Living with HIV during COVID-19: knowledge and worry about COVID-19, adherence to COVID-19-related precautions, and HIV health outcomes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been profound impacts on mental and physical health of individuals with chronic diseases. Thus, it is important to understand the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on people living with HIV. We aimed to assess the association between COVID-19-related knowledge and worry, HIV-related health practices and outcomes, and adherence to precautions related to COVID-19, and possible associations of these factors with HIV treatment outcomes (ART adherence and viral load). A cross-sectional survey was conducted between October 2020 and February 2021 among 291 PLWH at two large university hospital HIV clinics in Izmir, Turkey. Additionally, the most recent HIV-RNA load, CD4 count was recorded using medical records. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors of self-reported adherence to COVID-19-related precautions, ART adherence and undetectable viral load. COVID-19-related worry, COVID-19-related knowledge, and ART adherence were significant predictors of adherence to COVID-19-related precautions. Furthermore, adherence to COVID-19-related precautions was a significant predictor of both ART adherence and undetectable viral load. Findings provide a unique aspect of the interrelations of COVID and living with HIV. Since health behaviors and outcomes for COVID-19 and HIV seem to be interrelated, treatment practices and interventions that address these simultaneously may enhance their efficacy.

HIV treatment strategies across Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe: New times, old problems.

INTRODUCTION: In the last decade, substantial differences in the epidemiology of, antiretroviral therapy (ART) for, cascade of care in and support to people with HIV in vulnerable populations have been observed between countries in Western Europe, Central Europe (CE) and Eastern Europe (EE). The aim of this study was to use a survey to explore whether ART availability and therapies have evolved in CE and EE according to European guidelines. METHODS: The Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe (ECEE) Network Group conducted two identical multicentre cross-sectional online surveys in 2019 and 2021 concerning the availability and use of antiretroviral drugs (boosted protease inhibitors [bPIs], integrase inhibitors [INSTIs] and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs]), the introduction of a rapid ART start strategy and the use of two-drug regimens (2DRs) for starting or switching ART. We also investigated barriers to the implementation of these strategies in each region. RESULTS: In total, 18 centres participated in the study: four from CE, six from EE and eight from Southeastern Europe (SEE). Between those 2 years, older PIs were less frequently used and darunavir-based regimens were the main PIs (83%); bictegravir-based and tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens were introduced in CE and SEE but not in EE. The COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly interrupt delivery of ART in most centres. Two-thirds of centres adopted a rapid ART start strategy, mainly in pregnant women and to improve linkage of care in vulnerable populations. The main obstacle to rapid ART start was that national guidelines in several countries from all three regions did not support such as strategy or required laboratory tests first; an INSTI/NRTI combination was the most commonly prescribed regimen (75%) and was exclusively prescribed in SEE. 2DRs are increasingly used for starting or switching ART (58%), and an INSTI/NRTI was the preferred regimen (75%) in all regions and exclusively prescribed in SEE, whereas the use of bPIs declined. Metabolic disorders and adverse drug reactions were the main reasons for starting a 2DR; in the second survey, HIV RNA <500 000 c/ml and high cluster of differentiation (CD)-4 count emerged as additional important reasons. CONCLUSIONS: In just 2 years and in spite of the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, significant achievements concerning ART availability and strategies have occurred in CE, EE and SEE that facilitate the harmonization of those strategies with the European AIDS Clinical Society guidelines. Few exceptions exist, especially in EE. Continuous effort is needed to overcome various obstacles (administrative, financial, national guideline restrictions) in some countries.

