Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Variants on Inpatient Clinical Outcome.

BACKGROUND: Prior observation has shown differences in COVID-19 hospitalization risk between SARS-CoV-2 variants, but limited information describes hospitalization outcomes. METHODS: Inpatients with COVID-19 at 5 hospitals in the eastern United States were included if they had hypoxia, tachypnea, tachycardia, or fever, and SARS-CoV-2 variant data, determined from whole-genome sequencing or local surveillance inference. Analyses were stratified by history of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection. The average effect of SARS-CoV-2 variant on 28-day risk of severe disease, defined by advanced respiratory support needs, or death was evaluated using models weighted on propensity scores derived from baseline clinical features. RESULTS: Severe disease or death within 28 days occurred for 977 (29%) of 3369 unvaccinated patients and 269 (22%) of 1230 patients with history of vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among unvaccinated patients, the relative risk of severe disease or death for Delta variant compared with ancestral lineages was 1.30 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-1.49). Compared with Delta, the risk for Omicron patients was .72 (95% CI: .59-.88) and compared with ancestral lineages was .94 (.78-1.1). Among Omicron and Delta infections, patients with history of vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection had half the risk of severe disease or death (adjusted hazard ratio: .40; 95% CI: .30-.54), but no significant outcome difference by variant. CONCLUSIONS: Although risk of severe disease or death for unvaccinated inpatients with Omicron was lower than with Delta, it was similar to ancestral lineages. Severe outcomes were less common in vaccinated inpatients, with no difference between Delta and Omicron infections.

Diagnostic biomarkers for active tuberculosis: progress and challenges.

Tuberculosis (TB) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality from a single infectious agent, despite being preventable and curable. Early and accurate diagnosis of active TB is critical to both enhance patient care, improve patient outcomes, and break Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) transmission cycles. In 2020 an estimated 9.9 million people fell ill from Mtb, but only a little over half (5.8 million) received an active TB diagnosis and treatment. The World Health Organization has proposed target product profiles for biomarker- or biosignature-based diagnostics using point-of-care tests from easily accessible specimens such as urine or blood. Here we review and summarize progress made in the development of pathogen- and host-based biomarkers for active TB diagnosis. We describe several unique patient populations that have posed challenges to development of a universal diagnostic TB biomarker, such as people living with HIV, extrapulmonary TB, and children. We also review additional limitations to widespread validation and utilization of published biomarkers. We conclude with proposed solutions to enhance TB diagnostic biomarker validation and uptake.

Comparison of safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma with fresh frozen plasma in severe covid-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Role of Convalescent plasma (COPLA) to treat severe COVID-19 is under investigation. We compared efficacy and safety of COPLA with fresh frozen plasma (FFP) in severe COVID-19 patients. METHODS: One group received COPLA with standard medical care (n = 14), and another group received random donor FFP, as control with standard medical care (n = 15) in severe COVID-19 disease. RESULTS: The proportion of patients free of ventilation at day seven were 78.5% in COPLA group, and 93.3 % in control group were not significant (p= 0.258). However, improved respiratory rate, O2 saturation, SOFA score, and Ct value were observed in the COPLA group. No serious adverse events were noticed by plasma transfusion in both groups.

Efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in the patient with COVID-19: a randomised control trial (COPLA-II trial).

IMPORTANCE: No proven treatment is available for severely ill COVID-19. Therapeutic use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (COPLA) is under investigation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of COPLA with standard medical therapy (SMT) alone in severe COVID-19 patients. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicentric, open-labelled, phase-III randomised controlled trial conducted at two treatment centres with COPLA collected at the third dedicated centre in North-India, the coordinating centre during trial from June 2020 to December 2020. The study population comprised 400 participants in the ratio of 1:1 in each treatment group. INTERVENTION: One group received COPLA with SMT (n=200), and another group received SMT only (n=200). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was time to clinical improvement measured by a two-point reduction in the ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included duration of O2 therapy, the proportion of patients on mechanical ventilation at day-7, mortality, SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels, cytokine levels and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: The median time to a two-point reduction in the ordinal scale in both groups was 9 days (IQR=7-13) (p=0.328). The median duration of O2 therapy was 8 days (IQR=6-12) in COPLA and 10 days (IQR=6-12) in SMT group (p=0.64). The PaO2/FiO2 ratio showed significant improvement at 7 days in COPLA group(p=0.036). There was no difference in mortality till 28 days in both groups (p=0.62). However, if COPLA was given within 3 days of hospital admission, a significant reduction in ordinal scale was observed (p=0.04). Neutralising antibody titres in COPLA group (80 (IQR 80-80)) were higher than SMT group (0 (IQR 0-80)) at 48 hours (p=0.001). COPLA therapy led to a significant reduction in TNF-α levels at 48 hours (p=0.048) and D-dimer at 7 days (p=0.02). Mild allergic reactions were observed in 3 (1.5%) patients in COPLA group. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Convalescent plasma with adequate antibody titres should be transfused in COVID-19 patients along with SMT in the initial 3 days of hospitalisation for better clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04425915.

