People with HIV receiving suppressive antiretroviral therapy show typical antibody durability after dual COVID-19 vaccination, and strong third dose responses.

BACKGROUND: Longer-term humoral responses to two-dose COVID-19 vaccines remain incompletely characterized in people living with HIV (PLWH), as do initial responses to a third dose. METHODS: We measured antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain, ACE2 displacement and viral neutralization against wild-type and Omicron strains up to six months following two-dose vaccination, and one month following the third dose, in 99 PLWH receiving suppressive antiretroviral therapy, and 152 controls. RESULTS: Though humoral responses naturally decline following two-dose vaccination, we found no evidence of lower antibody concentrations nor faster rates of antibody decline in PLWH compared to controls after accounting for sociodemographic, health and vaccine-related factors. We also found no evidence of poorer viral neutralization in PLWH after two doses, nor evidence that a low nadir CD4+ T-cell count compromised responses. Post-third-dose humoral responses substantially exceeded post-second-dose levels, though Omicron-specific responses were consistently weaker than against wild-type. Nevertheless, post-third-dose responses in PLWH were comparable to or higher than controls. An mRNA-1273 third dose was the strongest consistent correlate of higher post-third-dose responses. CONCLUSION: PLWH receiving suppressive antiretroviral therapy mount strong antibody responses after two- and three-dose COVID-19 vaccination. Results underscore the immune benefits of third doses in light of Omicron.

Antibody response durability following three-dose coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination in people with HIV receiving suppressive antiretroviral therapy.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding longer term antibody responses following three-dose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination, and the impact of a first SARS-CoV-2 infection during this time, in people with HIV (PWH) receiving suppressive antiretroviral therapy (ART). We quantified wild-type-specific, Omicron BA.1-specific and Omicron BA.5-specific responses up to 6 months post-third dose in 64 PWH and 117 controls who remained COVID-19-naive or experienced their first SARS-CoV-2 infection during this time. DESIGN: Longitudinal observational cohort. METHODS: We quantified wild-type-specific and Omicron-specific anti-Spike receptor-binding domain IgG concentrations, ACE2 displacement activities and live virus neutralization at 1, 3 and 6 months post-third vaccine dose. RESULTS: Third doses boosted all antibody measures above two-dose levels, but BA.1-specific responses remained significantly lower than wild-type-specific ones, with BA.5-specific responses lower still. Serum IgG concentrations declined at similar rates in COVID-19-naive PWH and controls post-third dose (median wild-type-specific and BA.1-specific half-lives were between 66 and 74 days for both groups). Antibody function also declined significantly yet comparably between groups: 6 months post-third dose, BA.1-specific neutralization was undetectable in more than 80% of COVID-19 naive PWH and more than 90% of controls. Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection boosted antibody concentrations and function significantly above vaccine-induced levels in both PWH and controls, though BA.5-specific neutralization remained significantly poorer than BA.1 even post-breakthrough. CONCLUSION: Following three-dose COVID-19 vaccination, antibody response durability in PWH receiving ART is comparable with controls. PWH also mounted strong responses to breakthrough infection. Due to temporal response declines, however, COVID-19-naive individuals, regardless of HIV status, would benefit from a fourth dose within 6 months of their third.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine-Induced T-Cell Response after Three Doses in People Living with HIV on Antiretroviral Therapy Compared to Seronegative Controls (CTN 328 COVAXHIV Study).

People living with HIV (PLWH) may be at risk for poor immunogenicity to certain vaccines, including the ability to develop immunological memory. Here, we assessed T-cell immunogenicity following three SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses in PLWH versus uninfected controls. Blood was collected from 38 PLWH on antiretroviral therapy and 24 age-matched HIV-negative controls, pre-vaccination and after 1st/2nd/3rd dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Flow cytometry was used to assess ex vivo T-cell immunophenotypes and intracellular Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α/interferon(IFN)-γ/interleukin(IL)-2 following SARS-CoV-2-Spike-peptide stimulation. Comparisons were made using Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired variables and Mann-Whitney for unpaired. In PLWH, Spike-specific CD4 T-cell frequencies plateaued post-2nd dose, with no significant differences in polyfunctional SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell proportions between PLWH and uninfected controls post-3rd dose. PLWH had higher frequencies of TNFα+CD4 T-cells and lower frequencies of IFNγ+CD8 T-cells than seronegative participants post-3rd dose. Regardless of HIV status, an increase in naive, regulatory, and PD1+ T-cell frequencies was observed post-3rd dose. In summary, two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine induced a robust T-cell immune response in PLWH, which was maintained after the 3rd dose, with no significant differences in polyfunctional SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell proportions between PLWH and uninfected controls post-3rd dose.