The Management of HIV Care Services in Central and Eastern Europe: Data from the Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has been challenging time for medical care, especially in the field of infectious diseases (ID), but it has also provided an opportunity to introduce new solutions in HIV management. Here, we investigated the changes in HIV service provision across Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: The Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group consists of experts in the field of ID from 24 countries within the CEE region. Between 11 September and 29 September 2021, the group produced an on-line survey, consisting of 32 questions on models of care among HIV clinics before and after the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. RESULTS: Twenty-three HIV centers from 19 countries (79.2% of all countries invited) participated in the survey. In 69.5% of the countries, there were more than four HIV centers, in three countries there were four centers (21%), and in four countries there was only one HIV center in each country. HIV care was based in ID hospitals plus out-patient clinics (52%), was centralized in big cities (52%), and was publicly financed (96%). Integrated services were available in 21 clinics (91%) with access to specialists other than ID, including psychologists in 71.5% of the centers, psychiatrists in 43%, gynecologists in 47.5%, dermatologists in 52.5%, and social workers in 62% of all clinics. Patient-centered care was provided in 17 centers (74%), allowing consultations and tests to be planned for the same day. Telehealth tools were used in 11 centers (47%) before the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, and in 18 (78%) after (p = 0.36), but were represented mostly by consultations over the telephone or via e-mail. After the COVID-19 outbreak, telehealth was introduced as a new medical tool in nine centers (39%). In five centers (28%), no new services or tools were introduced. CONCLUSIONS: As a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, tools such as telehealth have become popularized in CEE countries, challenging the traditional approach to HIV care. These implications need to be further evaluated in order to ascertain the best adaptations, especially for HIV medicine.

The Management of HIV Care Services in Central and Eastern Europe: Data from the Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has been challenging time for medical care, especially in the field of infectious diseases (ID), but it has also provided an opportunity to introduce new solutions in HIV management. Here, we investigated the changes in HIV service provision across Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: The Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group consists of experts in the field of ID from 24 countries within the CEE region. Between September 11 and September 29, 2021, the group produced an on-line survey, consisting of 32 questions on models of care among HIV clinics before and after the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Results: Twenty-three HIV centers from 19 countries (79.2% of all countries invited) participated in the survey. In 69.5% of the countries, there were more than four HIV centers, in three countries there were four centers (21%), and in four countries there was only one HIV center in each country. HIV care was based in ID hospitals plus out-patient clinics (52%), was centralized in big cities (52%), and was publicly financed (96%). Integrated services were available in 21 clinics (91%) with access to specialists other than ID, including psychologists in 71.5% of the centers, psychiatrists in 43%, gynecologists in 47.5%, dermatologists in 52.5%, and social workers in 62% of all clinics. Patient-centered care was provided in 17 centers (74%), allowing consultations and tests to be planned for the same day. Telehealth tools were used in 11 centers (47%) before the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, and in 18 (78%) after (p = 0.36), but were represented mostly by consultations over the telephone or via e-mail. After the COVID-19 outbreak, telehealth was introduced as a new medical tool in nine centers (39%). In five centers (28%), no new services or tools were introduced. Conclusions: As a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, tools such as telehealth have become popularized in CEE countries, challenging the traditional approach to HIV care. These implications need to be further evaluated in order to ascertain the best adaptations, especially for HIV medicine.

Sexual transmission of infections across Europe: appraising the present, scoping the future.

Objectives: Our journal partnered with the Europe section of the International Union against STI (IUSTI) at a workshop held at the 18th European AIDS Conference in London on 30 October 2021. The workshop reviewed epidemiological trends and discussed STI care provision within HIV services across Europe. Methods and Results: We started by highlighting trends in bacterial STIs reported to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control from countries in the European Union/European Economic Area. This showed that notifications of bacterial STIs reached an all-time high in 2019, but are expected to be impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-2021. We then reviewed the evolving relationship between STIs and HIV and pointed out how antiretroviral treatment and pre-exposure prophylaxis remain highly effective against HIV transmission despite the rising incidence of STIs. Within emerging concepts in STIs, we appraised the benefits and risks of asymptomatic screening for chlamydia, and also considered the potential perils of routinely testing for agents that lack a defined role in disease. Finally, we discussed standards of STI care for people living with HIV, informed by a brief survey of IUSTI Europe country representatives and members of the Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe network. Conclusions: The survey indicated substantial variability and identified key improvement targets: fighting barriers to effective service provision and access, increasing diagnostic capability and taking leadership in driving up the quality of care. We must not forget the STI-related needs of the many people who will be living with HIV for decades into the future.

The Presence of Either Typical or Atypical Radiological Changes Predicts Poor COVID-19 Outcomes in HIV-Positive Patients from a Multinational Observational Study: Data from Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group.