Thromboprophylaxis in people hospitalized with COVID-19: Assessing intermediate or standard doses in a retrospective cohort study.

Background and Objectives: Current clinical guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet it is unknown whether higher doses of thromboprophylaxis offer benefits beyond standard doses. Methods: We studied electronic health records from 50 091 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States between February 2020 and February 2021. We compared standard (enoxaparin 30 or 40 mg/day, fondaparinux 2.5 mg, or heparin 5000 units twice or thrice per day) versus intermediate (enoxaparin 30 or 40 mg twice daily, or up to 1.2 mg/kg of body weight daily, heparin 7500 units thrice per day or heparin 10 000 units twice or thrice per day) thromboprophylaxis. We separately examined risk of escalation to therapeutic anticoagulation, severe disease (first occurrence of high-flow nasal cannula, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation), and death. To summarize risk, we present hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using adjusted time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: People whose first dose was high intensity were younger, more often obese, and had greater oxygen support requirements. Intermediate dose thromboprophylaxis was associated with increased risk of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 3.39; 95% CI, 3.22-3.57), severe disease (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.17-1.28), and death (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.21-1.55). Increased risks associated with intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis persisted in subgroup and sensitivity analyses varying populations and definitions of exposures, outcomes, and covariates. Conclusions: Our findings do not support routine use of intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis to prevent clinical worsening, severe disease, or death among adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

First and second doses of Covishield vaccine provided high level of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in highly transmissible settings: results from a prospective cohort of participants residing in congregate facilities in India.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of Covishield vaccine among residents of congregate residential facilities. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study in congregate residential facilities. SETTING: Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, India, from December 2020 to July 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Residents of all ages in seven facilities-three monasteries, two old age homes and two learning centres-were enrolled. EXPOSURES: First and second doses of Covishield vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Primary outcome was development of COVID-19. Secondary outcome was unfavourable outcomes, defined as a composite of shortness of breath, hospitalisation or death. Vaccine effectiveness (%) was calculated as (1-HR)×100. RESULTS: There were 1114 residents (median age 31 years) participating in the study, 82% males. Twenty-eight per cent (n=308/1114) were unvaccinated, 50% (n=554/1114) had received one dose and 23% (n=252/1114) had received two doses of Covishield. The point prevalence of COVID-19 for the facilities ranged from 11% to 57%. Incidence rates (95% CI) of COVID-19 were 76 (63 to 90)/1000 person-months in the unvaccinated, 25 (18 to 35)/1000 person-months in recipients of one dose and 9 (4 to 19)/1000 person-months in recipients of two doses. The effectiveness of first and second doses of Covishield were 71% (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.29; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.46; p<0.001) and 80% (aHR 0.20; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.44; p<0.001), respectively, against SARS-CoV-2 infection and 86% (aHR 0.24; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.82; p=0.023) and 99% (aHR 0.01; 95% CI 0.002 to 0.10; p<0.001), respectively, against unfavourable outcome. The effectiveness was higher after 14 days of receiving the first and second doses, 93% and 98%, respectively. Risk of infection was higher in persons with chronic hepatitis B (aHR 1.78; p=0.034) and previous history of tuberculosis (aHR 1.62; p=0.047). CONCLUSION: Covishield was effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and reducing disease severity in highly transmissible settings during the second wave of the pandemic driven by the Delta variant.

