East African HIV care: depression and HIV outcomes.

Importance:Depression is a common co-morbidity for people living with HIV (PLWH) and is associated with elevated plasma HIV RNA levels. While depression correlates with deficits in antiretroviral (ARV) adherence, little data exist to inform the relationship between depression and HIV vial load more broadly. Objective:To examine the relationship between depression and viral load in the African Cohort Study (AFRICOS) independently of ARV adherence. Design:PLWH in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania underwent screening for depression using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD) upon enrollment at AFRICOS HIV care sites. Setting:AFRICOS is an ongoing prospective longitudinal cohort study enrolling HIV-infected adults at HIV care centers including sites in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. These sites are administered by President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief programs. Participants:HIV+ individuals were eligible if they were at least 18 years old, receiving HIV care at the enrolling clinic and consented to data and specimen collection. Main outcome measure:CESD. Results:Among 2307 participants, 18-25% met the CESD threshold for depression. Depression was associated with decreased ARV adherence (OR 0.59, p =  0.01). Higher scores on three CESD items were significantly associated with 209-282% higher viral load, independently of ARV adherence among participants on ARVs ⩾6 months. Conclusions:PLWH had high prevalence of depression on the CESD. Diverse depression symptoms were independently associated with increases in viral load, underscoring the need for comprehensive treatment of depression

Lessons from an international trial evaluating vaccination strategies for recovered inpatients with COVID-19 (VATICO)

The protection provided by natural versus hybrid immunity from COVID-19 is unclear. We reflect on the challenges from trying to conduct a randomized post-SARS-CoV-2 infection vaccination trial study with rapidly evolving scientific data, vaccination guidelines, varying international policies, difficulties with vaccine availability, vaccine hesitancy, and a constantly evolving virus

Identifying models of HIV care and treatment service delivery in Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia using cluster analysis and Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Organization of HIV care and treatment services, including clinic staffing and services, may shape clinical and financial outcomes, yet there has been little attempt to describe different models of HIV care in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Information about the relative benefits and drawbacks of different models could inform the scale-up of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and associated services in resource-limited settings (RLS), especially in light of expanded client populations with country adoption of WHO's test and treat recommendation. METHODS: We characterized task-shifting/task-sharing practices in 19 diverse ART clinics in Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia and used cluster analysis to identify unique models of service provision. We ran descriptive statistics to explore how the clusters varied by environmental factors and programmatic characteristics. Finally, we employed the Delphi Method to make systematic use of expert opinions to ensure that the cluster variables were meaningful in the context of actual task-shifting of ART services in SSA. RESULTS: The cluster analysis identified three task-shifting/task-sharing models. The main differences across models were the availability of medical doctors, the scope of clinical responsibility assigned to nurses, and the use of lay health care workers. Patterns of healthcare staffing in HIV service delivery were associated with different environmental factors (e.g., health facility levels, urban vs. rural settings) and programme characteristics (e.g., community ART distribution or integrated tuberculosis treatment on-site). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the relative advantages and disadvantages of different models of care can help national programmes adapt to increased client load, select optimal adherence strategies within decentralized models of care, and identify differentiated models of care for clients to meet the growing needs of long-term ART patients who require more complicated treatment management

Tixagevimab–cilgavimab for treatment of patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Background: Tixagevimab–cilgavimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody combination hypothesised to improve outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We aimed to compare tixagevimab–cilgavimab versus placebo, in patients receiving remdesivir and other standard care. Methods: In a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, adults with symptoms for up to 12 days and hospitalised for COVID-19 at 81 sites in the USA, Europe, Uganda, and Singapore were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous tixagevimab 300 mg–cilgavimab 300 mg or placebo, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care. Patients were excluded if they had acute organ failure including receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressor therapy, mechanical circulatory support, or new renal replacement therapy. The study drug was prepared by an unmasked pharmacist; study participants, site study staff, investigators, and clinical providers were masked to study assignment. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery up to day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home after hospital discharge, with co-primary analyses for the full cohort and for participants who were neutralising antibody-negative at baseline. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as participants who received a complete or partial infusion of tixagevimab–cilgavimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978 and the participant follow-up is ongoing. Findings: From Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021, 1455 patients were randomly assigned and 1417 in the primary modified intention-to-treat population were infused with tixagevimab–cilgavimab (n=710) or placebo (n=707). The estimated cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 89% for tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 86% for placebo group participants at day 90 in the full cohort (recovery rate ratio [RRR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·97–1·20]; p=0·21). Results were similar in the seronegative subgroup (RRR 1·14 [0·97–1·34]; p=0·13). Mortality was lower in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group (61 [9%]) versus placebo group (86 [12%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50–0·97]; p=0·032). The composite safety outcome occurred in 178 (25%) tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 212 (30%) placebo group participants (HR 0·83 [0·68–1·01]; p=0·059). Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (5%) participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group and 38 (5%) in the placebo group. Interpretation: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and other standard care, tixagevimab–cilgavimab did not improve the primary outcome of time to sustained recovery but was safe and mortality was lower. Funding: US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Operation Warp Speed

Mapping the medical outcomes study HIV health survey (MOS-HIV) to the EuroQoL 5 Dimension (EQ-5D-3L) utility index

10.1186/s12955-019-1135-8Health and Quality of Life Outcomes1718

East African HIV care: depression and HIV outcomes.