HIV-positive patients may present lungs with multiple infections, which may hinder differential diagnoses and the choice of treatment in the course of COVID-19, especially in countries with limited access to high-standard healthcare. Here, we aim to investigate the association between radiological changes and poor COVID-19 outcomes among HIV-positive patients from Central and Eastern Europe. Between November 2020 and May 2021, the Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group started collecting observational data on HIV and COVID-19 co-infections. In total, 16 countries from Central and Eastern European submitted data (eCRF) on 557 HIV-positive patients. The current analyses included patients who had a radiological examination performed. Logistic regression models were used to identify the factors associated with death, ICU admission, and partial recovery (poor COVID-19 outcomes). Factors that were significant in the univariate models (p < 0.1) were included in the multivariate model. Radiological data were available for 224 (40.2%) patients, 108 (48.2%) had computed tomography, and 116 (51.8%) had a chest X-ray. Of these, 211 (94.2%) were diagnosed using RT-PCR tests, 212 (94.6%) were symptomatic, 123 (55.6%) were hospitalized, 37 (16.6%) required oxygen therapy, and 28 (13.1%) either died, were admitted to ICU, or only partially recovered. From the radiologist's description, 138 (61.6%) patients had typical radiological changes, 18 (8.0%) atypical changes, and 68 (30.4%) no changes. In the univariate models, CD4 count (OR = 0.86 [95% CI: 0.76-0.98]), having a comorbidity (2.33 [1.43-3.80]), HCV and/or HBV co-infection (3.17 [1.32-7.60]), being currently employed (0.31 [0.13-0.70]), being on antiretroviral therapy (0.22 [0.08-0.63]), and having typical (3.90 [1.12-13.65]) or atypical (10.8 [2.23-52.5]) radiological changes were all significantly associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes. In the multivariate model, being on antiretroviral therapy (OR = 0.20 [95% CI:0.05-0.80]) decreased the odds of poor COVID-19 outcomes, while having a comorbidity (2.12 [1.20-3.72]) or either typical (4.23 [1.05-17.0]) or atypical (6.39 [1.03-39.7]) radiological changes (vs. no changes) increased the odds of poor COVID-19 outcomes. Among HIV patients diagnosed with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, the presence of either typical or atypical radiological COVID-19 changes independently predicted poorer outcomes.

Favipiravir for the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia: Can we predict the response to treatment?

INTRODUCTION: Early experience with favipiravir in the treatment of COVID-19 is promising, but no clinical data have been published in medical journals. This study aimed to review the experience with favipiravir treatment for COVID-19 pneumonia and to examine whether there are any predictors of treatment response. METHODOLOGY: Fifty-six patients with severe or progressive pneumonia associated with COVID-19 who were treated with favipiravir monotherapy for at least five days were included in this retrospective study. Treatment response was defined as clinical recovery without any need for admission into the intensive care unit and/or anti-cytokine therapy. The demographic, clinical, laboratory and radiographic features of the patients were compared between favipiravir-responders and non-responders. RESULTS: Of the 56 patients, 34 patients (60.7%) responded to treatment and recovered. There was no difference in the demographic, clinical, and radiographic findings between the responders and non-responders. The inflammatory biomarkers were also similar except for the CRP levels on the day favipiravir was started [74 (36-111) vs. 118.5 (46.5-203) mg/L, respectively, p = 0.043]. There was also a significant difference in the median time to defervescence [1 (1-2) vs. 3.5 (1.75-9.25) days, respectively]. Of clinical interest, 27 (79.4%) and 31 (91.2%) of the responders became afebrile within two and four days, respectively. The response rate was lower in patients who presented severe pneumonia associated with respiratory failure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with non-severe pneumonia at admission and whose fever resolved within two days of treatment are more likely to improve with favipiravir.

One and a half years into the COVID-19 pandemic - exit strategies and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for holistic management and achieving global control

One and a half years into the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 is still here to stay. Whilst rapid several effective COVID-19 vaccines have been developed and are being rolled out, the critical questions remain whether vaccines provide widespread protection against infection and reinfection, and what the duration of protection is. Community wide control cannot be obtained until almost everyone is immune. Vaccine production must be ramped up to cover the world population. The price of herd immunity through natural infection is high mortality in the elderly and morbidity in other age groups including children and Long-COVID. We must expect a new wave in the coming winter. The severity will depend on the proportion of the population with immunity from natural infections or immunisation. Therefore, control rests on a population wide immunisation including children, which may or may not need to be repeated if new SARS-CoV-2 variants evolve that can escape immunity from either previous infections or immunisations. Preventing long term sequelae of COVID-19 also remains a priority.

