HIV treatment strategies across Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe: New times, old problems

Introduction: In the last decade, substantial differences in the epidemiology of, antiretroviral therapy (ART) for, cascade of care in and support to people with HIV in vulnerable populations have been observed between countries in Western Europe, Central Europe (CE) and Eastern Europe (EE). The aim of this study was to use a survey to explore whether ART availability and therapies have evolved in CE and EE according to European guidelines. Methods: The Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe (ECEE) Network Group conducted two identical multicentre cross-sectional online surveys in 2019 and 2021 concerning the availability and use of antiretroviral drugs (boosted protease inhibitors [bPIs], integrase inhibitors [INSTIs] and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs]), the introduction of a rapid ART start strategy and the use of two-drug regimens (2DRs) for starting or switching ART. We also investigated barriers to the implementation of these strategies in each region. Results: In total, 18 centres participated in the study: four from CE, six from EE and eight from Southeastern Europe (SEE). Between those 2 years, older PIs were less frequently used and darunavir-based regimens were the main PIs (83%); bictegravir-based and tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens were introduced in CE and SEE but not in EE. The COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly interrupt delivery of ART in most centres. Two-thirds of centres adopted a rapid ART start strategy, mainly in pregnant women and to improve linkage of care in vulnerable populations. The main obstacle to rapid ART start was that national guidelines in several countries from all three regions did not support such as strategy or required laboratory tests first; an INSTI/NRTI combination was the most commonly prescribed regimen (75%) and was exclusively prescribed in SEE. 2DRs are increasingly used for starting or switching ART (58%), and an INSTI/NRTI was the preferred regimen (75%) in all regions and exclusively prescribed in SEE, whereas the use of bPIs declined. Metabolic disorders and adverse drug reactions were the main reasons for starting a 2DR; in the second survey, HIV RNA <500 000 c/ml and high cluster of differentiation (CD)-4 count emerged as additional important reasons. Conclusions: In just 2 years and in spite of the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, significant achievements concerning ART availability and strategies have occurred in CE, EE and SEE that facilitate the harmonization of those strategies with the European AIDS Clinical Society guidelines. Few exceptions exist, especially in EE. Continuous effort is needed to overcome various obstacles (administrative, financial, national guideline restrictions) in some countries

PrEP Scale-Up and PEP in Central and Eastern Europe: Changes in Time and the Challenges We Face with No Expected HIV Vaccine in the near Future

With no expected vaccine for HIV in the near future, we aimed to define the current situation and challenges for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP and PEP) in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The Euroguidelines CEE Network Group members were invited to respond to a 27-item survey including questions on PrEP (response rate 91.6%). PrEP was licensed in 68.2%; 95 centers offered PrEP and the estimated number on PrEP was around 9000. It was available in daily (40.1%), on-demand (13.3%), or both forms (33.3%). The access rate was <1–80%. Three major barriers for access were lack of knowledge/awareness among people who are in need (59.1%), not being reimbursed (50.0%), and low perception of HIV risk (45.5%). Non-occupational PEP was available in 86.4% and was recommended in the guidelines in 54.5%. It was fully reimbursed in 36.4%, only for accidental exposures in 40.9%, and was not reimbursed in 22.72%. Occupational PEP was available in 95.5% and was reimbursed fully. Although PrEP scale-up in the region has gained momentum, a huge gap exists between those who are in need of and those who can access PrEP. Prompt action is required to address the urgent need for PrEP scale-up in the CEE region

National strategies for vaccination against COVID-19 in people living with HIV in Central and Eastern European region

Introduction People living with HIV (PLWH) are at higher risk of poorer COVID-19 outcomes. Vaccination is a safe and effective method of prevention against many infectious diseases, including COVID-19. Here we investigate the strategies for national COVID-19 vaccination programmes across central and eastern Europe and the inclusion of PLWH in vaccination programmes. Methods The Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group consists of experts in the field of infectious diseases from 24 countries in the region. Between 1 November 2020 and 19 March 2021 the group proceeded an on-line survey consisting of 20 questions. Results Twenty-two countries (out of 24 invited) participated in the survey and 20/22 countries in the period between December 2020 and March 2021 had already started their COVID-19 vaccination programme. In total, seven different vaccines were used by participating countries. In 17/21 countries (81%), vaccinated persons were centralized within the national registry. In 8/21 countries (38%) PLWH were prioritized for vaccination (the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Montenegro, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia) and the Czech Republic, Greece and Serbia had put in place national guidelines for vaccination of PLWH. In 14/20 countries (70%) vaccination was only provided by designated centres. Eighteen respondents (18/21; 85.7%) reported that they planned to follow up HIV patients vaccinated against COVID-19, mainly by measuring antibody levels and checking COVID-19 incidence (11/21; 52.3%). Conclusions This survey-based study suggests that there are significant differences in terms of prioritizing PLWH, the types of vaccines used, vaccination coverage, and the development and implementation of a vaccination programmes within the region. Regardless of heterogenicity and existing barriers within the region, systematic vaccination in PLWH should have the highest priority, especially in those with severe immunodeficiency, risk factors, and in the elderly, aiming for prompt and high vaccination coverage