Linear intertriginous erosions and ulcerations related to herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection have been reported in patients with underlying immunosuppression. This rare presentation of HSV seems to occur predominantly in patients undergoing treatment of hematologic malignancies and rheumatologic conditions. Herein, we report three cases of linear "knife-cut" ulcerations in patients who were not undergoing active pharmacologic immunosuppressive therapy and lacked coexisting malignancy or autoimmune disease. Close examination of the skin folds for HSV infection is warranted to rule out disseminated infection as early intervention can be lifesaving.

Long-acting injectable PrEP could offer an alternative to daily oral PrEP, improve adherence and protection, if found acceptable, safe and effective. HPTN 077 evaluated injectable cabotegravir safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics among HIV-uninfected males and females in sequentially-enrolled cohorts of two dosing strategies. We compared acceptability of product attributes, prevention preferences and future interest in injectable PrEP (FIIP) by region, sex-at-birth, arm and cohort and used multivariable analysis to identify FIIP determinants. Baseline injectable PrEP preferences were higher in non-U.S. sites and increased in both regions over time. In multivariable models, FIIP was most strongly associated with acceptability of product attributes, was higher in non-U.S. sites and more altruistic participants. Treatment arm and report of pain were not associated with FIIP. Injectable acceptability was highest in non-U.S. sites. Preferences for injectable versus other PrEP methods were higher among U.S. males than females, but higher among males and females in non-U.S. settings.

Daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-emtricitabine (FTC) is a safe and effective intervention for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). We evaluated the performance of a qualitative assay that detects 20 antiretroviral (ARV) drugs (multidrug assay) in assessing recent PrEP exposure (detection limit, 2 to 20 ng/ml). Samples were obtained from 216 Black men who have sex with men (208 HIV-uninfected men and 8 seroconverters) who were enrolled in a study in the United States evaluating the acceptability of TDF-FTC PrEP (165 of the uninfected men and 5 of the seroconverters accepted PrEP). Samples from 163 of the 165 HIV-uninfected men who accepted PrEP and samples from all 8 seroconverters were also tested for tenofovir (TFV) and FTC using a quantitative assay (detection limit for both drugs, 0.31 ng/ml). HIV drug resistance was assessed in seroconverter samples. The multidrug assay detected TFV and/or FTC in 3 (1.4%) of the 208 uninfected men at enrollment, 84 (40.4%) of the 208 uninfected men at the last study visit, and 1 (12.5%) of the 8 seroconverters. No other ARV drugs were detected. The quantitative assay confirmed all positive results from the multidrug assay and detected TFV and/or FTC in 9 additional samples (TFV range, 0.65 to 16.5 ng/ml; FTC range, 0.33 to 14.6 ng/ml). Resistance mutations were detected in 4 of the 8 seroconverter samples. The multidrug assay had 100% sensitivity and specificity for detecting TFV and FTC at drug concentrations consistent with daily PrEP use. The quantitative assay detected TFV and FTC at lower levels, which also might have provided protection against HIV infection.

Long-acting injectable PrEP could offer an alternative to daily oral PrEP, improve adherence and protection, if found acceptable, safe and effective. HPTN 077 evaluated injectable cabotegravir safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics among HIV-uninfected males and females in sequentially-enrolled cohorts of two dosing strategies. We compared acceptability of product attributes, prevention preferences and future interest in injectable PrEP (FIIP) by region, sex-at-birth, arm and cohort and used multivariable analysis to identify FIIP determinants. Baseline injectable PrEP preferences were higher in non-U.S. sites and increased in both regions over time. In multivariable models, FIIP was most strongly associated with acceptability of product attributes, was higher in non-U.S. sites and more altruistic participants. Treatment arm and report of pain were not associated with FIIP. Injectable acceptability was highest in non-U.S. sites. Preferences for injectable versus other PrEP methods were higher among U.S. males than females, but higher among males and females in non-U.S. settings.

Background

Maraviroc (MVC) is a candidate drug for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

Objective

To assess the safety and tolerability of MVC-containing PrEP over 48 weeks in U.S. women at risk for HIV infection.

Design

Phase 2 randomized, controlled, double-blinded study of 4 antiretroviral regimens used as PrEP. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01505114).

Setting

12 clinical research sites of the HIV Prevention Trials Network and AIDS Clinical Trials Group.

Participants

HIV-uninfected women reporting condomless vaginal or anal intercourse with at least 1 man with HIV infection or unknown serostatus within 90 days.

Intervention

MVC only, MVC-emtricitabine (FTC), MVC-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and TDF-FTC (control).

Measurements

At each visit, clinical and laboratory (including HIV) assessments were done. Primary outcomes were grade 3 and 4 adverse events and time to permanent discontinuation of the study regimen. All randomly assigned participants were analyzed according to their original assignment.

Results

Among 188 participants, 85% completed follow-up, 11% withdrew early, and 4% were lost to follow-up; 19% discontinued their regimen prematurely. The number discontinuing and the time to discontinuation did not differ among regimens. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 5 (MVC), 13 (MVC-FTC), 9 (MVC-TDF), and 8 (TDF-FTC) participants; rates did not differ among regimens. One death (by suicide) occurred in the MVC-TDF group but was judged not to be related to study drugs. Of available plasma samples at week 48 (n = 126), 60% showed detectable drug concentrations. No new HIV infections occurred.

Limitations

Participants were not necessarily at high risk for HIV infection. The regimen comprised 3 pills taken daily. The study was not powered for efficacy.

Conclusion

Maraviroc-containing PrEP regimens were safe and well-tolerated compared with TDF-FTC in U.S. women. No new HIV infections occurred, although whether this was due to study drugs or low risk in the population is uncertain. Maraviroc-containing PrEP for women may warrant further study.

Primary funding source

National Institutes of Health.

Background

While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection.

Methods

In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7-15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures.

Findings

Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05-0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01-0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease.

Interpretation

Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection.

Funding

National Institutes of Health.