ABSTRACT
A bstract Introduction Food insecurity has a bidirectional relationship with HIV infection, with hunger driving compensatory risk behaviors, while infection can increase poverty. We used a laboratory recency assay to estimate the timing of HIV infection vis-à-vis the timing of severe food insecurity (SFI). Methods Data from population-based surveys in Zambia, Eswatini, Lesotho, Uganda, and Tanzania and Namibia were used. We defined SFI as having no food ≥three times in the past month. Recent HIV infection was identified using the HIV-1 LAg avidity assay, with a viral load (>1000 copies/ml) and no detectable antiretrovirals indicating an infection in the past 6 months. Logistic regression was conducted to assess correlates of SFI. Poisson regression was conducted on pooled data, adjusted by country to determine the association of SFI with recent HIV infection and risk behaviors, with effect heterogeneity evaluated for each country. All analyses were done using weighted data. Results Of 112,955 participants aged 15-59, 10.3% lived in households reporting SFI. SFI was most common in urban, woman-headed households. Among women and not men, SFI was associated with a two-fold increase in risk of recent HIV infection (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 2.08, 95% CI 1.09-3.97), with lower risk in high prevalence countries (Eswatini and Lesotho). SFI was associated with transactional sex (aRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17-1.41), a history of forced sex (aRR 1.36, 95% CI 1.11-1.66), and condom-less sex with a partner of unknown or positive HIV status (aRR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.14) in all women, and intergenerational sex (partner ≥10 years older) in women aged 15-24 (aRR 1.23, 95% CI 1.03-1.46), although this was heterogeneous. Recent receipt of food support was protective (aRR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.88). Conclusion SFI increased risk for HIV acquisition in women by two-fold. Worsening food scarcity due to climactic extremes could imperil HIV epidemic control. SUMMARY What is already known The link between food insecurity and the adoption of high-risk sexual behaviors as a coping mechanism has been shown in several settings. HIV infection can also drive food insecurity due to debilitating illness reducing productivity, the costs of treatment diverting money from supplies, and potentially reduced labor migration. Food insecurity has been associated with chronic HIV infection, but it has not been linked with HIV acquisition. What are the new findings This study of 112,955 adults across six countries in sub-Saharan Africa provides unique information on the association between acute food insecurity and recent HIV infection in women, as well as the potential behavioral and biological mediators, including community viremia as a measure of infectiousness. The data enabled a comprehensive analysis of factors associated with risk of infection, and how these factors differed by country and gender. Women living in food insecure households had a two-fold higher risk of recent HIV acquisition, and reported higher rates of transactional sex, early sexual debut, forced sex, intergenerational sex and sex without a condom with someone of unknown or positive HIV status. This pattern was not seen in men. This study is also the first to demonstrate a protective association for food support, which was associated with a lower risk of recent HIV infection in women. What do the new findings imply In light of worsening food insecurity due to climate change and the recent COVID-19 pandemic, our results support further exploration of gender-specific pathways of response to acute food insecurity, particularly how women’s changes in sexual behavior heighten their risk of HIV acquisition. These and other data support the inclusion of food insecurity in HIV risk assessments for women, as well as the exploration of provision of food support to those households at highest risk based on geographic and individual factors.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections , Encephalitis, Arbovirus , COVID-19 , ViremiaABSTRACT
Background: For countries that have only recently started COVID-19 vaccinations, there remains a key public health question of who should be prioritized for early vaccination. Most vaccine prioritization analyses have only considered variation in risk of infection and death by age. We provide a more granular analysis with stratification by demographics, risk factors, and location. Methods: We used a simulation model to compare the impact of different prioritization strategies on COVID-19 cases, deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) over the first 6 months of vaccine rollout. We calibrated the model to demographic and location data on 28,175 COVID-19 deaths in California up to December 30, 2020, and incorporated variation in risk by occupation and comorbidity status using published estimates. We estimated the proportion of clinical cases, deaths and DALYs averted relative to a scenario of no vaccination for strategies prioritizing vaccination by a single risk factor (special population status (e.g. incarcerated individual), age, essential worker status, comorbidity status) or multiple risk factors (e.g. age and location). Results: We found that age-based targeting averted the most deaths (65% for 5 million individuals vaccinated) and DALYs (40%) of strategies targeting by a single risk factor and targeting essential workers averted the least deaths (33%) and DALYs (25%) over the first 6 months of vaccine rollout. However, targeting by two or more risk factors simultaneously averted up to 40% more DALYs. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the potential value of multiple-risk-factor targeting of COVID-19 vaccination. Where vaccine supply is limited and logistical challenges in vaccine delivery persist, age-based targeting offers a means of ensuring that vaccines reach those most at risk of poor health outcomes. If operational challenges can be overcome, more granular vaccination strategies that overlap age with other risk factors can be adopted.