Major differences in organization and availability of health care and medicines for HIV/TB coinfected patients across Europe

Objectives The aim of the study was to investigate the organization and delivery of HIV and tuberculosis (TB) health care and to analyse potential differences between treatment centres in Eastern (EE) and Western Europe (WE). Methods Thirty-eight European HIV and TB treatment centres participating in the TB:HIV study within EuroCoord completed a survey on health care management for coinfected patients in 2013 (EE: 17 respondents; WE:21; 76% of all TB:HIV centres). Descriptive statistics were obtained for regional comparisons. The reported data on health care strategies were compared with actual clinical practice at patient level via data derived from the TB:HIV study. Results Respondent centres in EE comprised: Belarus (n = 3), Estonia (1), Georgia (1), Latvia (1), Lithuania (1), Poland (4), Romania (1), the Russian Federation (4) and Ukraine (1); those in WE comprised: Belgium (1), Denmark (1), France (1), Italy (7), Spain (2), Switzerland (1) and UK (8). Compared with WE, treatment of HIV and TB in EE are less often located at the same site (47% in EE versus 100% in WE; P < 0.001) and less often provided by the same doctors (41% versus 90%, respectively; P = 0.002), whereas regular screening of HIV-infected patients for TB (80% versus 40%, respectively; P = 0.037) and directly observed treatment (88% versus 20%, respectively; P < 0.001) were more common in EE. The reported availability of rifabutin and second- and third-line anti-TB drugs was lower, and opioid substitution therapy (OST) was available at fewer centres in EE compared with WE (53% versus 100%, respectively; P < 0.001). Conclusions Major differences exist between EE and WE in relation to the organization and delivery of health care for HIV/TB-coinfected patients and the availability of anti-TB drugs and OST. Significant discrepancies between reported and actual clinical practices were found in EE

Healthcare delivery for HIV-positive people with tuberculosis in Europe

Background In a 2013 survey, we reported distinct discrepancies in delivery of tuberculosis (TB) and HIV services in eastern Europe (EE) vs. western Europe (WE). Objectives To verify the differences in TB and HIV services in EE vs. WE. Methods Twenty-three sites completed a survey in 2018 (EE, 14; WE, nine; 88% response rate). Results were compared across as well as within the two regions. When possible, results were compared with the 2013 survey. Results Delivery of healthcare was significantly less integrated in EE: provision of TB and HIV services at one site (36% in EE vs. 89% in WE; P = 0.034), and continued TB follow-up in one location (42% vs. 100%; P = 0.007). Although access to TB diagnostics, standard TB and HIV drugs was generally good, fewer sites in EE reported unlimited access to rifabutin/multi-drug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) drugs, HIV integrase inhibitors and opioid substitution therapy (OST). Compared with 2013, routine usage of GeneXpert was more common in EE in 2018 (54% vs. 92%; P = 0.073), as was access to moxifloxacin (46% vs. 91%; P = 0.033), linezolid (31% vs. 64%; P = 0.217), and bedaquiline (0% vs. 25%; P = 0.217). Integration of TB and HIV services (46% vs. 39%; P = 1.000) and provision of OST to patients with opioid dependency (54% vs. 46%; P = 0.695) remained unchanged. Conclusion Delivery of TB and HIV healthcare, including integration of TB and HIV care and access to MDR-TB drugs, still differs between WE and EE, as well as between individual EE sites

Major differences in organization and availability of health care and medicines for HIV/TB coinfected patients across Europe

Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate the organization and delivery of HIV and tuberculosis (TB) health care and to analyse potential differences between treatment centres in Eastern (EE) and Western Europe (WE). Methods: Thirty‐eight European HIV and TB treatment centres participating in the TB:HIV study within EuroCoord completed a survey on health care management for coinfected patients in 2013 (EE: 17 respondents; WE:21; 76% of all TB:HIV centres). Descriptive statistics were obtained for regional comparisons. The reported data on health care strategies were compared with actual clinical practice at patient level via data derived from the TB:HIV study. Results: Respondent centres in EE comprised: Belarus (n = 3), Estonia (1), Georgia (1), Latvia (1), Lithuania (1), Poland (4), Romania (1), the Russian Federation (4) and Ukraine (1); those in WE comprised: Belgium (1), Denmark (1), France (1), Italy (7), Spain (2), Switzerland (1) and UK (8). Compared with WE, treatment of HIV and TB in EE are less often located at the same site (47% in EE versus 100% in WE; P < 0.001) and less often provided by the same doctors (41% versus 90%, respectively; P = 0.002), whereas regular screening of HIV‐infected patients for TB (80% versus 40%, respectively; P = 0.037) and directly observed treatment (88% versus 20%, respectively; P < 0.001) were more common in EE. The reported availability of rifabutin and second‐ and third‐line anti‐TB drugs was lower, and opioid substitution therapy (OST) was available at fewer centres in EE compared with WE (53% versus 100%, respectively; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Major differences exist between EE and WE in relation to the organization and delivery of health care for HIV/TB‐coinfected patients and the availability of anti‐TB drugs and OST. Significant discrepancies between reported and actual clinical practices were found in EE