Understanding COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence in People Living with HIV: A pan-Canadian Survey.

Understanding the roots of Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy in at-risk groups, such as persons living with HIV (PLWH), is of utmost importance. We developed a modified Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS) questionnaire using items from the National Advisory Committee on Immunization Acceptability Matrix. To examine factors associated with receiving COVID-19 vaccine and the link between vaccine attitudes and beliefs with vaccine behavior, PLWH were recruited via social media and community-based organizations (February-May 2022). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results. Total VHS score was generated by adding Likert scale scores and linear regression models used to compare results between participants who received or did not receive COVID-19 vaccines. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with vaccine uptake. A total of 246 PLWH indicated whether they received a COVID-19 vaccine. 89% received ≥ 1 dose. Mean total VHS(SD) for persons having received ≥ 1 COVID-19 vaccine was 17.8(6.2) vs. 35.4(9.4) for participants not having received any COVID-19 vaccine. Persons who received ≥ 1 dose were significantly older than those who had not received any (48.4 ± 13.8 vs. 34.0 ± 7.7 years, p < 0.0001). The majority of participants considered COVID-19 vaccination important for their health(81.3%) and the health of others(84.4%). Multivariate logistic regression revealed the odds of taking ≥ 1dose were increased 2.4-fold [95% CI 1.6, 3.5] with each increase in age of 10 years (p < 0.0001). Sex and ethnicity were not different between groups. In conclusion, PLWH accept COVID-19 vaccines for both altruistic and individual reasons. With evolving recommendations and increasing numbers of booster vaccines, we must re-examine the needs of PLWH regularly.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines in People Living with HIV in British Columbia and comparisons with a matched HIV-Negative Cohort: A Test Negative Design.

BACKGROUND: We estimated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among people living with HIV (PLWH) and compared estimates with a matched HIV-negative cohort. METHOD: We used the British Columbia COVID-19 Cohort, a population-based data platform which integrates COVID-19 data on SARS-CoV-2 tests, laboratory-confirmed cases, and immunizations with provincial health services data. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated with a test-negative design using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Adjusted VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 79.2% (52.5, 90.9%) 7-59 days after two doses, rising to 91.6% (75.2, 97.2%) between 60-89 days. VE was preserved four to six months following receipt of 2 doses after which slight waning was observed (72.7% [39.1, 87.8%]). In the matched cohort (n=375 043), VE peaked at 91.0% (90.5, 91.5%) 7-59 days after 2 doses and was sustained for up to four months after which evidence of waning was observed, dropping to 83.8% (82.9, 84.7%) between four to six months. CONCLUSION: Receipt of two COVID-19 vaccines doses was effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection among PLWH pre-Omicron. VE estimates appeared to peak later in PLWH compared to the matched HIV-negative cohort and the degree of waning was relatively quicker in PLWH; however, overall estimates were comparable in both populations.

COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity in people with HIV.

OBJECTIVES: Many vaccines require higher/additional doses or adjuvants to provide adequate protection for people with HIV (PWH). Our objective was to compare COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity in PWH to HIV-negative individuals. DESIGN: In a Canadian multi-center prospective, observational cohort of PWH receiving at least two COVID-19 vaccinations, we measured vaccine-induced immunity at 3 and 6 months post 2nd and 1-month post 3rd doses. METHODS: The primary outcome was the percentage of PWH mounting vaccine-induced immunity [co-positivity for anti-IgG against SARS-CoV2 Spike(S) and receptor-binding domain proteins] 6 months post 2nd dose. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were used to compare COVID-19-specific immune responses between groups and within subgroups. RESULTS: Data from 294 PWH and 267 controls were analyzed. Immunogenicity was achieved in over 90% at each time point in both groups. The proportions of participants achieving comparable anti-receptor-binding domain levels were similar between the group at each time point. Anti-S IgG levels were similar by group at month 3 post 2nd dose and 1-month post 3rd dose. A lower proportion of PWH vs. controls maintained vaccine-induced anti-S IgG immunity 6 months post 2nd dose [92% vs. 99%; odds ratio: 0.14 (95% confidence interval: 0.03, 0.80; P = 0.027)]. In multivariable analyses, neither age, immune non-response, multimorbidity, sex, vaccine type, or timing between doses were associated with reduced IgG response. CONCLUSION: Vaccine-induced IgG was elicited in the vast majority of PWH and was overall similar between groups. A slightly lower proportion of PWH vs. controls maintained vaccine-induced anti-S IgG immunity 6 months post 2nd dose demonstrating the importance of timely boosting in this population.

Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine effectiveness among a population-based cohort of people living with HIV.

OBJECTIVE: People with HIV were underrepresented in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine clinical trials. We estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection for the BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1 vaccines among a population-based cohort of people with HIV in Ontario, Canada. DESIGN: Test-negative design. METHODS: We identified people with HIV aged ≥19 years who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR between December 14, 2020 (first availability of COVID-19 vaccines) and November 21, 2021 (pre-Omicron circulation). Outcomes included any infection, symptomatic infection, and COVID-19-related hospitalization/death. We compared the odds of vaccination between test-positive cases and test-negative controls using multivariable logistic regression with adjustment for age, sex, region, calendar time, SARS-CoV-2 test histories, influenza vaccination, comorbidities, and neighborhood-level socio-economic status. VE was derived as (1 - adjusted odds ratio) × 100%. RESULTS: Among 21 023 adults living with HIV, there were 801 (8.3%) test-positive cases and 8,879 (91.7%) test-negative controls. 20.1% cases and 47.8% of controls received ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine dose; among two-dose recipients, 93.4% received ≥1 mRNA dose. Two-dose VE ≥7 days before specimen collection was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74-87%) against any infection, 94% (95% CI = 82-98%) against symptomatic infection, and 97% (95% CI = 85-100%) against hospitalization/death. Against any infection, VE declined from 86% (95% CI = 77-92%) within 7-59 days after the second dose to 66% (95% CI = -15-90%) after ≥180 days; we did not observe evidence of waning protection for other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Two doses of COVID-19 vaccine offered substantial protection against symptomatic illness and hospitalization/death in people with HIV prior to the emergence of the Omicron variant. Our findings do not support a broad conclusion that COVID-19 VE is lower among people with HIV in populations that, for the most part, are attending HIV care, taking antiretroviral medication, and are virally suppressed.

Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an economic evaluation as part of the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remains ill-defined. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluating remdesivir. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 in Canadian hospitals from Aug. 14, 2020, to Apr. 1, 2021, were randomly assigned to receive remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone. Taking a public health care payer's perspective, we collected in-hospital outcomes and health care resource utilization alongside estimated unit costs in 2020 Canadian dollars over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge or death. Data from 1281 adults admitted to 52 hospitals in 6 Canadian provinces were analyzed. RESULTS: The total mean cost per patient was $37 918 (standard deviation [SD] $42 413; 95% confidence interval [CI] $34 617 to $41 220) for patients randomly assigned to the remdesivir group and $38 026 (SD $46 021; 95% CI $34 480 to $41 573) for patients receiving usual care (incremental cost -$108 [95% CI -$4953 to $4737], p > 0.9). The difference in proportions of in-hospital deaths between remdesivir and usual care groups was -3.9% (18.7% v. 22.6%, 95% CI -8.3% to 1.0%, p = 0.09). The difference in proportions of incident invasive mechanical ventilation events between groups was -7.0% (8.0% v. 15.0%, 95% CI -10.6% to -3.4%, p = 0.006), whereas the difference in proportions of total mechanical ventilation events between groups was -5.7% (16.4% v. 22.1%, 95% CI -10.0% to -1.4%, p = 0.01). Remdesivir was the dominant intervention (but only marginally less costly, with mildly lower mortality) with an incalculable incremental cost effectiveness ratio; we report results of incremental costs and incremental effects separately. For willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0, $20 000, $50 000 and $100 000 per death averted, a strategy using remdesivir was cost-effective in 60%, 67%, 74% and 79% of simulations, respectively. The remdesivir costs were the fifth highest cost driver, offset by shorter lengths of stay and less mechanical ventilation. INTERPRETATION: From a health care payer perspective, treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with remdesivir and usual care appears to be preferrable to treating with usual care alone, albeit with marginal incremental cost and small clinical effects. The added cost of remdesivir was offset by shorter lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and less need for ventilation. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials. gov, no. NCT04330690.