Sex and Gender Differences in Testing, Hospital Admission, Clinical Presentation, and Drivers of Severe Outcomes From COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Males experience increased severity of illness and mortality from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared with females, but the mechanisms of male susceptibility are unclear. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of SARS-CoV-2 testing and admission data at 5 hospitals in the Maryland/Washington DC area. Using age-stratified logistic regression models, we quantified the impact of male sex on the risk of the composite outcome of severe disease or death (World Health Organization score 5-8) and tested the impact of demographics, comorbidities, health behaviors, and laboratory inflammatory markers on the sex effect. RESULTS: Among 213 175 SARS-CoV-2 tests, despite similar positivity rates, males in age strata between 18 and 74 years were more frequently hospitalized. For the 2626 hospitalized individuals, clinical inflammatory markers (interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, ferritin, absolute lymphocyte count, and neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio) were more favorable for females than males (P < .001). Among 18-49-year-olds, male sex carried a higher risk of severe outcomes, both early (odds ratio [OR], 3.01; 95% CI, 1.75 to 5.18) and at peak illness during hospitalization (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.78 to 3.74). Despite multiple differences in demographics, presentation features, comorbidities, and health behaviors, these variables did not change the association of male sex with severe disease. Only clinical inflammatory marker values modified the sex effect, reducing the OR for severe outcomes in males aged 18-49 years to 1.81 (95% CI, 1.00 to 3.26) early and 1.39 (95% CI, 0.93 to 2.08) at peak illness. CONCLUSIONS: Higher inflammatory laboratory test values were associated with increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 for males. A sex-specific inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2 infection may underlie the sex differences in outcomes.

Comparison of Time to Clinical Improvement With vs Without Remdesivir Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Importance: Clinical effectiveness data on remdesivir are urgently needed, especially among diverse populations and in combination with other therapies. Objective: To examine whether remdesivir administered with or without corticosteroids for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with more rapid clinical improvement in a racially/ethnically diverse population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective comparative effectiveness research study was conducted from March 4 to August 29, 2020, in a 5-hospital health system in the Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, area. Of 2483 individuals with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection assessed by polymerase chain reaction, those who received remdesivir were matched to infected individuals who did not receive remdesivir using time-invariant covariates (age, sex, race/ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, body mass index, and do-not-resuscitate or do-not-intubate orders) and time-dependent covariates (ratio of peripheral blood oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen, blood pressure, pulse, temperature, respiratory rate, C-reactive protein level, complete white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, albumin level, alanine aminotransferase level, glomerular filtration rate, dimerized plasmin fragment D [D-dimer] level, and oxygen device). An individual in the remdesivir group with k days of treatment was matched to a control patient who stayed in the hospital at least k days (5 days maximum) beyond the matching day. Exposures: Remdesivir treatment with or without corticosteroid administration. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was rate of clinical improvement (hospital discharge or decrease of 2 points on the World Health Organization severity score), and the secondary outcome, mortality at 28 days. An additional outcome was clinical improvement and time to death associated with combined remdesivir and corticosteroid treatment. Results: Of 2483 consecutive admissions, 342 individuals received remdesivir, 184 of whom also received corticosteroids and 158 of whom received remdesivir alone. For these 342 patients, the median age was 60 years (interquartile range, 46-69 years), 189 (55.3%) were men, and 276 (80.7%) self-identified as non-White race/ethnicity. Remdesivir recipients had a shorter time to clinical improvement than matched controls without remdesivir treatment (median, 5.0 days [interquartile range, 4.0-8.0 days] vs 7.0 days [interquartile range, 4.0-10.0 days]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.22-1.79]). Remdesivir recipients had a 28-day mortality rate of 7.7% (22 deaths) compared with 14.0% (40 deaths) among matched controls, but this difference was not statistically significant in the time-to-death analysis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.38-1.28). The addition of corticosteroids to remdesivir was not associated with a reduced hazard of death at 28 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.67-5.57). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness research study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19, receipt of remdesivir was associated with faster clinical improvement in a cohort of predominantly non-White patients. Remdesivir plus corticosteroid administration did not reduce the time to death compared with remdesivir administered alone.