Contemporary antiretrovirals and body-mass index: a prospective study of the RESPOND cohort consortium

BACKGROUND: Weight gain effects of individual antiretroviral drugs are not fully understood. We investigated associations between a prespecified clinically significant increase (>7%) in body-mass index (BMI) and contemporary antiretroviral use. METHODS: The International Cohort Consortium of Infectious Diseases (RESPOND) is a prospective, multicohort collaboration, including data from 17 well established cohorts and over 29 000 people living with HIV. People with HIV under prospective follow-up from Jan 1, 2012, and older than 18 years were eligible for inclusion. Each cohort contributed a predefined minimum number of participants related to the size of the specific cohort (with a minimum of 1000 participants). Participants were required to have CD4 cell counts and HIV viral load measurement in the 12 months before or within 3 months after baseline. For all antiretroviral drugs received at or after RESPOND entry, changes from pre-antiretroviral BMI levels (baseline) were considered at each BMI measurement during antiretroviral treatment. We used logistic regression to identify individual antiretrovirals that were associated with first occurrence of a more than 7% increase in BMI from pre-antiretroviral BMI. We adjusted analyses for time on antiretrovirals, pre-antiretroviral BMI, demographics, geographical region, CD4 cell count, viral load, smoking status, and AIDS at baseline. RESULTS: 14 703 people were included in this study, of whom 7863 (53·5%) had a more than 7% increase in BMI. Compared with lamivudine, use of dolutegravir (odds ratio [OR] 1·27, 95% CI 1·17-1·38), raltegravir (1·37, 1·20-1·56), and tenofovir alafenamide (1·38, 1·22-1·35) was significantly associated with a more than 7% BMI increase, as was low pre-antiretroviral BMI (2·10, 1·91-2·31 for underweight vs healthy weight) and Black ethnicity (1·61, 1·47-1·76 vs White ethnicity). Higher CD4 count was associated with a reduced risk of BMI increase (0·97, 0·96-0·98 per 100 cells per μL increase). Relative to lamivudine, dolutegravir without tenofovir alafenamide (OR 1·21, 95% CI 1·19-1·32) and tenofovir alafenamide without dolutegravir (1·33, 1·15-1·53) remained independently associated with a more than 7% increase in BMI; the associations were higher when dolutegravir and tenofovir alafenamide were used concomitantly (1·79, 1·52-2·11, and 1·70, 1·44-2·01, respectively). INTERPRETATION: Clinicians and people with HIV should be aware of associations between weight gain and use of dolutegravir, tenofovir alafenamide, and raltegravir, particularly given the potential consequences of weight gain, such as insulin resistance, dyslipidaemia, and hypertension. FUNDING: The CHU St Pierre Brussels HIV Cohort, The Austrian HIV Cohort Study, The Australian HIV Observational Database, The AIDS Therapy Evaluation in the Netherlands national observational HIV cohort, The EuroSIDA cohort, The Frankfurt HIV Cohort Study, The Georgian National AIDS Health Information System, The Nice HIV Cohort, The ICONA Foundation, The Modena HIV Cohort, The PISCIS Cohort Study, The Swiss HIV Cohort Study, The Swedish InfCare HIV Cohort, The Royal Free HIV Cohort Study, The San Raffaele Scientific Institute, The University Hospital Bonn HIV Cohort and The University of Cologne HIV Cohorts, ViiV Healthcare, and Gilead Sciences

