Characteristics of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis recipients at six English sexual health clinics during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Disruption to sexual health services during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) pandemic may have adversely affected the provision of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), possibly leading to increased HIV transmission. Globally, services have reported a reduction in the number of PEP prescriptions dispensed during lockdowns, although it is unclear why. Our primary objective was to describe the temporal change in weekly HIV PEP dispensed at six English sexual health clinics in 2020. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional review of PEP prescriptions from six English centres during 2020. RESULTS: During 2020, 2884 PEP prescriptions were dispensed across the six centres studied, a fall of 34.5% from the 4403 PEP prescriptions in 2019. Before the COVID-related lockdown in 2020, the PEP dispensed was stable at 82.5 per week. Following the first lockdown, this fell to a nadir of 13 in week 14 (Figure 1). Prescriptions rose to a peak of 79 in week 37 and then declined to 32 prescriptions in the last week of 2020. There was no difference in the following characteristics of PEP recipients before and during the first lockdown: age, ethnicity, country of birth or the service the recipient attended. CONCLUSION: Whatever the reason for the fall in PEP seen in England over 2020, it is essential that HIV testing and access to HIV prevention is maintained for those in need.

Clinical outcomes of patients with and without HIV hospitalized with COVID-19 in England during the early stages of the pandemic: a matched retrospective multi-centre analysis (RECEDE-C19 study).

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.