 (38·6%) of 347 assigned to control (RR 1·13 [0·89-1·42], p=0·32). Of those not ventilated but on oxygen, 14·6% assigned to remdesivir died versus 16·3% assigned to control (RR 0·87 [0·76-0·99], p=0·03). Of 1730 not on oxygen initially, 2·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 3·8% assigned to control (RR 0·76 [0·46-1·28], p=0·30). Combining all those not ventilated initially, 11·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 13·5% assigned to control (RR 0·86 [0·76-0·98], p=0·02) and 14·1% versus 15·7% progressed to ventilation (RR 0·88 [0·77-1·00], p=0·04). The non-prespecified composite outcome of death or progression to ventilation occurred in 19·6% assigned to remdesivir versus 22·5% assigned to control (RR 0·84 [0·75-0·93], p=0·001). Allocation to daily remdesivir infusions (vs open-label control) delayed discharge by about 1 day during the 10-day treatment period. A meta-analysis of mortality in all randomised trials of remdesivir versus no remdesivir yielded similar findings.

INTERPRETATION: Remdesivir has no significant effect on patients with COVID-19 who are already being ventilated. Among other hospitalised patients, it has a small effect against death or progression to ventilation (or both).

METHODS: We compared these regimens with respect to clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes using data from prospective studies of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals in Europe and the United States in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration, 2004-2013. Antiretroviral therapy-naive and AIDS-free individuals were followed from the time they started a lopinavir or an atazanavir regimen. We estimated the 'intention-to-treat' effect for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens on each of the outcomes.

RESULTS: A total of 6668 individuals started a lopinavir regimen (213 deaths, 457 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths), and 4301 individuals started an atazanavir regimen (83 deaths, 157 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths). The adjusted intention-to-treat hazard ratios for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens were 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], .53-.91) for death, 0.67 (95% CI, .55-.82) for AIDS-defining illness or death, and 0.91 (95% CI, .84-.99) for virologic failure at 12 months. The mean 12-month increase in CD4 count was 8.15 (95% CI, -.13 to 16.43) cells/µL higher in the atazanavir group. Estimates differed by NRTI backbone.

METHODS: We randomly assigned inpatients with Covid-19 equally between one of the trial drug regimens that was locally available and open control (up to five options, four active and the local standard of care). The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug available but patient assigned to the same care without that drug). Rate ratios for death were calculated with stratification according to age and status regarding mechanical ventilation at trial entry.

RESULTS: At 405 hospitals in 30 countries, 11,330 adults underwent randomization; 2750 were assigned to receive remdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug. Adherence was 94 to 96% midway through treatment, with 2 to 6% crossover. In total, 1253 deaths were reported (median day of death, day 8; interquartile range, 4 to 14). The Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 11.8% (39.0% if the patient was already receiving ventilation at randomization and 9.5% otherwise). Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.50), in 104 of 947 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and in 84 of 906 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.59; P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.25; P = 0.97), and in 243 of 2050 patients receiving interferon and in 216 of 2050 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.39; P = 0.11). No drug definitely reduced mortality, overall or in any subgroup, or reduced initiation of ventilation or hospitalization duration.

METHODS: HIV-positive patients enrolled in the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database who had used second-line ART for ≥6 months were included. ART use and rates and predictors of second-line treatment failure were evaluated.

RESULTS: There were 302 eligible patients. Most were male (76.5%) and exposed to HIV via heterosexual contact (71.5%). Median age at second-line initiation was 39.2 years, median CD4 cell count was 146 cells per cubic millimeter, and median HIV viral load was 16,224 copies per milliliter. Patients started second-line ART before 2007 (n = 105), 2007-2010 (n = 147) and after 2010 (n = 50). Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and atazanavir accounted for the majority of protease inhibitor use after 2006. Median follow-up time on second-line therapy was 2.3 years. The rates of treatment failure and mortality per 100 patient/years were 8.8 (95% confidence interval: 7.1 to 10.9) and 1.1 (95% confidence interval: 0.6 to 1.9), respectively. Older age, high baseline viral load, and use of a protease inhibitor other than lopinavir or atazanavir were associated with a significantly shorter time to second-line failure.

METHODS: Of the 37 sites that participated in the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority SECOND-LINE study, eight sites from five countries (Argentina, India, Malaysia, South Africa, and Thailand) participated in the body composition substudy. All sites had a dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner and all participants enrolled in SECOND-LINE were eligible for inclusion in the substudy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated allocation schedule, to receive either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir (raltegravir group) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three N(t)RTIs (N[t]RTI group). Randomisation was stratified by site and screening HIV-1 RNA. Participants and investigators were not masked to group assignment, but allocation was concealed until after interventions were assigned. DXA scans were done at weeks 0, 48, and 96. The primary endpoint was mean percentage and absolute change in peripheral limb fat from baseline to week 96. We did intention-to-treat analyses of available data. This substudy is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01513122.

FINDINGS: Between Aug 1, 2010, and July 10, 2011, we recruited 211 participants into the substudy. The intention-to-treat population comprised 102 participants in the N(t)RTI group and 108 participants in the raltegravir group, of whom 91 and 105 participants, respectively, reached 96 weeks. Mean percentage change in limb fat from baseline to week 96 was 16·8% (SD 32·6) in the N(t)RTI group and 28·0% (37·6) in the raltegravir group (mean difference 10·2%, 95% CI 0·1-20·4; p=0·048). Mean absolute change was 1·04 kg (SD 2·29) in the N(t)RTI group and 1·81 kg (2·50) in the raltegravir group (mean difference 0·6, 95% CI -0·1 to 1·3; p=0·10).

INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that for people with virological failure of a first-line regimen containing efavirenz plus tenofovir and lamivudine or emtricitabine, the WHO-recommended switch to a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor plus zidovudine (a thymidine analogue nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor) and lamivudine might come at the cost of peripheral lipoatrophy. Further study could help to define specific groups of people who might benefit from a switch to an N(t)RTI-sparing second-line ART regimen.