Evolution of Risk Behaviors, Sexually Transmitted Infections and PrEP Care Continuum in a Hospital-Based PrEP Program in Barcelona, Spain: A Descriptive Study of the First 2 Years' Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is effective for HIV prevention, but the PrEP care continuum also involves improving PrEP awareness, uptake, adherence, and retention in care. Users' awareness is often compromised because of vulnerability factors and risk behaviors, such as chemsex practice or specific substance use, which could lead to risk compensation. Correct adherence and retention in care are essential to achieve the full effectiveness of PrEP. This study describes changes in users' risk behaviors and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), as well also PrEP care continuum details. METHODS: This was a descriptive single-center retrospective study including adults at high HIV risk screened between November 2019 and June 2021 in the PrEP program of our hospital. Demographic, behavioral, STI, adherence, and retention in care variables were assessed. Data were collected from medical records and self-report questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 295 people were included, 94% men and 5% transgender women, with a mean age of 34 years (SD 10) and 10% sex workers. At baseline, 55% disclosed chemsex practice and 3% slamming. During follow-up, condom use for anal intercourse decreased from 41% to 13% (p ≤ 0.0001) and one HIV infection was detected; other risk behaviors and STIs remained stable. Chemsex, group sex, fluid exchange, and condomless anal intercourse were related to STI risk. Adherence was correct in 80% of users, and retention in care was 57%. Discontinuations and loss to follow-up were high, mainly affecting transgender women, sex workers, and people practicing fisting. CONCLUSION: PrEP program implementation in our hospital was adequate, since it allowed, in a population at high HIV risk, overall users' risk behaviors and STIs to remain stable, with only one HIV diagnosis during the follow-up. We should target specific strategies to improve adherence and retention in care, as vulnerable subgroups at higher risk of loss to follow-up are identified.

Incidence and Severity of COVID-19 in HIV-Positive Persons Receiving Antiretroviral Therapy : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among HIV-positive persons receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) have not been characterized in large populations. OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence and severity of COVID-19 by nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) use among HIV-positive persons receiving ART. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: HIV clinics in 60 Spanish hospitals between 1 February and 15 April 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 77 590 HIV-positive persons receiving ART. MEASUREMENTS: Estimated risks (cumulative incidences) per 10 000 persons and 95% CIs for polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death. Risk and 95% CIs for COVID-19 diagnosis and hospital admission by use of the NRTIs tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/FTC, abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC), and others were estimated through Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 77 590 HIV-positive persons receiving ART, 236 were diagnosed with COVID-19, 151 were hospitalized, 15 were admitted to the ICU, and 20 died. The risks for COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalization were greater in men and persons older than 70 years. The risk for COVID-19 hospitalization was 20.3 (95% CI, 15.2 to 26.7) among patients receiving TAF/FTC, 10.5 (CI, 5.6 to 17.9) among those receiving TDF/FTC, 23.4 (CI, 17.2 to 31.1) among those receiving ABC/3TC, and 20.0 (CI, 14.2 to 27.3) for those receiving other regimens. The corresponding risks for COVID-19 diagnosis were 39.1 (CI, 31.8 to 47.6), 16.9 (CI, 10.5 to 25.9), 28.3 (CI, 21.5 to 36.7), and 29.7 (CI, 22.6 to 38.4), respectively. No patient receiving TDF/FTC was admitted to the ICU or died. LIMITATION: Residual confounding by comorbid conditions cannot be completely excluded. CONCLUSION: HIV-positive patients receiving TDF/FTC have a lower risk for COVID-19 and related hospitalization than those receiving other therapies. These findings warrant further investigation in HIV preexposure prophylaxis studies and randomized trials in persons without HIV. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Instituto de Salud Carlos III and National Institutes of Health.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 in people with HIV infection.

