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.

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.

Assessment of Autonomic Nervous System Dysfunction in the Early Phase of Infection With SARS-CoV-2 Virus.

BACKGROUND: We are facing the outburst of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) defined as a serious, multisystem, disorder, including various neurological manifestations in its presentation. So far, autonomic dysfunction (AD) has not been reported in patients with COVID-19 infection. AIM: Assessment of AD in the early phase of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 virus). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 116 PCR positive COVID-19 patients. After the exclusion of 41 patients with associate diseases (CADG), partitioned to patients with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and syncope, the remaining patients were included into a severe group (45 patients with confirmed interstitial pneumonia) and mild group (30 patients). Basic cardiovascular autonomic reflex tests (CART) were performed, followed by beat-to-beat heart rate variability (HRV) and systolic and diastolic blood pressure variability (BPV) analysis, along with baroreceptor sensitivity (BRS). Non-linear analysis of HRV was provided by Poincare Plot. Results were compared to 77 sex and age-matched controls. RESULTS: AD (sympathetic, parasympathetic, or both) in our study has been revealed in 51.5% of severe, 78.0% of mild COVID-19 patients, and the difference compared to healthy controls was significant (p = 0.018). Orthostatic hypotension has been established in 33.0% COVID-19 patients compared to 2.6% controls (p = 0.001). Most of the spectral parameters of HRV and BPV confirmed AD, most prominent in the severe COVID-19 group. BRS was significantly lower in all patients (severe, mild, CADG), indicating significant sudden cardiac death risk. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy should be taken into account in COVID-19 patients' assessment. It can be an explanation for a variety of registered manifestations, enabling a comprehensive diagnostic approach and further treatment.

The characteristics of HIV-positive patients with mild/asymptomatic and moderate/severe course of COVID-19 disease-A report from Central and Eastern Europe.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no evidence suggesting that COVID-19 takes a different course in HIV-positive patients on antiretroviral treatment compared to the general population. However, little is known about the relation between specific HIV-related factors and the severity of the COVID-19 disease. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of cases collected through an on-line survey distributed by the Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group. In statistical analyses characteristics of HIV-positive patients, asymptomatic/moderate and moderate/severe course were compared. RESULTS: In total 34 HIV-positive patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were reported by 12 countries (Estonia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Albania, Belarus, Romania, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Poland, Russia, Hungary, Bulgaria). Asymptomatic courses of COVID-19 were reported in four (12%) cases, 11 (32%) patients presented with mild disease not requiring hospitalization, moderate disease with respiratory and/or systemic symptoms was observed in 14 (41%) cases, and severe disease with respiratory failure was found in five (15%) patients. The HIV-related characteristics of patients with an asymptomatic/mild course of COVID-19 were comparable to those with a moderate/severe course of COVID-19, except for the use of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) in cART regimen (0.0% vs. 31.6% respectively, p = 0.0239). CONCLUSIONS: In our analyses HIV viral suppression and immunological status were not associated with the course of COVID-19 disease. On the contrary the cART regimen could contribute to severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Large and prospective studies are necessary to further investigate this relationship.