Sex and gender in infection and immunity: addressing the bottlenecks from basic science to public health and clinical applications

Although sex and gender are recognized as major determinants of health and immunity, their role israrely considered in clinical practice and public health. We identified six bottlenecks preventing theinclusion of sex and gender considerations from basic science to clinical practice, precision medicineand public health policies. (i) A terminology-related bottleneck, linked to the definitions of sex andgender themselves, and the lack of consensus on how to evaluate gender. (ii) A data-relatedbottleneck, due to gaps in sex-disaggregated data, data on trans/non-binary people and genderidentity. (iii) A translational bottleneck, limited by animal models and the underrepresentation ofgender minorities in biomedical studies. (iv) A statistical bottleneck, with inappropriate statisticalanalyses and results interpretation. (v) An ethical bottleneck posed by the underrepresentation ofpregnant people and gender minorities in clinical studies. (vi) A structural bottleneck, as systemicbias and discriminations affect not only academic research but also decision makers. We specifyguidelines for researchers, scientific journals, funding agencies and academic institutions to addressthese bottlenecks. Following such guidelines will support the development of more efficient andequitable care strategies for all

Sex and gender in infection and immunity: addressing the bottlenecks from basic science to public health and clinical applications

Although sex and gender are recognized as major determinants of health and immunity, their role is rarely considered in clinical practice and public health. We identified six bottlenecks preventing the inclusion of sex and gender considerations from basic science to clinical practice, precision medicine and public health policies. (i) A terminology-related bottleneck, linked to the definitions of sex and gender themselves, and the lack of consensus on how to evaluate gender. (ii) A data-related bottleneck, due to gaps in sex-disaggregated data, data on trans/non-binary people and gender identity. (iii) A translational bottleneck, limited by animal models and the underrepresentation of gender minorities in biomedical studies. (iv) A statistical bottleneck, with inappropriate statistical analyses and results interpretation. (v) An ethical bottleneck posed by the underrepresentation of pregnant people and gender minorities in clinical studies. (vi) A structural bottleneck, as systemic bias and discriminations affect not only academic research but also decision makers. We specify guidelines for researchers, scientific journals, funding agencies and academic institutions to address these bottlenecks. Following such guidelines will support the development of more efficient and equitable care strategies for all

Sex and gender in infection and immunity: addressing the bottlenecks from basic science to public health and clinical applications.

Although sex and gender are recognized as major determinants of health and immunity, their role is rarely considered in clinical practice and public health. We identified six bottlenecks preventing the inclusion of sex and gender considerations from basic science to clinical practice, precision medicine and public health policies. (i) A terminology-related bottleneck, linked to the definitions of sex and gender themselves, and the lack of consensus on how to evaluate gender. (ii) A data-related bottleneck, due to gaps in sex-disaggregated data, data on trans/non-binary people and gender identity. (iii) A translational bottleneck, limited by animal models and the underrepresentation of gender minorities in biomedical studies. (iv) A statistical bottleneck, with inappropriate statistical analyses and results interpretation. (v) An ethical bottleneck posed by the underrepresentation of pregnant people and gender minorities in clinical studies. (vi) A structural bottleneck, as systemic bias and discriminations affect not only academic research but also decision makers. We specify guidelines for researchers, scientific journals, funding agencies and academic institutions to address these bottlenecks. Following such guidelines will support the development of more efficient and equitable care strategies for all