BACKGROUND: Effective, safe, and affordable antivirals are needed for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Several lines of research suggest that tenofovir may be effective against COVID-19, but no large-scale human studies with appropriate adjustment for comorbidities have been conducted. METHODS: We studied HIV-positive individuals on antiretroviral therapy (ART) in 2020 at 69 HIV clinics in Spain. We collected data on sociodemographics, ART, CD4+ cell count, HIV-RNA viral-load, comorbidities and the following outcomes: laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, COVID-19 hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. We compared the 48-week risks for individuals receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/FTC, abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC), and other regimes. All estimates were adjusted for clinical and sociodemographic characteristics via inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Of 51 558 eligible individuals, 39.6% were on TAF/FTC, 11.9% on TDF/FTC, 26.6% on ABC/3TC, 21.8% on other regimes. There were 2402 documented SARS-CoV-2 infections (425 hospitalizations, 45 ICU admissions, 37 deaths). Compared with TAF/FTC, the estimated risk ratios (RR) (95% confidence interval) of hospitalization were 0.66 (0.43, 0.91) for TDF/FTC and 1.29 (1.02, 1.58) for ABC/3TC, the RRs of ICU admission were 0.28 (0.11, 0.90) for TDF/FTC and 1.39 (0.70, 2.80) for ABC/3TC, and the RRs of death were 0.37 (0.23, 1.90) for TDF/FTC and 2.02 (0.88-6.12) for ABC/3TC. The corresponding RRs of hospitalization for TDF/FTC were 0.49 (0.24, 0.81) in individuals ≥50 years and 1.15 (0.59, 1.93) in younger individuals. DISCUSSION: Compared with other antiretrovirals, TDF/FTC lowers COVID-19 severity among HIV-positive individuals with virological control. This protective effect may be restricted to individuals aged 50 years and older.

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 epidemics on prevention and care for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemics on the prevention and care for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections at a major reference centre providing preventive and clinical services in Catalonia, Spain. DESIGN: We retrospectively compared anonymized clinical and laboratory data from March to December 2020 vs. 2019. METHODS: Monthly clinical data on HIV preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis users and on adults with HIV infection were retrieved from the administrative hospital database. Monthly tests for HIV, hepatitis B and C, Treponema pallidum, Neisseria gonorrhoeae,and Chlamydia trachomatis, and plasma lipids and glucose were recovered from the laboratory database. RESULTS: There were less (↓28%, P  = 0.003) but more advanced (mean CD4+ cells/µl 305 vs. 370, P  < 0.001) HIV infections and more gonorrhoea (↑39%, P  < 0.001) and chlamydia (↑37%, P  < 0.001) infections in 2020 vs. 2019. In people with HIV, rates of HIV RNA less than 50 copies/ml remained stable (11 vs. 11%, P  = 0.147) despite less scheduled visits (↓25%, P  < 0.001). However, they had less antiretroviral prescription changes (↓10%, P  = 0.018), worse plasma lipids [mean total cholesterol 190 vs. 185 mg/dl, P  < 0.001;mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol 114 vs. 110 mg/dl, P  < 0.001; mean triglycerides 136 vs. 125 mg/dl, P  < 0.001; mean high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol 47 vs. 48 mg/dl, P  = 006], and an excess of mortality (↑264%, P  = 0.006) due in great part not only to COVID-19 but also to other causes. CONCLUSION: In our setting, COVID-19 epidemics was associated with an increase in some prevalent sexually transmitted infections, with less but more advanced HIV infections, and with worse nonvirologic healthcare outcomes and higher mortality in people living with HIV.

COVID-19 patients with increasing age experience differential time to initial medical care and severity of symptoms.

We conducted a retrospective observational study in patients with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease (COVID-19) who received medical care in 688 COVID-19 ambulatory units and hospitals in Mexico City between 24 February 2020 and 24 December 2020, to study if the elderly seek medical care later than younger patients and their severity of symptoms at initial medical evaluation. Patients were categorised into eight groups (<20, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79 and ≥80 years). Symptoms at initial evaluation were classified according to a previously validated classification into respiratory and non-respiratory symptoms. Comparisons between time from symptom onset to medical care for every age category were performed through variance analyses. Logistic regression models were applied to determine the risk of presenting symptoms of severity according to age, and mortality risk according to delays in medical care. In total, 286 020 patients were included (mean age: 42.8, s.d.: 16.8 years; 50.4% were women). Mean time from symptom onset to medical care was 4.04 (s.d.: 3.6) days and increased with older age categories (P < 0.0001). Mortality risk increased by 6.4% for each day of delay in medical care from symptom onset. The risk of presenting with the symptoms of severity was greater with increasing age categories. In conclusion, COVID-19 patients with increasing ages tend to seek medical care later, with higher rates of symptoms of severity at initial presentation in both ambulatory units and hospitals.