Healthcare practitioner perceptions on barriers impacting cannabis prescribing practices.

BACKGROUND: Canadians seeking medical cannabis (MC) may encounter difficulties in finding a healthcare provider (HCP) who authorizes their access to it. Barriers that HCPs face in authorizing MC are unclear. The objectives of this study were to evaluate HCP opinions, knowledge, comfort, and practice in MC prescribing and counseling on recreational cannabis use, and whether the COVID-19 pandemic affected MC prescribing practices. METHODS: Eligible participants included HCPs (e.g., attending physicians, nurses, pharmacists) in Canada. A questionnaire evaluating their knowledge, comfort, and practice in medical and recreational cannabis was designed based on instruments developed in previous studies. Between April 13th-December 13th 2021, ninety-one healthcare associations were asked to distribute the survey to their members, and an advertisement was placed in the online Canadian Medical Association Journal. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results. RESULTS: Twenty-four organizations agreed to disseminate the survey and 70 individuals completed it. Of respondents, 71% were attending physicians or medical residents, while the remainder were nurses, pharmacists or other HCPs. Almost none (6%) received training in MC in professional school but 60% did receive other training (e.g., workshops, conferences). Over half (57%) received more questions regarding MC since recreational cannabis was legalized, and 82% reported having patients who use MC. However, 56% felt uncomfortable or ambivalent regarding their knowledge of MC, and 27% were unfamiliar with the requirements for obtaining MC in Canada. The most common symptoms for recommending MC were pain and nausea, whereas the most common conditions for recommending it were cancer and intractable pain. The strongest barrier to authorizing MC was uncertainty in safe and effective dosage and routes of administration. The strongest barrier to recommending or authorizing MC was the lack of research evidence demonstrating its safety and efficacy. During the pandemic, many respondents reported that a greater number of their patients used cannabis to relieve anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that HCPs across Canada who responded to our survey are unfamiliar with topics related to MC. The strongest barriers appear to be lack of clinical research, and uncertainty in safe and effective MC administration. Increasing research, training, and knowledge may help HCPs feel more equipped to make informed treatment/prescribing decisions, which may help to improve access to MC.

Short Communication: Ongoing Impact of the Social Determinants of Health During the Second and Third Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic in People Living with HIV Receiving Care in a Montreal-Based Tertiary Care Center.

We performed retrospective chart reviews and described the clinical characteristics, exposure risks, and disease severity of people living with HIV (PLWH) attending the Chronic Viral Illness Service (CVIS) in Montreal, Canada, who developed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during September 2020-August 2021, coinciding with the second and third waves of the pandemic. A total of 61 PLWH with a positive COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction were identified, giving a COVID-19 prevalence of 5%. The most common exposure risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during waves two and three was having a family member/close contact with COVID-19 (36%). Similar to what we observed during the first wave, PLWH who acquired COVID-19 during waves two and three of the pandemic often worked or lived in long-term care residences or health care settings, putting them at risk. Five people (8%) were asymptomatic. Nearly all persons had mild disease on initial presentation and most had a full recovery. Two individuals were admitted to hospital with COVID-19, whereas three individuals acquired COVID-19 nosocomially. No individuals died due to COVID-19. Two individuals developed symptoms associated with long COVID-19 syndrome. Findings highlight the ongoing impact of the social determinants of health during the second and third waves of the pandemic in PLWH.

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 in Canada: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems. METHODS: We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation. RESULTS: Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (n = 634) or standard of care (n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups. INTERPRETATION: Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690.

Humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination in people living with HIV receiving suppressive antiretroviral therapy.