Development of Severe COVID-19 Adaptive Risk Predictor (SCARP), a Calculator to Predict Severe Disease or Death in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Predicting the clinical trajectory of individual patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is challenging but necessary to inform clinical care. The majority of COVID-19 prognostic tools use only data present upon admission and do not incorporate changes occurring after admission. OBJECTIVE: To develop the Severe COVID-19 Adaptive Risk Predictor (SCARP) (https://rsconnect.biostat.jhsph.edu/covid_trajectory/), a novel tool that can provide dynamic risk predictions for progression from moderate disease to severe illness or death in patients with COVID-19 at any time within the first 14 days of their hospitalization. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTINGS: Five hospitals in Maryland and Washington, D.C. PATIENTS: Patients who were hospitalized between 5 March and 4 December 2020 with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) confirmed by nucleic acid test and symptomatic disease. MEASUREMENTS: A clinical registry for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was the primary data source; data included demographic characteristics, admission source, comorbid conditions, time-varying vital signs, laboratory measurements, and clinical severity. Random forest for survival, longitudinal, and multivariate (RF-SLAM) data analysis was applied to predict the 1-day and 7-day risks for progression to severe disease or death for any given day during the first 14 days of hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 3163 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19, 228 (7%) became severely ill or died in the next 24 hours; an additional 355 (11%) became severely ill or died in the next 7 days. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 1-day risk predictions for progression to severe disease or death was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.88 to 0.90) and 0.89 (CI, 0.87 to 0.91) during the first and second weeks of hospitalization, respectively. The AUC for 7-day risk predictions for progression to severe disease or death was 0.83 (CI, 0.83 to 0.84) and 0.87 (CI, 0.86 to 0.89) during the first and second weeks of hospitalization, respectively. LIMITATION: The SCARP tool was developed by using data from a single health system. CONCLUSION: Using the predictive power of RF-SLAM and longitudinal data from more than 3000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, an interactive tool was developed that rapidly and accurately provides the probability of an individual patient's progression to severe illness or death on the basis of readily available clinical information. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Hopkins inHealth and COVID-19 Administrative Supplement for the HHS Region 3 Treatment Center from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.

Patient Trajectories Among Persons Hospitalized for COVID-19 : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to severe disease or death are underexplored in U.S. cohorts. OBJECTIVE: To determine the factors on hospital admission that are predictive of severe disease or death from COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Five hospitals in the Maryland and Washington, DC, area. PATIENTS: 832 consecutive COVID-19 admissions from 4 March to 24 April 2020, with follow-up through 27 June 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Patient trajectories and outcomes, categorized by using the World Health Organization COVID-19 disease severity scale. Primary outcomes were death and a composite of severe disease or death. RESULTS: Median patient age was 64 years (range, 1 to 108 years); 47% were women, 40% were Black, 16% were Latinx, and 21% were nursing home residents. Among all patients, 131 (16%) died and 694 (83%) were discharged (523 [63%] had mild to moderate disease and 171 [20%] had severe disease). Of deaths, 66 (50%) were nursing home residents. Of 787 patients admitted with mild to moderate disease, 302 (38%) progressed to severe disease or death: 181 (60%) by day 2 and 238 (79%) by day 4. Patients had markedly different probabilities of disease progression on the basis of age, nursing home residence, comorbid conditions, obesity, respiratory symptoms, respiratory rate, fever, absolute lymphocyte count, hypoalbuminemia, troponin level, and C-reactive protein level and the interactions among these factors. Using only factors present on admission, a model to predict in-hospital disease progression had an area under the curve of 0.85, 0.79, and 0.79 at days 2, 4, and 7, respectively. LIMITATION: The study was done in a single health care system. CONCLUSION: A combination of demographic and clinical variables is strongly associated with severe COVID-19 disease or death and their early onset. The COVID-19 Inpatient Risk Calculator (CIRC), using factors present on admission, can inform clinical and resource allocation decisions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Hopkins inHealth and COVID-19 Administrative Supplement for the HHS Region 3 Treatment Center from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.

The burden of anxiety among people living with HIV during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pune, India.

INTRODUCTION: Globally, India has the third largest population of people living with HIV (PLHIV) and the second highest number of COVID-19 cases. Anxiety is associated with antiretroviral therapy (ART) nonadherence. It is crucial to understand the burden of anxiety and its sources among Asian Indian PLHIV during the COVID pandemic, but data are limited. METHODS: During the first month of government mandated lockdown, we administered an anxiety assessment via telephone among PLHIV registered for care at a publicly funded antiretroviral therapy (ART) center in Pune, India. Generalized anxiety was defined as GAD-7 score ≥ 10. Sociodemographic and clinical variables were compared by anxiety status (GAD-7 score ≥ 10 vs GAD-7 score < 10). Qualitative responses to an open-ended question about causes of concern were evaluated using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Among 167 PLHIV, median age was 44 years (IQR 40-50); the majority were cisgender women (60%) and had a monthly family income < 200 USD (81%). Prior history of tuberculosis and other comorbidities were observed in 38 and 27%, respectively. Overall, prevalence of generalized anxiety was 25% (n = 41). PLHIV with GAD-7 score ≥ 10 had fewer remaining doses of ART than those with lower GAD-7 scores (p = 0.05). Thematic analysis indicated that concerns were both health related and unrelated, and stated temporally. Present concerns were often also projected as future concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of anxiety was high during COVID lockdown in our population of socioeconomically disadvantaged PLHIV in Pune and appeared to be influenced by concerns about ART availability. The burden of anxiety among PLHIV will likely increase with the worsening pandemic in India, as sources of anxiety are expected to persist. We recommend the regular use of short screening tools for anxiety to monitor and triage patients as an extension of current HIV services.