Dynamic Regulatory Assessment: evolving the European Regulatory Framework for the Benefit of Patients and Public Health-an EFPIA View.

The European Union regulatory framework supports development, review, authorization, and maintenance of medicines to benefit public health; however, many elements are 2 decades old and undergoing review. Scrutiny was triggered by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the need to support future innovative medicines, the digital transformation of data exchange, and the need to address efficiency and capacity limitations. There are also ongoing evolutions in regulatory science for medicines (eg, cell and gene therapies), medical device combinations, and software, as well as the need to fully leverage contemporary information technology (IT). Important initiatives to address these challenges include the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Regulatory Science Strategy,1 the EU Regulatory Network Strategy,2 and the Big Data Steering Group,3 alongside European Commission-led initiatives such as the Pharmaceutical Strategy.4 Dynamic regulatory assessment (DRA) is a concept that seeks to integrate these various elements to re-imagine regulatory review interactions across the product life cycle. DRA calls for iterative regulatory dialogue, data submission, and evidence assessment, enabled by contemporary IT. DRA will facilitate iterative interaction and data assessment as it accumulates over a product's life cycle, bringing significant efficiencies for all product types. The DRA concept primarily evolved through dialogue within working groups of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. This article describes the long-term vision of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations and outlines important strategic elements of progress, including: aligning on a multi-stakeholder vision for DRA in the European Union and across regions; leveraging learnings from ongoing initiatives; and advancing IT, governance, and standards considerations. Ultimately, DRA should consider outcomes that deliver optimal benefits for patients in the European Union and worldwide.

Factors associated with admission to the intensive care unit and mortality in patients with COVID-19, Colombia.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected millions of people worldwide, and several sociodemographic variables, comorbidities and care variables have been associated with complications and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To identify the factors associated with admission to intensive care units (ICUs) and mortality in patients with COVID-19 from 4 clinics in Colombia. METHODS: This was a follow-up study of a cohort of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between March and August 2020. Sociodemographic, clinical (Charlson comorbidity index and NEWS 2 score) and pharmacological variables were identified. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify variables associated with the risk of admission to the ICU and death (p<0.05). RESULTS: A total of 780 patients were analyzed, with a median age of 57.0 years; 61.2% were male. On admission, 54.9% were classified as severely ill, 65.3% were diagnosed with acute respiratory distress syndrome, 32.4% were admitted to the ICU, and 26.0% died. The factors associated with a greater likelihood of ICU admission were severe pneumonia (OR: 9.86; 95%CI:5.99-16.23), each 1-point increase in the NEWS 2 score (OR:1.09; 95%CI:1.002-1.19), history of ischemic heart disease (OR:3.24; 95%CI:1.16-9.00), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR:2.07; 95%CI:1.09-3.90). The risk of dying increased in those older than 65 years (OR:3.08; 95%CI:1.66-5.71), in patients with acute renal failure (OR:6.96; 95%CI:4.41-11.78), admitted to the ICU (OR:6.31; 95%CI:3.63-10.95), and for each 1-point increase in the Charlson comorbidity index (OR:1.16; 95%CI:1.002-1.35). CONCLUSIONS: Factors related to increasing the probability of requiring ICU care or dying in patients with COVID-19 were identified, facilitating the development of anticipatory intervention measures that favor comprehensive care and improve patient prognosis.

COVID-19 Vaccination Rates in a Global HIV Cohort.

