Mental health and substance use screening in HIV primary care before and during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Mental health and substance use disorders disproportionately affect people with HIV (PWH), and may have been exacerbated during COVID-19. The Promoting Access to Care Engagement (PACE) trial was designed to assess the effectiveness of electronic screening for mental health and substance use in HIV primary care and enrolled PWH from October 2018 to July 2020. Our objective here was to compare screening rates and results for PWH before (October 2018 - February 2020) and early in the COVID-19 pandemic (March-July 2020). METHODS: Adult (≥ 18 years) PWH from 3 large HIV primary care clinics in a US-based integrated healthcare system were offered electronic screening online or via in-clinic tablet computer every 6 months. Screening completion and results (for depression, suicidal ideation, anxiety, and substance use) were analyzed using logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to estimate prevalence ratios (PR) before and after the start of the regional COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders on March 17, 2020. Models adjusted for demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity), HIV risk factors (men who have sex with men, injection drug use, heterosexual, other), medical center, and modality of screening completion (online or tablet). We conducted qualitative interviews with providers participating in the intervention to evaluate how the pandemic impacted patient care. RESULTS: Of 8,954 eligible visits, 3,904 completed screenings (420 during COVID, 3,484 pre-COVID), with lower overall completion rates during COVID (38% vs. 44%). Patients completing screening during COVID were more likely to be White (63% vs. 55%), male (94% vs. 90%), and MSM (80% vs., 75%). Adjusted PRs comparing COVID and pre-COVID (reference) were 0.70 (95% CI), 0.92 (95% CI), and 0.54 (95% CI) for tobacco use, any substance use, and suicidal ideation, respectively. No significant differences were found by era for depression, anxiety, alcohol, or cannabis use. These results were in contrast to provider-reported impressions of increases in substance use and mental health symptoms. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest PWH had modest declines in screening rates early in the COVID-19 pandemic which may have been affected by the shift to telemedicine. There was no evidence that mental health problems and substance use increased for PWH in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03217058 (First registration date: 7/13/2017); https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03217058.

Perspectives of people living with HIV-1 on implementation of long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine in US healthcare settings: results from the CUSTOMIZE hybrid III implementation-effectiveness study.

INTRODUCTION: The CUSTOMIZE hybrid III implementation-effectiveness study evaluated implementation of once-monthly long-acting (LA) cabotegravir + rilpivirine in diverse US healthcare settings. Here, we report patient participant perspectives after 12 months in CUSTOMIZE. METHODS: CUSTOMIZE was a phase IIIb, 12-month study conducted from July 2019 to October 2020 at eight diverse US HIV clinics that enrolled virologically suppressed people living with HIV-1 (PLHIV) on a stable oral regimen to receive monthly cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA injections after a 1-month oral lead-in. Participants were administered quantitative surveys before injections at months 1 (baseline), 4 and 12. A randomly selected subset of participants was interviewed at baseline and month 12. Data collection at month 12 was completed by October 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic). RESULTS: At baseline, 109 and 34 participants completed surveys and interviews, respectively; 87% were male; 35% were Black or African American. All participants who remained in the study at month 12 (n = 102) maintained HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml; two participants withdrew due to injection-related reasons. Mean total scores measuring acceptability and appropriateness of cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA were high at baseline (4.5-4.6 out of 5) and month 12 (4.7-4.9). At month 12, 74% of participants reported nothing interfered with receiving LA injections; injection pain or soreness was the most common concern (15%). Time spent in the clinic and coming to the clinic for monthly injections was very or extremely acceptable after 12 months for most participants (93% and 87%, respectively), with 64% reporting having spent ≤30 minutes in the clinic for injection visits. At month 12, 92% of participants preferred LA injections to daily oral tablets (3%); 97% plan to continue LA treatment going forward. In month 12 interviews, 24 (77%) of 31 participants reported the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact their ability to receive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Once-monthly cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA was highly acceptable among PLHIV who were virologically suppressed on a stable antiretroviral regimen and interested in trying LA therapy, with few participants reporting challenges receiving LA injections. Implementation data from CUSTOMIZE suggest that monthly LA injections provide a convenient and appealing treatment option for PLHIV.

Perspectives of healthcare providers on implementation of long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine in US healthcare settings from a Hybrid III Implementation-effectiveness study (CUSTOMIZE).

INTRODUCTION: CUSTOMIZE evaluated the implementation of long-acting (LA) cabotegravir + rilpivirine, a novel healthcare provider-administered injectable antiretroviral therapy regimen, in diverse US healthcare settings. Findings from staff-study participants (SSPs) through 12 months of implementation are reported. METHODS: CUSTOMIZE was a phase IIIb, 12-month, single-arm, hybrid III implementation-effectiveness study conducted from July 2019 to October 2020 at eight US clinics of five clinic types: private practice (n = 2), federally qualified health centre (n = 2), university (n = 2), AIDS Healthcare Foundation (n = 2) and health maintenance organization (n = 1). Eligible patient participants received monthly cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA injections after a 1-month oral lead-in. At baseline, month 4 and month 12, SSPs (n = 3 each per clinic), including physicians, nurses or injectors, and administrators, completed quantitative surveys and semi-structured interviews to assess implementation outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of intervention measures), programme sustainability and SSP perceptions of, attitudes towards, and expectations for cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA. Month 12 data collection occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In surveys, SSPs reported high mean total scores for acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA implementation at baseline (4.43, 4.52 and 4.38 of 5, respectively) and month 12 (4.45, 4.61 and 4.46 of 5, respectively), regardless of clinic type. At month 12, SSPs were positive about the implementation sustainability (mean Program Sustainability Assessment Tool score, 5.83 out of 7). At baseline, SSPs' top concern was patients' ability to maintain monthly appointments (81%); at month 12, 39% had this concern. The proportion of SSPs reporting patient injection pain or soreness as a barrier was consistent at month 12 versus baseline (48% vs. 46%). Most (78%) SSPs reported optimal implementation of cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA in their clinics was achieved in 1-3 months. In interviews, SSP-reported strategies for successful implementation included teamwork, using a web-based treatment planner and having a designated person to track appointment scheduling. In month 12 interviews, SSP-reported structural changes needed for implementation included changing clinic hours and purchasing refrigerators. CONCLUSIONS: In CUSTOMIZE, cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA was successfully implemented across a range of US healthcare settings. Barriers were mitigated with minor process adjustments.