Association of soluble markers of inflammation with peri-coronary artery inflammation in people with and without HIV infection and without cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: Inflammation is linked to elevated cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in people with HIV (PWH) on antiretroviral therapy (ART). Fat attenuation index (FAI) is a measure of peri-coronary inflammation that independently predicts CVD risk in HIV-uninfected persons. Whether FAI is associated with soluble inflammatory markers is unknown. METHODS: Plasma levels of inflammatory markers were measured in 58 PWH and 16 controls without current symptoms or prior known CVD who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography and had FAI measurements. A cross-sectional analysis was performed, and associations of markers with FAI values of the right coronary artery (RCA) and left anterior descending artery (LAD) were assessed using multivariable regression models adjusted for the potential confounders age, sex, race, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, body mass index, and use of lipid-lowering medication. RESULTS: Several inflammatory markers had significant associations with RCA or LAD FAI in adjusted models, including sCD14, sCD163, TNFR-I, and TNFR-II, CCL5, CX3CL1, IP-10. CONCLUSIONS: The associations between indices of systemic and peri-coronary inflammation are novel and suggest that these systemic markers and FAI together are promising noninvasive biomarkers that can be applied to assess asymptomatic CVD in people with and without HIV; they also may be useful tools to evaluate effects of anti-inflammatory interventions

Perspectives on long-acting injectable HIV antiretroviral therapy at an alternative care site: a qualitative study of people with HIV experiencing substance use and/or housing instability

Abstract Introduction Adherence to daily oral antiretroviral therapy (ART) and regular clinic appointments can be challenging for individuals who experience adverse social determinants of health. Long-acting injectable ART administered outside of traditional clinic settings may be a promising solution to adherence barriers, but additional research is needed to assess patients’ perspectives. This study assessed perspectives of people living with HIV (PLWH) who had difficulty with adherence to traditional HIV care models and evaluated feasibility and acceptability of receiving a long-acting ART injection at a location outside of a traditional HIV clinic to address barriers to HIV care. Methods Qualitative interviews (n = 26) were conducted with PLWH who had experienced barriers to adherence. Participants were referred to the study by staff from Project Trust, a drop in harm reduction and sexually transmitted infection/HIV clinic. The interviews were conducted between May and November 2021. Interviews were recorded, professionally transcribed, coded, and analyzed qualitatively using the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. Results We identified 6 main themes regarding the acceptability of receiving a long-acting injection to treat HIV, and the acceptability and feasibility of receiving injections at an alternative care site. Participants specified that they: (1) have a general understanding about their HIV care and the importance of ART adherence, (2) prefer a long-acting injection over a daily pill regimen, (3) expressed concerns about injection safety and efficacy, (4) had specific logistical aspects around the delivery of long-acting injections, including location of injection administration, that they believed would improve their ability to adhere, (5) have confidence that they can become undetectable and then complete the oral lead-in required to begin receiving the injection, and (6) see potential barriers that remain a concern for successful adherence to long-acting injections. Conclusion To better treat HIV among people who are living with challenging social determinants of health, interventions that include a long-acting injection in a non-traditional care setting may prove to be a promising treatment option

Healthcare workers’ attitudes on mandates, incentives, and strategies to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake: A mixed methods study

Healthcare workers are a trusted health information source and are uniquely positioned to reduce the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this sequential exploratory mixed methods study was to understand attitudes of healthcare workers working in Massachusetts during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding strategies to improve COVID-19 vaccine utilization, including vaccine mandates and incentives. Fifty-two individuals completed one-on-one interviews between April 22nd and September 7th, 2021. The survey was developed based on findings from the interviews; 209 individuals completed the online survey between February 17th and March 23rd, 2022. Both the interview and survey asked about attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine and booster mandates, incentives, and strategies to improve vaccination rates. Most participants were female (79%-interview, 81%-survey), Caucasian (56%, 73%), and worked as physicians (37%, 34%) or nurses (10%, 18%). Overall, nuanced attitudes regarding vaccine and booster mandates were expressed; many supported mandates to protect their patients’ health, others emphasized personal autonomy, while some were against mandates if job termination was the consequence of declining vaccines. Similarly, views regarding vaccine incentives differed; some considered incentives helpful, yet many viewed them as coercive. Strategies believed to be most effective to encourage vaccination included improving accessibility to vaccination sites, addressing misinformation, discussing vaccine safety, tailored community outreach via trusted messengers, and one-on-one conversations between patients and healthcare workers. Healthcare workers’ experiences with strategies to improve utilization of COVID-19 vaccines and boosters have implications for public health policies. Generally, efforts to improve access and education were viewed more favorably than incentives and mandates