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Healthcare personnel (HCP) are prioritized for earliest SARS-CoV-2 vaccine administration, yet relatively few data exist on HCP's knowledge, motivations, concerns, and intentions regarding COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey Nov.16-Dec.8, 2020 among HCP enrolled in a cohort study at three Northern California medical centers serving diverse roles including COVID-19 patient care. Eligible HCP were adult (age<=18) on-site employees of the University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco General Hospital, and Stanford Healthcare. A one-time electronically-administered survey was sent to cohort HCP on November 16, 2020 and responses analyzed. Results: Overall, among 2,448 HCP invited, 2,135 completed the COVID-19 vaccine survey (87.2% response rate). HCPs had mean age 41 years, were 73% female, and had diverse jobs including COVID-19 patient contact. Enthusiasm for vaccination was overall strong, and more HCP (1,453, 69%) said they would definitely/likely receive vaccine if formally FDA-approved versus if approved via emergency use authorization only (785, 35%). While 541 (25%) respondents wanted to be among the earliest to receive vaccine, more desired vaccination after the first round (777, 36%) or >2 months after vaccinations began (389, 18%). Top factors increasing motivation for vaccination included perceiving risk from COVID-19 to self (1,382, 65%) or to family/friends (1355, 63%). Top concerns were vaccine side effects, cited by 596 (28%), and concerns about political involvement in FDA's approval process (249, 12%). Conclusions: HCP were enthusiastic about COVID-19 vaccination for individual protection and protecting others, but harbored concerns about vaccine side effects. Our data may inform emerging vaccine education campaigns.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Airline travel has been significantly reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic due to concern for individual risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and population-level transmission risk from importation. Routine viral testing strategies for COVID-19 may facilitate safe airline travel through reduction of individual and/or population-level risk, although the effectiveness and optimal design of these “test-and-travel” strategies remain unclear.Methods: We developed a microsimulation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a cohort of airline travelers to evaluate the effectiveness of various testing strategies to reduce individual risk of infection and population-level risk of transmission. We evaluated five testing strategies in asymptomatic passengers: i) anterior nasal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) within 3 days of departure; ii) PCR within 3 days of departure and PCR 5 days after arrival; iii) rapid antigen test on the day of travel (assuming 90% of the sensitivity of PCR during active infection); iv) rapid antigen test on the day of travel and PCR 5 days after arrival; and v) PCR within 3 days of arrival alone. The travel period was defined as three days prior to the day of travel and two weeks following the day of travel, and we assumed passengers followed guidance on mask wearing during this period. The primary study outcome was cumulative number of infectious days in the cohort over the travel period (population-level transmission risk); the secondary outcome was the proportion of infectious persons detected on the day of travel (individual-level risk of infection). Sensitivity analyses were conducted.Findings: Assuming a community SARS-CoV-2 incidence of 50 daily infections, we estimated that in a cohort of 100,000 airline travelers followed over the travel period, there would be a total of 2,796 (95% UI: 2,031, 4,336) infectious days with 229 (95% UI: 170, 336) actively infectious passengers on the day of travel. The pre-travel PCR test (within 3 days prior to departure) reduced the number of infectious days by 35% (95% UI: 27, 42) and identified 88% (95% UI: 76, 94) of the actively infectious travelers on the day of flight; the addition of PCR 5 days after arrival reduced the number of infectious days by 79% (95% UI: 71, 84). The rapid antigen test on the day of travel reduced the number of infectious days by 32% (95% UI: 25, 39) and identified 87% (95% UI: 81, 92) of the actively infectious travelers; the addition of PCR 5 days after arrival reduced the number of infectious days by 70% (95% UI: 65, 75). The post-travel PCR test alone (within 3 days of landing) reduced the number of infectious days by 42% (95% UI: 31, 51). The ratio of true positives to false positives varied with the incidence of infection. The overall study conclusions were robust in sensitivity analysis.Interpretation: Routine asymptomatic testing for COVID-19 prior to travel can be an effective strategy to reduce individual risk of COVID-19 infection during travel, although post-travel testing with abbreviated quarantine is likely needed to reduce population-level transmission due to importation of infection when traveling from a high to low incidence setting.Funding: NCL is supported by the University of California, San Francisco (Department of Medicine). MVK is supported in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health (K99DA051534).Conflict of Interest: NCL has received grants and personal fees from the World Health Organization and the California Department of Public Health unrelated to the current study. GWR has received funding from the San Francisco Department of Public Health and the California Department of Public Health for COVID-19-related work unrelated to the current study.