Cognitive function and drivers of cognitive impairment in a European and a Korean cohort of people living with HIV

Although cognitive impairments are still prevalent in the current antiretroviral therapy era, limited investigations have compared the prevalence of cognitive disorder in people living with HIV (PLWH) and its determinants in different regions and ethnicities. We compared cognitive performance across six domains using comparable batteries in 134 PLWH aged ≥45 years from the COBRA study (Netherlands, UK), and 194 PLWH aged ≥18 years from the NeuroAIDS Project (South Korea). Cognitive scores were standardized and averaged to obtain domain and global T-scores. Associations with global T-scores were evaluated using multivariable regression and the ability of individual tests to detect cognitive impairment (global T-score ≤45) was assessed using the area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC). The median (interquartile range) age of participants was 56 (51, 62) years in COBRA (88% white ethnicity, 93% male) and 45 (37, 52) years in NeuroAIDS (100% Korean ethnicity, 94% male). The rate of cognitive impairment was 18.8% and 18.0%, respectively (p = 0.86). In COBRA, Black-African ethnicity was the factor most strongly associated with cognitive function (11.1 [7.7, 14.5] lower scores vs. white ethnicity, p < 0.01), whereas in NeuroAIDS, age (0.6 [0.1, 1.3] per 10-year, p<0.01) and education (0.7 [0.5, 0.9] per year, p<0.01) were significantly associated with cognitive function with anemia showing only a weak association (−1.2 [−2.6, 0.3], p=0.12). Cognitive domains most associated with cognitive impairment were attention (AUROC = 0.86) and executive function (AUROC = 0.87) in COBRA and processing speed (AUROC = 0.80), motor function (AUROC = 0.78) and language (AUROC = 0.78) in NeuroAIDS. Two cohorts of PLWH from different geographical regions report similar rates of cognitive impairment but different risk factors and cognitive profiles of impairment

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

High Prevalence of Sexually Transmitted Infections in HIV-Infected Men During Routine Outpatient Visits in the Netherlands

Background: In the Netherlands, no guidelines exist for routine sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected men having sex with men (MSM). We assessed prevalence and factors associated with asymptomatic STI. Methods: MSM visiting HIV outpatient clinics of academic hospitals were tested for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG), syphilis, and hepatitis B and C infection. Prevalence and risk factors were studied using logistic regression. Results: In total, 659 MSM were included between 2007 and 2008. STI were found in 16.0% of patients, mostly anal CT and syphilis. One new hepatitis B and 3 new hepatitis C infections were identified. In multivariate analyses, any STI (syphilis, CT, or NG) was associated with patient's age below 40 years (odds ratio [OR]: 2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-5.0), having had sex with 2 or more sexual partners (OR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.2-3.5), the use of the same sexual toys with a sexual partner (OR 2 Conclusions: High-risk sexual behavior was very common, and 16% of HIV-infected MSM in HIV care had an asymptomatic STI, mostly anal CT and syphilis. Development of STI screening guidelines is recommended

Sexually transmitted infections screening at HIV treatment centers for MSM can be cost-effective

Objective:To estimate the cost-effectiveness of anorectal chlamydia screening among men who have sex with men (MSM) in care at HIV treatment centers. Design:Transmission model combined with economic analysis over a 20-year period. Setting and participants:MSM in care at HIV treatment centers. Intervention:Once-yearly or twice-yearly screening for anorectal chlamydia among MSM in care at HIV treatment centers. Main outcome measures:Averted HIV and chlamydia infections; discounted quality-adjusted life-years and costs; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results:Costs will be saved by routine chlamydia screening of MSM in care at HIV treatment centers if these patients seek little or no screening elsewhere. Nonroutine screening is considerably more expensive than routine screening offered within a scheduled visit. Adding once-yearly chlamydia screening for MSM in care at HIV treatment centers is cost saving when 30% or fewer of those men seek once-yearly screening elsewhere (Euro1.5 to Euro8.1 million saved). Twice-yearly routine screening at HI Conclusions:Adding annual chlamydia screening to the HIV consultation will be cost saving as long as only a limited proportion of men are nonroutinely screened. The ICER was most sensitive to the percentage of MSM that continue to be screened elsewhere

Modelling the impact of chlamydia screening on the transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men

Background: Recent studies have found high prevalences of asymptomatic rectal chlamydia among HIV-infected men who have sex with men (MSM). Chlamydia could increase the infectivity of HIV and the susceptibility to HIV infection. We investigate the role of chlamydia in the spread of HIV among MSM and the possible impact of routine chlamydia screening among HIV-infected MSM at HIV treatment centres on the incidence of chlamydia and HIV in the overall MSM population. Methods: A mathematical model was developed to describe the transmission of HIV and chlamydia among MSM. Parameters relating to sexual behaviour were estimated from data from the Amsterdam Cohort Study among MSM. Uncertainty analysis was carried out for model parameters without confident estimates. The effects of different screening strategies for chlamydia were investigated. Results: Among all new HIV infections in MSM, 15% can be attributed to chlamydia infection. Introduction of routine chlamydia screening every six months among HIV-infected MSM during regular HIV consultations can reduce the incidence of both infections among MSM: after 10 years, the relative percentage reduction in chlamydia incidence would be 15% and in HIV incidence 4%, compared to the current situation. Chlamydia screening is more effective in reducing HIV incidence with more frequent screeni Conclusions: Chlamydia infection could contribute to the transmission of HIV among MSM. Preventive measures reducing chlamydia prevalence, such as routine chlamydia screening of HIV-infected MSM, can result in a decline in the incidence of chlamydia and HIV