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.

National strategies for vaccination against COVID-19 in people living with HIV in Central and Eastern European region.

INTRODUCTION: People living with HIV (PLWH) are at higher risk of poorer COVID-19 outcomes. Vaccination is a safe and effective method of prevention against many infectious diseases, including COVID-19. Here we investigate the strategies for national COVID-19 vaccination programmes across central and eastern Europe and the inclusion of PLWH in vaccination programmes. METHODS: The Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group consists of experts in the field of infectious diseases from 24 countries in the region. Between 1 November 2020 and 19 March 2021 the group proceeded an on-line survey consisting of 20 questions. RESULTS: Twenty-two countries (out of 24 invited) participated in the survey and 20/22 countries in the period between December 2020 and March 2021 had already started their COVID-19 vaccination programme. In total, seven different vaccines were used by participating countries. In 17/21 countries (81%), vaccinated persons were centralized within the national registry. In 8/21 countries (38%) PLWH were prioritized for vaccination (the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Montenegro, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia) and the Czech Republic, Greece and Serbia had put in place national guidelines for vaccination of PLWH. In 14/20 countries (70%) vaccination was only provided by designated centres. Eighteen respondents (18/21; 85.7%) reported that they planned to follow up HIV patients vaccinated against COVID-19, mainly by measuring antibody levels and checking COVID-19 incidence (11/21; 52.3%). CONCLUSIONS: This survey-based study suggests that there are significant differences in terms of prioritizing PLWH, the types of vaccines used, vaccination coverage, and the development and implementation of a vaccination programmes within the region. Regardless of heterogenicity and existing barriers within the region, systematic vaccination in PLWH should have the highest priority, especially in those with severe immunodeficiency, risk factors, and in the elderly, aiming for prompt and high vaccination coverage.