Improving indicator-condition guided testing for HIV in the hospital setting (PROTEST 2·0): A multicenter, interrupted time-series analysis

BACKGROUND: Indicator-condition (IC) guided HIV testing is a feasible and cost-effective strategy to identify undiagnosed people living with HIV (PLHIV), but remains insufficiently implemented. We aimed to promote IC-guided HIV testing in seven ICs. METHODS: Relevant departments in five hospitals of the Amsterdam region participated. HIV testing among adult patients without known HIV infection but with an IC was assessed using electronic health records during pre-intervention (January 2015-June 2020) and intervention (July 2020-June 2021) periods. The multifaceted intervention included audit and feedback. The primary endpoint was HIV testing ≤3 months before or after IC diagnosis and the effect of the intervention was evaluated using segmented Poisson regression. FINDINGS: Data from 7986 patients were included, of whom 6730 (84·3%) were diagnosed with an IC in the pre-intervention period and 1256 (15·7%) in the intervention period. The proportion HIV tested ≤3 months before or after IC diagnosis increased from 36.8% to 47.0% (adjusted risk ratio [RR]= 1.16, 95% CI=1.03-1.30, p=0.02). For individual ICs, we observed significant increases in HIV testing among patients with cervical cancer or intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (adjusted RR=3.62, 95% CI=1.93-6.79) and peripheral neuropathy (adjusted RR=2.27 95% CI=1.48-3.49), but not the other ICs. Eighteen of 3068 tested patients were HIV positive (0.6%). INTERPRETATION: Overall IC-guided testing improved after the intervention, but not for all ICs. Variations in effect by IC may have been due to variations in implemented developments, but the effect of separate elements could not be assessed. FUNDING: HIV Transmission Elimination Amsterdam (H-TEAM) initiative, Aidsfonds (grant number: P-42702)

Early hydroxychloroquine but not chloroquine use reduces ICU admission in COVID-19 patients

Contains fulltext : 229589.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The global push for the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) against COVID-19 has resulted in an ongoing discussion about the effectivity and toxicity of these drugs. Recent studies report no effect of (H)CQ on 28-day mortality. We investigated the effect of HCQ and CQ in hospitalized patients on the non-ICU COVID-ward. METHODS: A nationwide, observational cohort study was performed in The Netherlands. Hospitals were given the opportunity to decide independently on the use of three different COVID-19 treatment strategies: HCQ, CQ, or no treatment. We compared the outcomes between these groups. The primary outcomes were 1) death on the COVID-19 ward, and 2) transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU). RESULTS: The analysis included 1064 patients from 14 hospitals: 566 patients received treatment with either HCQ (n = 189) or CQ (n = 377), and 498 patients received no treatment. In a multivariate propensity-matched weighted competing regression analysis, there was no significant effect of (H)CQ on mortality on the COVID ward. However, HCQ was associated with a significantly decreased risk of transfer to the ICU (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.27-0.82, p =  0.008) when compared with controls. This effect was not found in the CQ group (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.55-1.15, p =  0.207), and remained significant after competing risk analysis. CONCLUSION: The results of this observational study demonstrate a lack of effect of (H)CQ on non-ICU mortality. However, we show that the use of HCQ - but not CQ - is associated with a 53% reduction in risk of transfer of COVID-19 patients from the regular ward to the ICU. Recent prospective studies have reported on 28-day, all-cause mortality only; therefore, additional prospective data on the early effects of HCQ in preventing transfer to the ICU are still needed