Objectives To compare pre and post-ART attrition between youth (15–24 years) and other patients in HIV care, and to investigate factors associated with attrition among youth. Design Cohort study utilizing routinely collected patient-level data from 160 HIV clinics in Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Rwanda. Methods Patients at least 10 years of age enrolling in HIV care between 01/05 and 09/10 were included. Attrition (loss to follow-up or death 1 year after enrollment or ART initiation) was compared between youth and other patients using multivariate competing risk (pre-ART) and traditional (post-ART) Cox proportional hazards methods accounting for within-clinic correlation. Among youth, patient-level and clinic-level factors associated with attrition were similarly assessed. Results A total of 312 335 patients at least 10 years of age enrolled in HIV care; 147 936(47%) initiated ART, 17% enrolling in care and 10% initiating ART were youth. Attrition before and after ART initiation was substantially higher among youth compared with other age groups. Among youth, nonpregnant women experienced lower pre-ART attrition than men [sub-division hazard ratio=0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86–0.94], while both pregnant [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.74–0.97] and nonpregnant (AHR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.73–0.86) female youth experienced lower post-ART attrition than men. Youth attending clinics providing sexual and reproductive health services including condoms (AHR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.32–0.70) and clinics offering adolescent support groups (AHR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.52–1.0) experienced significantly lower attrition after ART initiation. Conclusion Youth experienced substantially higher attrition before and after ART initiation compared with younger adolescents and older adults. Adolescent-friendly services were associated with reduced attrition among youth, particularly after ART initiation.

Background: Although convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), data from randomized controlled trials that support its efficacy are limited. Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma among adults hospitalized with severe and critical COVID-19. Design: Randomized, double-blind, controlled, multicenter, phase 2 trial conducted from April 21st to November 27th, 2020. Setting: Five hospitals in New York City (NY, USA) and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Participants: Hospitalized patients aged ≥18 years with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, infiltrates on chest imaging and oxygen saturation ≤ 94% on room air or requirement for supplemental oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Intervention: Participants were randomized 2:1 to a single transfusion of either 1 unit of convalescent or normal control plasma. Measurements: The primary outcome was clinical status at 28 days, measured using an ordinal scale and analyzed using a proportional odds model in the intention-to-treat population (with an odds ratio (OR) >1.0 indicating improved clinical status in the convalescent plasma group). Results: Of 223 participants enrolled, 150 were randomized to receive convalescent plasma and 73 to normal control plasma. At 28 days, no significant improvement in clinical status was observed in participants randomized to convalescent plasma (OR 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-2.68, p=0.180). However, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in participants randomized to convalescent plasma versus control plasma (19/150 [12.6%] versus 18/73 [24.6%], OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.91, p=0.034). The median titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody in infused convalescent plasma units was 1:160 (IQR 1:80-1:320). In a subset of nasopharyngeal swab samples from Brazil that underwent genomic sequencing, no evidence of neutralization-escape mutants was detected. Serious adverse events occurred in 39/147 (27%) participants who received convalescent plasma and 26/72 (36%) participants who received control plasma. Limitations: Some participants did not receive high-titer convalescent plasma. Conclusion: In adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19, use of convalescent plasma was not associated with significant improvement in 28 days clinical status. However, a significant improvement in mortality was observed, which warrants further evaluation. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04359810 Funding: Amazon Foundation

Background: Although convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019 , data from randomized controlled trials that support its efficacy are limited. Methods:We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial among adults hospitalized with severe and critical COVID-19 at five sites in New York City (USA) and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive a single transfusion of either convalescent plasma or placebo (normal control plasma). The primary outcome was clinical status at 28 days following randomization, measured using an ordinal scale and analyzed using a proportional odds model in the intention-to-treat population.Results: Of 223 participants enrolled, 150 were randomized to receive convalescent plasma and 73 to normal control plasma. At 28 days, no significant improvement in the clinical scale was observed in participants randomized to convalescent plasma (OR 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-2.68, p=0.180). However, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in participants randomized to convalescent plasma versus control plasma (19/150 [12.6%] versus 18/73 [24.6%], OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.91, p=0.034). The median titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody in infused convalescent plasma units was 1:160 (IQR 1:80-1:320). In a subset of nasopharyngeal swab samples from Brazil that underwent genomic sequencing, no evidence of neutralization-escape mutants was detected. Conclusion:In adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19, use of convalescent plasma was not associated with significant improvement in day 28 clinical status. However, convalescent plasma was associated with significantly improved survival. A possible explanation is that survivors remained hospitalized at their baseline clinical status.