Retrospective evaluation of an observational cohort by the Central and Eastern Europe Network Group shows a high frequency of potential drug-drug interactions among HIV-positive patients receiving treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this international multicentre study was to review potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) for real-life coadministration of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-specific medications. METHODS: The Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group initiated a retrospective, observational cohort study of HIV-positive patients diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Data were collected through a standardized questionnaire and DDIs were identified using the University of Liverpool's interaction checker. RESULTS: In total, 524 (94.1% of 557) patients received cART at COVID-19 onset: 117 (22.3%) were female, and the median age was 42 (interquartile range 36-50) years. Only 115 (21.9%) patients were hospitalized, of whom 34 required oxygen therapy. The most frequent nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone was tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) with lamivudine or emtricitabine (XTC) (79.3%) along with an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) (68.5%), nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) (17.7%), protease inhibitor (PI) (13.7%) or other (2.5%). In total, 148 (28.2%) patients received COVID-19-specific treatments: corticosteroids (15.7%), favipiravir (7.1%), remdesivir (3.1%), hydroxychloroquine (2.7%), tocilizumab (0.6%) and anakinra (0.2%). In total, 62 DDI episodes were identified in 58 patients (11.8% of the total cohort and 41.9% of the COVID-19-specific treatment group). The use of boosted PIs and elvitegravir accounted for 43 DDIs (29%), whereas NNRTIs were responsible for 14 DDIs (9.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis from the Central and Eastern European region on HIV-positive persons receiving COVID-19-specific treatment, it was found that potential DDIs were common. Although low-dose steroids are mainly used for COVID-19 treatment, comedication with boosted antiretrovirals seems to have the most frequent potential for DDIs. In addition, attention should be paid to NNRTI coadministration.

[Friend or Foe? Evaluation of BCG Vaccine and Latent Tuberculosis Infection Effect in Patients Diagnosed with COVID-19 Infection]. / Dost mu Düsman mi? COVID-19 Enfeksiyonu Tanili Hastalarda BCG Asisi ve Latent Tüberküloz Enfeksiyonu Etkisinin Degerlendirilmesi.

While severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to spread rapidly worldwide, some issues such as the uncertainty of the disease progress, whether intensive care will be needed, and risk classification are still important for clinicians. It is notable that in countries where latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is common and participating in the national Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination program, the case-fatality rates are relatively low throughout the world. In this study, it was aimed to evaluate the effects of the BCG vaccine and LTBI status on the course of the disease in patients diagnosed with coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) infection and to compare the LTBI rate with people with and without COVID-19 infection. The patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection who were hospitalized during a period of seven months between May 1st to December 1st, 2020 were investigated by the QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) test in the blood samples for the presence of LTBI. For the comparison of the patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and people without COVID-19 infections in terms of LTBI rate retrospectively; all consecutive patients who were sent blood samples to the mycobacteriology laboratory for the QFT-Plus test between January 2016 and December 2019 were included in the study. Demographic, clinical, radiological, laboratory, and follow-up data of the patients were obtained from the electronic patient file. A total of 170 patients (n= 9 8 male [57.6%], n= 72 female [42.3%], mean age= 53.5 ± 15.8 years) were enrolled. Twenty-five patients' (25/170 [14.7%]) QFT-plus tests were positive. When the cases with positive QFT-Plus test (n= 25) and the cases with negative QFT-Plus test (n = 145) were compared in terms of disease severity respectively; it was determined that mild/moderate patients were 18/25 (72%) and 108/145 (74.5%), severe patients were 7/25 (28%) and 37/145 (25.5%) (p= 0.988). When these two groups were compared in terms of the clinical course respectively; the need for intensive care was 6/25 (24%) and 34/145 (23.4%) (p= 1.00), oxygen therapy requirement was 13/25 (52%) and 49/145 (33.8%) (p= 0.128), and death was 5/25 (20%) and 18/145 (12.4%) (p= 0.341). QFT-Plus positivity was 25/170 (14.7%) in patients diagnosed with COVID-19, while in control group it was 198/496 (39.9%) (OR= 0.259, 95% CI [0.164-0.411], p<0.001). When the values were evaluated quantitatively, in the COVID-19 patient group, QFT-Plus T1/T2 (IU/ml) interferon (IFN)-É£ was 0.87 ± 1.52/0.62 ± 1.53, while in the control group it was 1.52 ± 3.69/1.50 ± 3.33 (p= 0.032, p= 0.04). There was no significant difference in the parameters investigated between 82 (48.2%) patients with BCG vaccine and those 88 (51.8%) without BCG vaccine. Although it was not statistically significant in our study, increased oxygen therapy requirement and higher mortality rates in the QFT-Plus positive group were remarkable. The detection of statistically significantly lower LTBI rates and T1-T2/IFN-É£ values in the COVID-19 group supported that SARS-CoV-2 infection may suppress lymphocyte functions in patients and IFN-É£ response. We believe that the results of our study are remarkably valuable, but more clinical studies are needed to elucidate the relationship between BCG vaccine, LTBI, and COVID-19 infection.