Little is known regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination rates in people with HIV (PWH), a vulnerable population with significant morbidity from COVID-19. We assessed COVID-19 vaccination rates among 6952 PWH in the Randomized Trial to Prevent Vascular Events in HIV (REPRIEVE) compared to region- and country-specific vaccination data. The global probability of COVID-19 vaccination through end of July 2021 was 55% among REPRIEVE participants with rates varying substantially by Global Burden of Disease (GBD) superregion. Among PWH, factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination included residence in high-income regions, age, white race, male sex, body mass index, and higher cardiovascular risk. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02344290.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Care Models During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Era.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an unprecedented global challenge that substantially risks reversing the progress in ending human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). At the same time, it may offer the opportunity for a new era of HIV management. This viewpoint presents the impact of COVID-19 on HIV care, including the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) "three 90s" targets. It outlines how to enhance a patient-centered care approach, now known as the "fourth 90," by integrating face-to-face patient-physician and telemedicine encounters. It suggests a framework for prevention and treatment of multimorbidity and frailty, to achieve a good health-related quality of life, and to preserve intrinsic capacity in all people living with HIV.

Remdesivir Versus Standard-of-Care for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection: An Analysis of 28-Day Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been shown to shorten time to recovery and improve clinical outcomes in randomized trials. METHODS: This was the final day 28 comparative analysis of data from a phase 3, randomized, open-label study comparing 2 remdesivir regimens (5 vs 10 days, combined for this analysis [remdesivir cohort]) and a real-world retrospective longitudinal cohort study of patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (nonremdesivir cohort). Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, with pulmonary infiltrates. Propensity score matching (up to 1:10 ratio) was used to ensure comparable populations. We assessed day 14 clinical recovery (determined using a 7-point ordinal scale) and day 28 all-cause mortality (coprimary endpoints). RESULTS: A total of 368 (remdesivir) and 1399 (nonremdesivir) patients were included in the matched analysis. The day 14 clinical recovery rate was significantly higher among the remdesivir versus the nonremdesivir cohort (65.2% vs 57.1%; odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.90; P = 0.002). The day 28 mortality rate was significantly lower in the remdesivir cohort versus the nonremdesivir cohort (12.0% vs 16.2%; OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-.95; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir was associated with significantly higher rates of day 14 clinical recovery, and lower day 28 mortality, compared with standard-of-care treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. These data, taken together, support the use of remdesivir to improve clinical recovery and decrease mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Overview of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults living with HIV.

Around 2·5 million deaths and more than 110 million COVID-19 cases have been reported globally. Although it initially appeared that HIV infection was not a risk factor for COVID-19 or more severe disease, more recent large studies suggest that people living with HIV (particularly with low CD4 cell counts or untreated HIV infection) might have a more severe clinical course than those who are HIV-negative. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted HIV prevention and treatment services worldwide, creating huge challenges to the continuity of essential activities. We have reviewed the most relevant features of COVID-19 in people living with HIV and highlighted topics where further research is required.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions for containment, mitigation and suppression of COVID-19 infection