Mental health and quality of life among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic in India.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed healthcare professionals (HCP) in stressful circumstances with increased patient loads and a high risk of exposure. We sought to assess the mental health and quality of life (QoL) of Indian HCPs, the fourth highest-burden country for COVID-19. METHOD: Using snowball sampling, we conducted an online survey in May 2020 among HCPs. Data were collected on demographics, depression, and anxiety using validated tools, quality of life, and perceived stressors. Multivariable logistic regression and principal component analysis were performed to assess risk factors associated with mental health symptoms. FINDINGS: Of 197 HCPs assessed, 157 (80%) were from Maharashtra, 130 (66%) from public hospitals, 47 (24%) nurses, 66 (34%) physicians, 101 (52%) females, and 81 (41%) ≤30 years. Eighty-seven percent provided direct COVID-19 care with 43% caring for >10 patients/day. A large proportion reported symptoms of depression (92, 47%), anxiety (98, 50%), and low QoL (89, 45%). Odds of combined depression and anxiety were 2.37 times higher among single HCPs compared to married (95% CI: 1.03-4.96). Work environment stressors were associated with 46% increased risk of combined depression and anxiety (95% CI: 1.15-1.85). Moderate to severe depression and anxiety were independently associated with increased risk of low QoL [OR: 3.19 (95% CI: 1.30-7.84), OR: 2.84 (95% CI: 1.29-6.29)]. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated a high prevalence of symptoms of depression and anxiety and low QoL among Indian HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is an urgent need to prevent and treat mental health symptoms among frontline HCPs.

The Burden of Anxiety During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among People Living with HIV (PLHIV) in Pune, India.

Introduction : There is a dearth of data on anxiety related to the COVID-19 pandemic from people living with HIV (PLHIV). This is a cause of concern as anxiety is associated with antiretroviral therapy (ART) nonadherence. Globally, India has the third largest population of PLHIV and third highest number of COVID-19 cases which are rapidly increasing. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the burden of anxiety and its sources among Asian Indian PLHIV during this pandemic. Methods: We used data from a telephonically delivered assessment among PLHIV engaged in care at a tertiary healthcare associated antiretroviral therapy (ART) center in Pune, India. Assessments were conducted between April 21 and May 28, 2020, one month into the government mandated lockdown. GAD-7 was used to assess for anxiety over two-preceding weeks. Significant sociodemographic and clinical differences between groups (GAD-7<10 and GAD-7≥10) were assessed using Fisher's exact and Wilcoxson rank sum tests, for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Thematic analysis was employed to analyze an open-ended question that asked about the most pressing cause(s) of concern. Results : Of 167 PLHIV contacted, median age was 44 years (IQR:40 - 50), 60% (n=100) were cisgender women and 81% (n=135) had a monthly family income<200 USD. Thirty-eight percent (n=64) had prior history of tuberculosis and 27% (n=45) were living with another comorbidity. A fourth (25%, n=41) had GAD-7 scores indicative of generalized anxiety. PLHIV who had fewer remaining doses of ART had significantly higher GAD-7 scores compared to those that had more doses (p=0.05). Thematic analysis indicated that concerns were both health related and unrelated, and stated temporally. Present concerns were often also projected as future concerns. Conclusions : In a group of socioeconomically disadvantaged PLHIV, a fourth were found to have anxiety, that appeared to be influenced by concerns about ART availability. Furthermore, the persistence of sources of anxiety and therefore an increase in anxiety for these PLHIV is anticipated as the pandemic worsens in India. We recommend the regular utilization of short screening tools for anxiety to monitor and triage PLHIV as an extension of current HIV-services.