The deep impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical students: An online cross-sectional study evaluating Turkish students' anxiety.

AIM: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed the delivery of medical education in Turkey by moving to an emergency remote teaching system and led to many challenges for future doctors. In this study, we aimed to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical students, to assess their anxiety level and their main anxiety sources related to this pandemic. METHODS: A Google Form was distributed to medical students using the virtual snowball sampling method. The form included the Beck Anxiety Inventory and additional 19 questions on sociodemographic characteristics, perceived level of knowledge about the epidemic, self-risk perceptions of COVID-19 and their anxiety levels about some other topics related to COVID-19. RESULTS: Overall, 3105 medical students with a mean age of 22.37 ± 2.46, took the survey. Amongst the participants, only 32% of the students defined their knowledge about the precautions that should be taken during an epidemic disease as acceptable. Students reported highest anxiety level for the continuing spread of COVID-19 in Turkey and transmitting coronavirus to another person. Clinically significant anxiety prevalence was 23.2%. Regression analysis revealed that factors that increased the risk of being anxious included being female, being other than a 5th-year student, thinking that being a medical student would increase the risk of coronavirus transmission or being uncertain about it, being exposed to a patient with COVID-19 or being uncertain about it, being anxious about the continuing spread of COVID-19 in Turkey, being anxious about acquiring COVID-19, being anxious for graduating and being on active duty, being anxious about a medical training interruption. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that anxiety is prevalent amongst Turkish medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic and they have a weak preparedness for a pandemic such as COVID-19. Based on our results, new strategies should be implemented for medical education and for alleviating students' anxiety levels.

Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with favipiravir: early results from the Ege University cohort, Turkey

Background/aim: The aim of this descriptive article is to share the experience in Ege University, Turkey with favipiravir in the treatment of severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Materials and methods: This retrospective descriptive study included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who presented with or developed severe pneumonia. Results: Forty patients who completed a full course (at least 5 days) of favipiravir were included in the study. At baseline, 30 (75%) patients required treatment for respiratory distress. Thirty-three patients (82.5%) were discharged from the hospital with full recovery, 6 patients (15%) died and 1 case (2.5%) was still at the intensive care unit (ICU) when this paper was written. Conclusion: This study provides relevant information for the treatment of COVID-19, suggesting that favipiravir was associated with significant clinical and laboratory improvements in the majority of the patients, is a safe drug with no serious side effects and would merit further investigation.

SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology and control, different scenarios for Turkey

Background/aim: Coronavirus Infectious Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is now a pandemic spreading in most countries including Turkey. Materials and methods: The current knowledge of COVID-19 and the virus causing it, SARS-CoV-2, was reviewed. The epidemiology and control in different countries was compared and the differences discussed. Results: The population attack rates and case fatality rates vary from country to country with Lombardy in northern Italy reporting an attack rate in the general population of 0.37% compared to 0.004% in Hong Kong. The differences are caused by different testing strategies and reporting systems. Conclusion: Turkey is early in the outbreak. Different control strategies are available with South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore being models to follow.