ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe clinical policies for the management of people with HIV/hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection and to audit routine monitoring and assessment of people with HIV/HCV coinfection attending UK HIV care. METHODS: This was a clinic survey and retrospective case-note review. HIV clinics in the UK participated in the audit from May to July 2021 by completing an online questionnaire regarding their clinic's policies for the management of people with HIV/HCV coinfection, and by contributing to a case-note review of people living with HIV with detectable HCV RNA who were under the care of their service. RESULTS: Ninety-five clinics participated in the clinic survey; of these, 15 (15.8%) were regional specialist centres, 19 (20.0%) were HIV services with their own coinfection clinics, 40 (42.1%) were HIV services that referred coinfected individuals to a local hepatology service and 20 (21.1%) were HIV services that referred to a regional specialist centre. Eighty-one clinics provided full caseload estimates; of the approximately 3951 people with a history of HIV/HCV coinfection accessing their clinics, only 4.9% were believed to have detectable HCV RNA, 3.15% of whom were already receiving or approved for direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment. In total, 29 (30.5%) of the clinics reported an impact of COVID-19 on coinfection care, including delays or reductions in the frequency of services, monitoring, treatment initiation and appointments, and changes to the way that treatment was dispensed. Case-note reviews were provided for 283 people with detectable HCV RNA from 74 clinics (median age 42 years, 74.6% male, 56.2% HCV genotype 1, 22.3% HCV genotype 3). Overall, 56% had not received treatment for HCV, primarily due to lack of engagement in care (54.7%) and/or being uncontactable (16.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that the small number of people with HIV with detectable HCV RNA in the UK should mean that it is possible to achieve HCV micro-elimination. However, more work is needed to improve engagement in care for those who are untreated for HCV.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The contribution of HIV to COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized inpatients remains unclear. We conducted a multi-centre, retrospective matched cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive hospital inpatients analysed by HIV status. METHODS: HIV-negative patients were matched to people living with HIV (PLWH) admitted from 1 February 2020 to 31 May 2020 up to a 3:1 ratio by the following: hospital site, SARS-CoV-2 test date ± 7 days, age ± 5 years, gender, and index of multiple deprivation decile ± 1. The primary objective was clinical improvement (two-point improvement or better on a seven-point ordinal scale) or hospital discharge by day 28, whichever was earlier. RESULTS: A total of 68 PLWH and 181 HIV-negative comparators were included. In unadjusted analyses, PLWH had a reduced hazard of achieving clinical improvement or discharge [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.85, p = 0.005], but this association was ameliorated (aHR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.43-1.17, p = 0.18) after additional adjustment for ethnicity, frailty, baseline hypoxaemia, duration of symptoms prior to baseline, body mass index (BMI) categories and comorbidities. Baseline frailty (aHR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65-0.95, p = 0.011), malignancy (aHR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.17, 0.82, p = 0.014) remained associated with poorer outcomes. The PLWH were more likely to be of black, Asian and minority ethnic background (75.0% vs 48.6%, p = 0.0002), higher median clinical frailty score [3 × interquartile range (IQR): 2-5 vs, 2 × IQR: 1-4, p = 0.0069), and to have a non-significantly higher proportion of active malignancy (14.4% vs 9.9%, p = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting for confounding comorbidities and demographics in a matched cohort ameliorated differences in outcomes of PLWH hospitalized with COVID-19, highlighting the importance of an appropriate comparison group when assessing outcomes of PLWH hospitalized with COVID-19.