Background: The best scientific evidence is required to design effective Non-pharmaceutical interventions to help policymakers to contain COVID-19. Aim: To describe which Non-pharmaceutical interventions used different countries and a when they use them. It also explores how Non-pharmaceutical interventions impact the number of cases, the mortality, and the capacity of health systems. Methods: We consulted eight web pages of transnational organizations, 17 of international media, 99 of government institutions in the 19 countries included, and besides, we included nine studies (out of 34 identified) that met inclusion criteria. Result: Some countries are focused on establishing travel restrictions, isolation of identified cases, and high-risk people. Others have a combination of mandatory quarantine and other drastic social distancing measures. The timing to implement the interventions varied from the first fifteen days after detecting the first case to more than 30 days. The effectiveness of isolated non-pharmaceutical interventions may be limited, but combined interventions have shown to be effective in reducing the transmissibility of the disease, the collapse of health care services, and mortality. When the number of new cases has been controlled, it is necessary to maintain social distancing measures, self-isolation, and contact tracing for several months. The policy decision-making in this time should be aimed to optimize the opportunities of saving lives, reducing the collapse of health services, and minimizing the economic and social impact over the general population, but principally over the most vulnerable. The timing of implementing and lifting interventions could have a substantial effect on those objectives. Resumen Antecedentes: Se requiere la mejor evidencia científica para diseñar intervenciones no farmacológicas efectivas para ayudar a los formuladores de políticas a contener COVID-19. Objetivo: Describir qué intervenciones no farmacológicas utilizaron diferentes países y cuándo las implementaron. También explora cómo las intervenciones no farmacológicas afectan el número de casos, la mortalidad y la capacidad de los sistemas de salud. Métodos: Consultamos ocho páginas web de organizaciones transnacionales, 17 de medios internacionales, 99 de instituciones gubernamentales en los 19 países incluidos, y además, incluimos nueve estudios (de 34 identificados) que cumplían con los criterios de inclusión. Resultados: Algunos países implementaron restricciones de viaje, aislamiento de casos identificados y personas de alto riesgo. Otros combinaron varias medidas más drásticas de distanciamiento social. El tiempo para implementar las intervenciones varió desde los primeros quince días después de detectar el primer caso hasta más de 30 días. La efectividad de las intervenciones no farmacológicas combinadas ha demostrado ser efectivas para reducir la transmisibilidad de la enfermedad, el colapso de los servicios de salud y la mortalidad. Cuando se controle el número de casos nuevos, es necesario mantener medidas de distanciamiento social, autoaislamiento y rastreo de contactos durante varios meses. La toma de decisiones políticas en este momento debe tener como objetivo optimizar las oportunidades de salvar vidas, reducir el colapso de los servicios de salud y minimizar el impacto económico y social sobre la población en general, pero principalmente sobre los más vulnerables.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions for containment, mitigation and suppression of COVID-19 infection.

BACKGROUND: The best scientific evidence is required to design effective Non-pharmaceutical interventions to help policymakers to contain COVID-19. AIM: To describe which Non-pharmaceutical interventions used different countries and a when they use them. It also explores how Non-pharmaceutical interventions impact the number of cases, the mortality, and the capacity of health systems. METHODS: We consulted eight web pages of transnational organizations, 17 of international media, 99 of government institutions in the 19 countries included, and besides, we included nine studies (out of 34 identified) that met inclusion criteria. RESULT: Some countries are focused on establishing travel restrictions, isolation of identified cases, and high-risk people. Others have a combination of mandatory quarantine and other drastic social distancing measures. The timing to implement the interventions varied from the first fifteen days after detecting the first case to more than 30 days. The effectiveness of isolated non-pharmaceutical interventions may be limited, but combined interventions have shown to be effective in reducing the transmissibility of the disease, the collapse of health care services, and mortality. When the number of new cases has been controlled, it is necessary to maintain social distancing measures, self-isolation, and contact tracing for several months. The policy decision-making in this time should be aimed to optimize the opportunities of saving lives, reducing the collapse of health services, and minimizing the economic and social impact over the general population, but principally over the most vulnerable. The timing of implementing and lifting interventions could have a substantial effect on those objectives.

Antecedentes: Se requiere la mejor evidencia científica para diseñar intervenciones no farmacológicas efectivas para ayudar a los formuladores de políticas a contener COVID-19. OBJETIVO: Describir qué intervenciones no farmacológicas utilizaron diferentes países y cuándo las implementaron. También explora cómo las intervenciones no farmacológicas afectan el número de casos, la mortalidad y la capacidad de los sistemas de salud. MÉTODOS: Consultamos ocho páginas web de organizaciones transnacionales, 17 de medios internacionales, 99 de instituciones gubernamentales en los 19 países incluidos, y además, incluimos nueve estudios (de 34 identificados) que cumplían con los criterios de inclusión. RESULTADOS: Algunos países implementaron restricciones de viaje, aislamiento de casos identificados y personas de alto riesgo. Otros combinaron varias medidas más drásticas de distanciamiento social. El tiempo para implementar las intervenciones varió desde los primeros quince días después de detectar el primer caso hasta más de 30 días. La efectividad de las intervenciones no farmacológicas combinadas ha demostrado ser efectivas para reducir la transmisibilidad de la enfermedad, el colapso de los servicios de salud y la mortalidad. Cuando se controle el número de casos nuevos, es necesario mantener medidas de distanciamiento social, autoaislamiento y rastreo de contactos durante varios meses. La toma de decisiones políticas en este momento debe tener como objetivo optimizar las oportunidades de salvar vidas, reducir el colapso de los servicios de salud y minimizar el impacto económico y social sobre la población en general, pero principalmente sobre los más vulnerables.

