Cyclosporine A in hospitalized COVID-19 pneumonia patients to prevent the development of interstitial lung disease: a pilot randomized clinical trial

Post-COVID-19 interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a new entity that frequently causes pulmonary fibrosis and can become chronic. We performed a single-center parallel-group open-label pilot randomized clinical trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of cyclosporine A (CsA) in the development of ILD in the medium term among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive CsA plus standard of care or standard of care alone. The primary composite outcome was the percentage of patients without ILD 3 months after diagnosis of pneumonia and not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (response without requiring IMV). The key secondary composite outcomes were the percentage of patients who achieve a response requiring IMV or irrespective of the need for IMV, and adverse events. A total of 33 patients received at least one dose of CsA plus standard of care (n = 17) or standard of care alone (n = 16). No differences were found between the groups in the percentage of patients who achieved a response without requiring IMV or a response requiring IMV. A higher percentage of patients achieved a response irrespective of the need for IMV in the CsA plus standard of care group although the RR was almost significant 2.833 (95% CI, 0.908-8.840; p = 0.057). No differences were found between the groups for adverse events. In hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, we were unable to demonstrate that CsA achieved a significant effect in preventing the development of ILD. (EU Clinical Trials Register; EudraCT Number: 2020-002123-11; registration date: 08/05/2020).

Use of Generic Antiretroviral Drugs and Single-Tablet Regimen De-Simplification for the Treatment of HIV Infection in Spain

The present study sought to describe the use of generic drugs and single-tablet regimen (STR) de-simplification for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among 41 hospitals from the cohort of the Spanish HIV/AIDS Research Network (CoRIS). In June 2018, we collected information on when generic antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) were introduced in the different hospitals, how the decisions to use them were made, and how the information was provided to the patients. Most of the nine available generic ARVs in Spain by June 2018 had been introduced in at least 85% of the participating hospitals, except for zidovudine (AZT)/lamivudine (3TC) and AZT. The time difference between the effective marketing date of each generic ARV and its first dispensing date in the hospitals was much shorter for the more recently approved generic ARV since the year 2017. However, only up to 20% of the hospitals de-simplified efavirenz (EFV)/tenofovir disoproxil (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC), dolutegravir (DTG)/abacavir (ABC)/3TC, and rilpivirine (RPV)/TDF/FTC (to generic EFV+TDF/FTC, DTG+generic ABC/3TC, and RPV+generic TDF/FTC, respectively), whereas the generic STR EFV/TDF/FTC was introduced in 87.8% of the centers. The median times between the date of effective marketing of generic TDF/FTC and the date of de-simplification of EFV/TDF/FTC and RPV/TDF/FTC were 723 [interquartile range (IQR): 369-1,119] and 234 (IQR: 142-264) days, respectively; this time was 155 (IQR: 28-287) days for de-simplification of DTG/ABC/3TC. In conclusion, despite the widespread use of generic ARVs, STRs de-simplification was only undertaken in <20% of the hospitals. There was wide variability in the timing of the introduction of each generic ARV after they were available in the market.

Effectiveness and tolerability of dolutegravir and abacavir/lamivudine administered as two separate pills compared to their equivalent single-tablet regimen in a multicentre cohort in Spain

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of dolutegravir (DTG), abacavir (ABC) and lamivudine (3TC) administered as branded STR (DTG/ABC/3TC) or as two separate pills (DTG and either branded ABC/3TC [DTG+(ABC/3TC)b] or generic ABC/3TC [DTG+(ABC/3TC)g]).

METHODS

We included individuals from the multicentre cohort of the Spanish HIV/AIDS Research Network (CoRIS) who received DTG/ABC/3TC, DTG+(ABC/3TC)b or DTG+(ABC/3TC)g during 2015 to 2018. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare the proportion of antiretroviral-naïve individuals who achieved viral suppression (VS) (viral load ≤50 copies/mL) at 24 weeks of initiating with DTG+(ABC/3TC)b or DTG+(ABC/3TC)g versus DTG/ABC/3TC. We also calculated the proportion of virologically suppressed individuals who maintained VS at 24 weeks after switching from DTG/ABC/3TC to DTG+(ABC/3TC)g.

RESULTS

During the study period, 829, 68 and 47 treatment-naïve individuals started treatment with DTG/ABC/3TC, DTG+(ABC/3TC)b or DTG+(ABC/3TC)g respectively. The proportions of individuals who changed their regimens due to side effects during the first 24 weeks were 3.7%, 4.4% and 6.4% respectively (p = 0.646). We did not find significant differences in VS at 24 weeks among individuals starting with DTG+(ABC/3TC)b or DTG+(ABC/3TC)g compared to those initiating with DTG/ABC/3TC. Among 177 virologically suppressed individuals who switched from DTG/ABC/3TC to DTG+(ABC/3TC)g, 170 (96.0%) maintained VS at 24 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

In naïve individuals, the effectiveness and tolerability at 24 weeks of DTG plus ABC/3TC administered as two separate pills, either as branded or generic ABC/3TC, was similar to the STR DTG/ABC/3TC. Switching the STR DTG/ABC/3TC to its separate components DTG+(ABC/3TC)g in virologically suppressed individuals did not seem to impair its effectiveness.

Physicians' opinions on generic antiretroviral drugs and single-tablet regimen de-simplification for the treatment of HIV infection: a multicentre survey in Spain

OBJECTIVES

To assess the attitudes and opinions about generic antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) and single-tablet regimen (STR) de-simplification among physicians prescribing HIV treatment in the cohort of the Spanish HIV/AIDS Research Network (CoRIS).

METHODS

An online questionnaire with 27 structured questions was sent to all physicians (n=199) who prescribed ARVs among the 45 centres participating in the cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 169 (84.9%) physicians answered the questionnaire. Only 4.1% of the physicians would never prescribe generic ARVs, but 53.3% would not prescribe them if the number of pills per day increased and 89.3% would not prescribe them if the number of doses per day increased. However, 84.0% of the physicians agreed to prescribe generic ARVs if doing so would decrease costs for the public healthcare system. The percentages of physicians stating that generic ARVs (compared with branded ones) would be associated with worse adherence, more adverse effects or more probability of virological failure, provided that the number of pills and doses per day would not change, were low: 0.6%, 7.7% and 3.6%, respectively. However, these percentages were much higher if the generic ARV entailed breaking an STR: 63.9%, 18.9% and 42.0%, respectively. Most physicians stated that they needed more information about the effectiveness and safety of generic ARVs and the price difference compared with their branded equivalents.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most physicians were confident about prescribing generic ARVs, the majority had strong concerns about de-simplifying STR, and they also needed more information about generic drugs.