Challenges in modelling the proportion of undiagnosed HIV infections in Sweden

BACKGROUND: Sweden has a low HIV prevalence. However, among new HIV diagnoses in 2016, the proportion of late presenters and migrants was high (59% and 81%, respectively). This poses challenges in estimating the proportion of undiagnosed persons living with HIV (PLHIV). AIM: To estimate the proportion of undiagnosed PLHIV in Sweden comparing two models with different demands on data availability and modelling expertise. METHODS: An individual-based stochastic simulation model of HIV positive populations (SSOPHIE) and the incidence method of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) HIV Modelling Tool were applied to clinical, surveillance and migration data from Sweden 1980–2016. RESULTS: SSOPHIE estimated that the proportion of undiagnosed PLHIV in 2013 was 26% (n = 2,100; 90% plausibility range (PR): 900–5,000) for all PLHIV, 17% (n = 600; 90% PR: 100–2,000) for men who have sex with men (MSM), 35% in male (n = 300; 90% PR: 200–700) and 34% in female (n = 400; 90% PR: 200–800) migrants from sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The estimates for the ECDC model in 2013 were 21% (n = 2,013; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1,831–2,189) for all PLHIV, 15% (n = 369; 95% CI: 299–434) for MSM and 21% (n = 530; 95% CI: 436–632) for migrants from SSA. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of undiagnosed PLHIV in Sweden is uncertain. SSOPHIE estimates had wide PR. The ECDC model estimates were unreliable because migration was not accounted for. Better migration data and estimation methods are required to obtain reliable estimates of proportions of undiagnosed PLHIV in similar settings

Results from a European multi-cohort study

Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.Background: INSTIs have become a pillar of first-line ART. Real-world data are needed to assess their effectiveness in routine care. Objectives: We analysed ART-naive patients who started INSTI-based regimens in 2012-19 whose data were collected by INTEGRATE, a European collaborative study including seven national cohorts. Methods: Kaplan-Meier analyses assessed time to virological failure (VF), defined as one viral load (VL) ≥1000 copies/mL, two consecutive VLs ≥50 copies/mL, or one VL ≥50 copies/mL followed by treatment change after ≥24 weeks of follow-up, and time to INSTIs discontinuation (INSTI-DC) for any reason. Factors associated with VF and INSTI-DC were explored by logistic regression analysis. Results: Of 2976 regimens started, 1901 (63.9%) contained dolutegravir, 631 (21.2%) elvitegravir and 444 (14.9%) raltegravir. The 1 year estimated probabilities of VF and INSTI-DC were 5.6% (95% CI 4.5-6.7) and 16.2% (95% CI 14.9-17.6), respectively, and were higher for raltegravir versus both elvitegravir and dolutegravir. A baseline VL ≥100 000 copies/mL [adjusted HR (aHR) 2.17, 95% CI 1.55-3.04, P 3 drugs versus 3 drugs (aHR 2.73, 95% CI 1.55-4.79, P < 0.001) and starting ART following availability of dolutegravir (aHR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48-0.83, P = 0.001). Major INSTI mutations indicative of transmitted drug resistance occurred in 2/1114 (0.2%) individuals. Conclusions: This large multi-cohort study indicates high effectiveness of elvitegravir- or dolutegravir-based first-line ART in routine practice across Europe.publishersversionpublishe

EuCARE-hospitalised study protocol: a cohort study of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the EuCARE project

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2), the virus responsible for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to hospitalisation, particularly in elderly, immunocompromised, and non-vaccinated or partially vaccinated individuals. Although vaccination provides protection, the duration of this protection wanes over time. Additional doses can restore immunity, but the influence of viral variants, specific sequences, and vaccine-induced immune responses on disease severity remains unclear. Moreover, the efficacy of therapeutic interventions during hospitalisation requires further investigation. The study aims to analyse the clinical course of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients, taking into account SARS-CoV-2 variants, viral sequences, and the impact of different vaccines. The primary outcome is all-cause in-hospital mortality, while secondary outcomes include admission to intensive care unit and length of stay, duration of hospitalisation, and the level of respiratory support required. Methods: This ongoing multicentre study observes hospitalised adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, utilising a combination of retrospective and prospective data collection. It aims to gather clinical and laboratory variables from around 35,000 patients, with potential for a larger sample size. Data analysis will involve biostatistical and machine-learning techniques. Selected patients will provide biological material. The study started on October 14, 2021 and is scheduled to end on October 13, 2026. Discussion: The analysis of a large sample of retrospective and prospective data about the acute phase of SARS CoV-2 infection in hospitalised patients, viral variants and vaccination in several European and non-European countries will help us to better understand risk factors for disease severity and the interplay between SARS CoV-2 variants, immune responses and vaccine efficacy. The main strengths of this study are the large sample size, the long study duration covering different waves of COVID-19 and the collection of biological samples that allows future research. Trial registration: The trial has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. The unique identifier assigned to this trial is NCT05463380

Consensus statement of the European guidelines on clinical management of HIV-1 tropism testing