Clinical Outcomes of 2-Drug Regimens vs 3-Drug Regimens in Antiretroviral Treatment–Experienced People Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist comparing clinical outcomes of two-drug regimens (2DRs) and three-drug regimens (3DRs) in people living with HIV. METHODS: Antiretroviral treatment-experienced individuals in RESPOND switching to a new 2DR or 3DR from 1/1/12-1/10/18 were included. The incidence of clinical events (AIDS, non-AIDS cancer, cardiovascular disease, end-stage liver and renal disease, death) was compared between regimens using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Of 9791 individuals included, 1088 (11.1%) started 2DRs and 8703 (88.9%) 3DRs. The most common 2DRs were dolutegravir plus lamivudine (22.8%) and raltegravir plus boosted darunavir (19.8%); the most common 3DR was dolutegravir plus 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (46.9%). Individuals on 2DRs were older (median 52.6 years [interquartile range 46.7-59.0] vs 47.7 [39.7-54.3]), and a higher proportion had ≥1 comorbidity (81.6% vs 73.9%).There were 619 events during 27,159 person-years of follow-up (PYFU): 540 (incidence rate [IR] 22.5/1000 PYFU [95% CI 20.7-24.5]) on 3DRs, 79 (30.9/1000 PYFU [24.8-38.5]) on 2DRs. The most common events were death (7.5/1000 PYFU [95% CI 6.5-8.6]) and non-AIDS cancer (5.8/1000 PYFU [4.9-6.8]). After adjustment for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, there was a similar incidence of events on both regimen types (2DRs vs 3DRs IR ratio: 0.92 [0.72-1.19]; p=0.53). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large, international cohort assessing clinical outcomes on 2DRs. After accounting for baseline characteristics, there was a similar incidence of events on 2DRs and 3DRs. 2DRs appear to be a viable treatment option with regard to clinical outcomes; further research on resistance barriers and long-term durability of 2DRs is needed

Management of MDR-TB in HIV co-infected patients in Eastern Europe: Results from the TB:HIV study

Objectives Mortality among HIV patients with tuberculosis (TB) remains high in Eastern Europe (EE), but details of TB and HIV management remain scarce. Methods In this prospective study, we describe the TB treatment regimens of patients with multi-drug resistant (MDR) TB and use of antiretroviral therapy (ART). Results A total of 105 HIV-positive patients had MDR-TB (including 33 with extensive drug resistance) and 130 pan-susceptible TB. Adequate initial TB treatment was provided for 8% of patients with MDR-TB compared with 80% of those with pan-susceptible TB. By twelve months, an estimated 57.3% (95%CI 41.5\u201374.1) of MDR-TB patients had started adequate treatment. While 67% received ART, HIV-RNA suppression was demonstrated in only 23%. Conclusions Our results show that internationally recommended MDR-TB treatment regimens were infrequently used and that ART use and viral suppression was well below the target of 90%, reflecting the challenging patient population and the environment in which health care is provided. Urgent improvement of management of patients with TB/HIV in EE, in particular for those with MDR-TB, is needed and includes widespread access to rapid TB diagnostics, better access to and use of second-line TB drugs, timely ART initiation with viral load monitoring, and integration of TB/HIV care

Healthcare delivery for HIV-positive people with tuberculosis in Europe

Background: In a 2013 survey, we reported distinct discrepancies in delivery of tuberculosis (TB) and HIV services in eastern Europe (EE) vs. western Europe (WE). Objectives: To verify the differences in TB and HIV services in EE vs. WE. Methods: Twenty-three sites completed a survey in 2018 (EE, 14; WE, nine; 88% response rate). Results were compared across as well as within the two regions. When possible, results were compared with the 2013 survey. Results: Delivery of healthcare was significantly less integrated in EE: provision of TB and HIV services at one site (36% in EE vs. 89% in WE; P = 0.034), and continued TB follow-up in one location (42% vs. 100%; P = 0.007). Although access to TB diagnostics, standard TB and HIV drugs was generally good, fewer sites in EE reported unlimited access to rifabutin/multi-drug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) drugs, HIV integrase inhibitors and opioid substitution therapy (OST). Compared with 2013, routine usage of GeneXpert was more common in EE in 2018 (54% vs. 92%; P = 0.073), as was access to moxifloxacin (46% vs. 91%; P = 0.033), linezolid (31% vs. 64%; P = 0.217), and bedaquiline (0% vs. 25%; P = 0.217). Integration of TB and HIV services (46% vs. 39%; P = 1.000) and provision of OST to patients with opioid dependency (54% vs. 46%; P = 0.695) remained unchanged. Conclusion: Delivery of TB and HIV healthcare, including integration of TB and HIV care and access to MDR-TB drugs, still differs between WE and EE, as well as between individual EE sites