Humoral responses to COVID-19 vaccines in people living with HIV (PLWH) remain incompletely characterized. We measured circulating antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD), ACE2 displacement and viral neutralization activities one month following the first and second COVID-19 vaccine doses, and again 3 months following the second dose, in 100 adult PLWH and 152 controls. All PLWH were receiving suppressive antiretroviral therapy, with median CD4+ T-cell counts of 710 (IQR 525-935) cells/mm3, though nadir CD4+ T-cell counts ranged as low as <10 cells/mm3. After adjustment for sociodemographic, health and vaccine-related variables, HIV infection was associated with lower anti-RBD antibody concentrations and ACE2 displacement activity after one vaccine dose. Following two doses however, HIV was not significantly associated with the magnitude of any humoral response after multivariable adjustment. Rather, older age, a higher burden of chronic health conditions, and dual ChAdOx1 vaccination were associated with lower responses after two vaccine doses. No significant correlation was observed between recent or nadir CD4+ T-cell counts and responses to two vaccine doses in PLWH. These results indicate that PLWH with well-controlled viral loads and CD4+ T-cell counts in a healthy range generally mount strong initial humoral responses to dual COVID-19 vaccination. Factors including age, co-morbidities, vaccine brand, response durability and the rise of new SARS-CoV-2 variants will influence when PLWH will benefit from additional doses. Further studies of PLWH who are not receiving antiretroviral treatment or who have low CD4+ T-cell counts are needed, as are longer-term assessments of response durability.

CTN 328: immunogenicity outcomes in people living with HIV in Canada following vaccination for COVID-19 (HIV-COV): protocol for an observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Most existing vaccines require higher or additional doses or adjuvants to provide similar protection for people living with HIV (PLWH) compared with HIV-uninfected individuals. Additional research is necessary to inform COVID-19 vaccine use in PLWH. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentred observational Canadian cohort study will enrol 400 PLWH aged >16 years from Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver. Subpopulations of PLWH of interest will include individuals: (1) >55 years of age; (2) with CD4 counts <350 cells/mm3; (3) with multimorbidity (>2 comorbidities) and (4) 'stable' or 'reference' PLWH (CD4 T cells >350 cells/mm3, suppressed viral load for >6 months and <1 comorbidity). Data for 1000 HIV-negative controls will be obtained via a parallel cohort study (Stop the Spread Ottawa), using similar time points and methods. Participants receiving >1 COVID-19 vaccine will attend five visits: prevaccination; 1 month following the first vaccine dose; and at 3, 6 and 12 months following the second vaccine dose. The primary end point will be the percentage of PLWH with COVID-19-specific antibodies at 6 months following the second vaccine dose. Humoral and cell-mediated immune responses, and the interplay between T cell phenotypes and inflammatory markers, will be described. Regression techniques will be used to compare COVID-19-specific immune responses to determine whether there are differences between the 'unstable' PLWH group (CD4 <350 cells/mm3), the stable PLWH cohort and the HIV-negative controls, adjusting for factors believed to be associated with immune response. Unadjusted analyses will reveal whether there are differences in driving factors associated with group membership. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics boards at all participating institutions have granted ethics approval for this study. Written informed consent will be obtained from all study participants prior to enrolment. The findings will inform the design of future COVID-19 clinical trials, dosing strategies aimed to improve immune responses and guideline development for PLWH. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04894448.

Characterization of people living with HIV in a Montreal-based tertiary care center with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic.

People living with HIV (PLWH) often have worse health outcomes compared to HIV-uninfected individuals. We characterized PLWH followed at a tertiary care clinic in Montreal who acquired COVID-19 and described their outcomes during the first wave of the pandemic. A retrospective chart review was performed for PLWH followed at the Chronic Viral Illness Service with a positive COVID-19 nasopharyngeal PCR or symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 between 1 March and 15 June 2020. Data on demographics, socioeconomic status, co-morbidities and severity of COVID-19 and outcomes were extracted. Of 1702 individuals, 32 (1.9%) had a positive COVID-19 test (n = 24) or symptoms suspicious for COVID-19 (n = 3). Median age was 52 years [IQR 40, 62]. Nearly all (97%) earned $34,999 Canadian dollars or less. Eleven (34%) individuals worked in long-term care (LTC) homes while 5 (6%) lived in LTC homes. Median CD4 count was 566 cells/mm3 [347, 726] and six had detectable plasma HIV viral loads. Median duration of HIV was 17 years [7, 22] and 30 individuals had been prescribed antiretroviral therapy. Five persons were asymptomatic. Of symptomatic persons, 21 (12%), 1 (4%) and 3 (12%) individuals had mild, moderate and severe disease, respectively. Three individuals died with COVID-19. In one case, the cause of death was due to COVID-19, whereas in the other two cases, the individuals died with positive COVID-19 test results but the immediate cause of death is unclear. PLWH who tested positive for COVID-19 had low socioeconomic status and had employment or living conditions that put them at high risk. PLWH may be disproportionately impacted by the social determinants of health which predispose them to COVID-19.