Tenth International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection 7-11 November 2010 Glasgow, UKIntroduction: Testing for HIV tropism is recommended before prescribing a chemokine receptor blocker. To date, in most European countries HIV tropism is determined using a phenotypic test. Recently, new data have emerged supporting the use of a genotypic HIV V3-loop sequence analysis as the basis for tropism determination. The European guidelines group on clinical management of HIV-1 tropism testing was established to make recommendations to clinicians and virologists. Methods: We searched online databases for articles from Jan 2006 until March 2010 with the terms: tropism or CCR5-antagonist or CCR5 antagonist or maraviroc or vicriviroc. Additional articles and/or conference abstracts were identified by hand searching. This strategy identified 712 potential articles and 1240 abstracts. All were reviewed and finally 57 papers and 42 abstracts were included and used by the panel to reach a consensus statement. Results: The panel recommends HIV-tropism testing for the following indications: i) drug-naïve patients in whom toxicity or limited therapeutic options are foreseen; ii) patients experiencing therapy failure whenever a treatment change is considered. Both the phenotypic Enhanced Trofile assay (ESTA) and genotypic population sequencing of the V3-loop are recommended for use in clinical practice. Although the panel does not recommend one methodology over another it is anticipated that genotypic testing will be used more frequently because of its greater accessibility, lower cost and shorter turnaround time. The panel also provides guidance on technical aspects and interpretation issues. If using genotypic methods, triplicate PCR amplification and sequencing testing is advised using the G2P interpretation tool (clonal model) with an FPR of 10%. If the viral load is below the level of reliable amplification, proviral DNA can be used, and the panel recommends performing triplicate testing and use of an FPR of 10%. If genotypic DNA testing is not performed in triplicate the FPR should be increased to 20%. Conclusions: The European guidelines on clinical management of HIV-1 tropism testing provide an overview of current literature, evidence-based recommendations for the clinical use of tropism testing and expert guidance on unresolved issues and current developments. Current data support both the use of genotypic population sequencing and ESTA for co-receptor tropism determination. For practical reasons genotypic population sequencing is the preferred method in Europe.Ye

Virologic and immunologic outcomes of treatment with integrase inhibitors in a real-world setting: The RESPOND cohort consortium

Objectives: To compare virologic and immunologic outcomes of integrase inhibitor (INSTI)-containing, contemporary boosted protease inhibitor (PI/b)-containing and non-nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-containing regimens in a real-life setting. Methods: Using logistic regression, virologic and immunologic outcomes of INSTI use were compared to outcomes of PI/b or NNRTI treatment 12 months after treatment start or switch, for participants in the RESPOND cohort consortium. A composite treatment outcome (cTO) was used, defining success as viral load (VL) <200 copies/mL and failure as at least one of: VL ≥200 copies/mL, unknown VL in the time window, any changes of antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen, AIDS, or death. In addition, on-treatment analysis including only individuals with known VL and no regimen changes was performed. Favorable immunologic response was defined as a 25% increase in CD4 count or as reaching ≥750 CD4 cells/μL. Results: Between January 2012 and January 2019, 13,703 (33.0% ART-naïve) individuals were included, of whom 7,147 started/switched to a regimen with an INSTI, 3,102 to a PI/b and 3,454 to an NNRTI-containing regimen. The main reason for cTO failure in all treatment groups were changes in ART regimen. Compared to INSTIs, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of cTO success was significantly lower for PI/b (0.74 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.67–0.82], p <0.001), but similar for NNRTIs (1.07 [CI 0.97–1.17], p = 0.11). On-treatment analysis and sensitivity analyses using a VL cut-off of 50 copies/mL were consistent. Compared to INSTIs, the aORs of a 25% increase in CD4 count were lower for NNRTIs (0.80 [CI 0.71–0.91], p<0.001) and PI/b (0.87 [CI 0.76–0.99], p = 0.04). Conclusion: In this large analysis of a real-world population, cTO and on-treatment success were similar between INSTIs and NNRTIs, but lower for PI/b, though residual confounding cannot be fully excluded. Obtaining favorable immunologic outcomes were more likely for INSTIs than the other drug classes

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

Transmission of HIV drug resistance and the predicted effect on current first-line regimens in Europe

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have shown that baseline drug resistance patterns may influence the outcome of antiretroviral therapy. Therefore guidelines recommend drug resistance testing to guide the choice of initial regimen. In addition to optimizing individual patient management, these baseline resistance data enable transmitted drug resistance (TDR) to be surveyed for public health purposes. The SPREAD-program systematically collects data to gain insight into TDR occurring in Europe since 2001. METHODS: Demographic, clinical and virological data from 4,140 antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected individuals from 26 countries who were newly diagnosed between 2008 and 2010 were analyzed. Evidence of TDR was defined using the WHO list for surveillance of drug resistance mutations. Prevalence of TDR was assessed over time by comparing the results to SPREAD data from 2002-2007. Baseline susceptibility to antiretroviral drugs was predicted using Stanford HIVdb v7.0. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of TDR did not change significantly over time and was 8.3% (95%CI 7.2-9.5) in 2008-2010. The most frequent indicators of TDR were NRTI-mutations (4.5%), followed by NNRTI-mutations (2.9%) and PI-mutations (2.0%). Baseline mutations were most predictive of reduced susceptibility to initial NNRTI-based regimens: 4.5% and 6.5% of patient isolates were predicted to have resistance to regimens containing efavirenz or rilpivirine respectively, independent of current NRTI backbones. CONCLUSIONS: Although TDR was highest for NRTIs, the impact of baseline drug resistance patterns on susceptibility was largest for NNRTIs. The prevalence of TDR assessed by epidemiological surveys does not clearly indicate to what degree susceptibility to different drug classes is affecte