ImportanceDepression is a common co-morbidity for people living with HIV (PLWH) and is associated with elevated plasma HIV RNA levels. While depression correlates with deficits in antiretroviral (ARV) adherence, little data exist to inform the relationship between depression and HIV vial load more broadly.ObjectiveTo examine the relationship between depression and viral load in the African Cohort Study (AFRICOS) independently of ARV adherence.DesignPLWH in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania underwent screening for depression using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD) upon enrollment at AFRICOS HIV care sites.SettingAFRICOS is an ongoing prospective longitudinal cohort study enrolling HIV-infected adults at HIV care centers including sites in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. These sites are administered by President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief programs.ParticipantsHIV+ individuals were eligible if they were at least 18 years old, receiving HIV care at the enrolling clinic and consented to data and specimen collection.Main outcome measureCESD.ResultsAmong 2307 participants, 18-25% met the CESD threshold for depression. Depression was associated with decreased ARV adherence (OR 0.59, p =  0.01). Higher scores on three CESD items were significantly associated with 209-282% higher viral load, independently of ARV adherence among participants on ARVs ⩾6 months.ConclusionsPLWH had high prevalence of depression on the CESD. Diverse depression symptoms were independently associated with increases in viral load, underscoring the need for comprehensive treatment of depression

Nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor cross-resistance and outcomes from second-line antiretroviral therapy in the public health approach: an observational analysis within the randomised, open-label, EARNEST trial

Background Cross-resistance after first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure is expected to impair activity of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in second-line therapy for patients with HIV, but evidence for the effect of cross-resistance on virological outcomes is limited. We aimed to assess the association between the activity, predicted by resistance testing, of the NRTIs used in second-line therapy and treatment outcomes for patients infected with HIV. Methods We did an observational analysis of additional data from a published open-label, randomised trial of second-line ART (EARNEST) in sub-Saharan Africa. 1277 adults or adolescents infected with HIV in whom first-line ART had failed (assessed by WHO criteria with virological confirmation) were randomly assigned to a boosted protease inhibitor (standardised to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir) with two to three NRTIs (clinician-selected, without resistance testing); or with raltegravir; or alone as protease inhibitor monotherapy (discontinued after week 96). We tested genotypic resistance on stored baseline samples in patients in the protease inhibitor and NRTI group and calculated the predicted activity of prescribed second-line NRTIs. We measured viral load in stored samples for all patients obtained every 12–16 weeks. This trial is registered with Controlled-Trials.com (number ISRCTN 37737787) and ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00988039). Findings Baseline genotypes were available in 391 (92%) of 426 patients in the protease inhibitor and NRTI group. 176 (89%) of 198 patients prescribed a protease inhibitor with no predicted-active NRTIs had viral suppression (viral loa

Lopinavir plus nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, lopinavir plus raltegravir, or lopinavir monotherapy for second-line treatment of HIV (EARNEST): 144-week follow-up results from a randomised controlled trial

Background Millions of HIV-infected people worldwide receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) in programmes using WHO-recommended standardised regimens. Recent WHO guidelines recommend a boosted protease inhibitor plus raltegravir as an alternative second-line combination. We assessed whether this treatment option offers any advantage over the standard protease inhibitor plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) second-line combination after 144 weeks of follow-up in typical programme settings. Methods We analysed the 144-week outcomes at the completion of the EARNEST trial, a randomised controlled trial done in HIV-infected adults or adolescents in 14 sites in five sub-Saharan African countries (Uganda, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Kenya, Zambia). Participants were those who were no longer responding to non-NRTI-based first-line ART, as assessed with WHO criteria, confirmed by viral-load testing. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir 400 mg with ritonavir 100 mg, twice per day) plus two or three clinician-selected NRTIs (protease inhibitor plus NRTI group), protease inhibitor plus raltegravir (400 mg twice per day; protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group), or protease inhibitor monotherapy (plus raltegravir induction for first 12 weeks, re-intensified to combination therapy after week 96; protease inhibitor monotherapy group). Randomisation was by computer-generated randomisation sequence, with variable block size. The primary outcome was viral load of less than 400 copies per mL at week 144, for which we assessed non-inferiority with a one-sided α of 0·025, and superiority with a two-sided α of 0·025. The EARNEST trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 37737787. Findings Between April 12, 2010, and April 29, 2011, 1837 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 1277 patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group. In the primary (complete-case) analysis at 144 weeks, 317 (86%) of 367 in the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL compared with 312 (81%) of 383 in the protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group (p=0·07; lower 95% confidence limit for difference 10·2% vs specified non-inferiority margin 10%). In the protease inhibitor monotherapy group, 292 (78%) of 375 had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL; p=0·003 versus the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group at 144 weeks. There was no difference between groups in serious adverse events, grade 3 or 4 adverse events (total or ART-related), or events that resulted in treatment modification. Interpretation Protease inhibitor plus raltegravir offered no advantage over protease inhibitor plus NRTI in virological efficacy or safety. In the primary analysis, protease inhibitor plus raltegravir did not meet non-inferiority criteria. A regimen of protease inhibitor with NRTIs remains the best standardised second-line regimen for use in programmes in resource-limited settings. Funding European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), UK Medical Research Council, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Irish Aid, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Instituto Superiore di Sanita, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, WHO