Hepatitis delta infection among persons living with HIV in Europe

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A high prevalence of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection, the most severe form of viral hepatitis, has been reported among persons living with HIV (PLWH) in Europe. We analysed data from a large HIV cohort collaboration to characterize HDV epidemiological trends across Europe, as well as its impact on clinical outcomes. METHODS: All PLWH with a positive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and EuroSIDA between 1988 and 2019 were tested for anti-HDV antibodies and, if positive, for HDV RNA. Demographic and clinical characteristics at initiation of antiretroviral therapy were compared between HDV-positive and HDV-negative individuals using descriptive statistics. The associations between HDV infection and overall mortality, liver-related mortality as well as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were assessed using cumulative incidence plots and cause-specific multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 2793 HBsAg-positive participants, 1556 (56%) had stored serum available and were included. The prevalence of HDV coinfection was 15.2% (237/1556, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.5%–17.1%) and 66% (132/200) of HDV-positive individuals had active HDV replication. Among persons who inject drugs (PWID), the prevalence of HDV coinfection was 50.5% (182/360, 95% CI: 45.3%–55.7%), with similar estimates across Europe, compared to 4.7% (52/1109, 95% CI: 3.5%–5.9%) among other participants. During a median follow-up of 10.8 years (interquartile range 5.6–17.8), 82 (34.6%) HDV-positive and 265 (20.1%) HDV-negative individuals died. 41.5% (34/82) of deaths were liver-related in HDV-positive individuals compared to 17.7% (47/265) in HDV-negative individuals. HDV infection was associated with overall mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.6; 95% CI 1.2–2.1), liver-related death (2.9, 1.6–5.0) and HCC (6.3, 2.5–16.0). CONCLUSION: We found a very high prevalence of hepatitis delta among PWID across Europe. Among PLWH who do not inject drugs, the prevalence was similar to that reported from populations without HIV. HDV coinfection was associated with liver-related mortality and HCC incidence

External validation of the PAGE-B score for HCC risk prediction in people living with HIV/HBV coinfection

Background & Aims: HBV coinfection is common among people living with HIV (PLWH) and is the most important cause of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). While risk prediction tools for HCC have been validated in patients with HBV monoinfection, they have not been evaluated in PLWH. Thus, we performed an external validation of PAGE-B in people with HIV/HBV coinfection. Methods: We included data on PLWH from four European cohorts who were positive for HBsAg and did not have HCC before starting tenofovir. We estimated the predictive performance of PAGE-B for HCC occurrence over 15 years in patients receiving tenofovir-containing antiretroviral therapy. Model discrimination was assessed after multiple imputation using Cox regression with the prognostic index as a covariate, and by calculating Harrell's c-index. Calibration was assessed by comparing our cumulative incidence with the PAGE-B derivation study using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: In total, 2,963 individuals with HIV/HBV coinfection on tenofovir-containing antiretroviral therapy were included. PAGE-B was <10 in 26.5%, 10–17 in 57.7%, and ≥18 in 15.7% of patients. Within a median follow-up of 9.6 years, HCC occurred in 68 individuals (2.58/1,000 patient-years, 95% CI 2.03–3.27). The regression slope of the prognostic index for developing HCC within 15 years was 0.93 (95% CI 0.61–1.25), and the pooled c-index was 0.77 (range 0.73–0.80), both indicating good model discrimination. The cumulative incidence of HCC was lower in our study compared to the derivation study. A PAGE-B cut-off of <10 had a negative predictive value of 99.4% for the development of HCC within 5 years. Restricting efforts to individuals with a PAGE-B of ≥10 would spare unnecessary HCC screening in 27% of individuals. Conclusions: For individuals with HIV/HBV coinfection, PAGE-B is a valid tool to determine the need for HCC screening. Impact and implications: Chronic HBV infection is the most important cause of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) among people living with HIV. Valid risk prediction may enable better targeting of HCC screening efforts to high-risk individuals. We aimed to validate PAGE-B, a risk prediction tool that is based on age, sex, and platelets, in 2,963 individuals with HIV/HBV coinfection who received tenofovir-containing antiretroviral therapy. In the present study, PAGE-B showed good discrimination, adequate calibration, and a cut-off of <10 had a negative predictive value of 99.4% for the development of HCC within 5 years. These results indicate that PAGE-B is a simple and valid risk prediction tool to determine the need for HCC screening among people living with HIV and HBV