In patients failing triple drug therapy, GART with expert advice was superior to no-GART as measured by short-term viral load responses.

There is evidence that certain alleles at the HLA-DQ locus are correlated with susceptibility to insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) and in particular that DQ beta-chain alleles containing aspartic acid at position 57 are protective. The availability of a large group of patients with IDDM enabled us to assess the role of HLA-DQ alleles in susceptibility to the disease in order to confirm and extend recent observations derived from studies of smaller numbers of patients. Using allele-specific oligonucleotide probes and the polymerase chain reaction, we studied 266 unrelated patients with IDDM and 203 unrelated normal subjects for eight HLA-DQ beta-chain alleles. Two major findings emerged from these studies. First, the presence of an HLA-DQw1.2 allele was protective. Only 6 of the 266 patients with IDDM (2.3 percent) were positive for HLA-DQw1.2, as compared with 74 of the 203 normal subjects (36.4 percent; P less than 0.001). Thus, persons with the HLA-DQw1.2 allele, which is one of the polymorphic forms of the beta chain of the HLA-DQ molecule, rarely had IDDM, no matter which other HLA-DQ beta-chain allele they inherited ("dominant protection"). Second, the presence of the HLA-DQw8 allele increased the risk of IDDM. The relative risk of IDDM was 5.6 in persons homozygous for HLA-DQw8, and it was similar in persons with the HLA-DQw1.1/DQw8 or HLA-DQw2/DQw8 haplotype ("dominant susceptibility"). However, the relative risk of IDDM in persons who had the HLA-DQw1.2/DQw8 haplotype was 0.37, demonstrating that the protective effect of HLA-DQw1.2 predominated over the effect of HLA-DQw8. We conclude that the presence of the HLA Class II antigen DQw1.2 is strongly protective against the development of IDDM, and that complete HLA-DQ typing is necessary for accurate assessment of susceptibility to IDDM.

SummaryBackgroundSince the 1918 influenza pandemic, non-randomised studies and small clinical trials have suggested that convalescent plasma or anti-influenza hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) might have clinical benefit for patients with influenza infection, but definitive data do not exist. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hIVIG in a randomised controlled trial.MethodsThis randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was planned for 45 hospitals in Argentina, Australia, Denmark, Greece, Mexico, Spain, Thailand, UK, and the USA over five influenza seasons from 2013–14 to 2017–18. Adults (≥18 years of age) were admitted for hospital treatment with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B infection and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard care plus either a single 500-mL infusion of high-titre hIVIG (0·25 g/kg bodyweight, 24·75 g maximum; hIVIG group) or saline placebo (placebo group). Eligible patients had a National Early Warning score of 2 points or greater at the time of screening and their symptoms began no more than 7 days before randomisation. Pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded, as well as any patients for whom the treatment would present a health risk. Separate randomisation schedules were generated for each participating clinical site using permuted block randomisation. Treatment assignments were obtained using a web-based application by the site pharmacist who then masked the solution for infusion. Patients and investigators were masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was a six-category ordinal outcome of clinical status at day 7, ranging in severity from death to resumption of normal activities after discharge. The choice of day 7 was based on haemagglutination inhibition titres from a pilot study. It was analysed with a proportional odds model, using all six categories to estimate a common odds ratio (OR). An OR greater than 1 indicated that, for a given category, patients in the hIVIG group were more likely to be in a better category than those in the placebo group. Prespecified primary analyses for safety and efficacy were based on patients who received an infusion and for whom eligibility could be confirmed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02287467.Findings313 patients were enrolled in 34 sites between Dec 11, 2014, and May 28, 2018. We also used data from 16 patients enrolled at seven of the 34 sites during the pilot study between Jan 15, 2014, and April 10, 2014. 168 patients were randomly assigned to the hIVIG group and 161 to the placebo group. 21 patients were excluded (12 from the hIVIG group and 9 from the placebo group) because they did not receive an infusion or their eligibility could not be confirmed. Thus, 308 were included in the primary analysis. hIVIG treatment produced a robust rise in haemagglutination inhibition titres against influenza A and smaller rises in influenza B titres. Based on the proportional odds model, the OR on day 7 was 1·25 (95% CI 0·79–1·97; p=0·33). In subgroup analyses for the pr...

Background We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. Methods In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04501978 . Findings Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–...