Clinical characteristics, risk factors, and incidence of symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 in a large cohort of adults living with HIV: a single-center, prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how characteristics, risk factors, and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in people living with HIV (PLWH) differ from the general population. METHODS: Prospective observational single-center cohort study of adult PLWH reporting symptoms of COVID-19. We assessed clinical characteristics, risk factors for COVID-19 diagnosis and severity, and standardized incidence rate ratio for COVID-19 cases in PLWH cohort and in Barcelona. RESULTS: From 1 March 2020 to 10 May 2020, 53 out of 5683 (0.9% confidence interval 0.7-1.2%) PLWH were diagnosed with COVID-19. Median age was 44 years, CD4 T cells were 618/µl and CD4/CD8 was 0.90. All but two individuals were virologically suppressed. Cough (87%) and fever (82%) were the most common symptoms. Twenty-six (49%) were admitted, six (14%) had severe disease, four (8%) required ICU admission, and two (4%) died. Several laboratory markers (lower O2 saturation and platelets, and higher leukocytes, creatinine, lactate dehydrogenase, C reactive protein, procalcitonin, and ferritin) were associated with COVID-19 severity. No HIV or antiretroviral-related factors were associated with COVID-19 diagnosis or severity. Standardized incidence rate ratios of confirmed or confirmed/probable COVID-19 in PLWH were 38% (95% confidence interval 27-52%, P < 0.0001) and 33% (95% confidence interval 21-50%, P < 0.0001), respectively relative to the general population. CONCLUSION: PLWH with COVID-19 did not differ from the rest of the HIV cohort. Clinical presentation, severity rate, and mortality were not dependent on any HIV-related or antiretroviral-related factor. COVID-19 standardized incidence rate was lower in PLWH than in the general population. These findings should be confirmed in larger multicenter cohort studies.

Patterns of Antiretroviral Therapy Use and Immunologic Profiles at Enrollment in the REPRIEVE Trial

BACKGROUND: Patterns of antiretroviral therapy (ART) use and immunologic correlates vary globally, and contemporary trends are not well described. METHODS: The REPRIEVE trial (Randomized Trial to Prevent Vascular Events in HIV) enrolled persons with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) who were aged 40-75 years, receiving ART, and had low-to-moderate cardiovascular disease risk. ART use was summarized within Global Burden of Disease (GBD) super-regions, with adjusted linear and logistic regression analyses examining associations with immune parameters and key demographics. RESULTS: A total of 7770 participants were enrolled, with a median age of 50 years (interquartile range, 45-55 years);31% were female, 43% were black or African American, 15% were Asian, 56% had a body mass index >25 (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), and 49% were current or former smokers. The median CD4 T-cell count was 620/µL (interquartile range, 447-826/ µ L), and the median duration of prior ART use, 9.5 years (5.3-14.8) years. The most common ART regimens were nucleoside/nucleotide reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) plus nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (43%), NRTI plus integrase strand transfer inhibitor (25%), and NRTI plus protease inhibitor (19%). Entry ART varied by GBD region, with shifts during the trial enrollment period. In adjusted analyses, entry CD4 cell count and CD4/CD8 ratio were associated with GBD region, sex, entry regimen, duration of ART, and nadir CD4 cell count;CD4 and CD8 cell counts were also associated with body mass index and smoking status. CONCLUSIONS: There were substantial variations in ART use by geographic region and over time, likely reflecting the local availability of specific medications, changes in treatment guidelines and provider/patient preferences. The analyses of CD4 cell counts and CD4/CD8 ratios may provide valuable insights regarding immune correlates and outcomes in people living with HIV. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02344290.