Improving Delivery and Use of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in the US: A Systematic Review of Implementation Strategies and Adjunctive Interventions.

Implementation of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV transmission is suboptimal in the United States. To date, the literature has focused on identifying determinants of PrEP use, with a lesser focus on developing and testing change methods to improve PrEP implementation. Moreover, the change methods available for improving the uptake and sustained use of PrEP have not been systematically categorized. To summarize the state of the literature, we conducted a systematic review of the implementation strategies used to improve PrEP implementation among delivery systems and providers, as well as the adjunctive interventions used to improve the uptake and persistent adherence to PrEP among patients. Between November 2020 and January 2021, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for peer reviewed articles. We identified 44 change methods (18 implementation strategies and 26 adjunctive interventions) across a variety of clinical and community-based service settings. We coded implementation strategies and adjunctive interventions in accordance with established taxonomies and reporting guidelines. Most studies focused on improving patient adherence to PrEP and most conducted pilot trials. Just over one-third of included studies demonstrated a positive effect on outcomes. In order to end the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic in the U.S., future, large scale HIV prevention research is needed that develops and evaluates implementation strategies and adjunctive interventions for target populations disproportionately affected by HIV.

Establishing Evidence Criteria for Implementation Strategies: A Delphi Study for HIV Services.

Background: There are no criteria specifically for evaluating the quality of implementation research and recommend implementation strategies likely to have impact to practitioners. We describe the development and application of the Best Practices Rubric, a set of criteria to evaluate the evidence supporting implementation strategies, in the context of HIV. Methods: We developed the Best Practices Rubric from 2022-2023 in three phases. (1) We purposively selected and recruited by email participants representing a mix of expertise in HIV service delivery, quality improvement, and implementation science. We developed a draft rubric and criteria based on a literature review and key informant interviews. (2) The rubric was then informed and revised through two e-Delphi rounds using a survey delivered online through Qualtrics. The first and second round Delphi surveys consisted of 71 and 52 open and close-ended questions, respectively, asking participants to evaluate, confirm, and make suggestions on different aspects of the rubric. After each survey round, data were analyzed and synthesized as appropriate, and the rubric and criteria were revised. (3) We then applied the rubric to a set of research studies assessing 18 implementation strategies designed to promote the adoption and uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis, an HIV prevention medication, to assess reliable application of the rubric and criteria. Results: Our initial literature review yielded existing rubrics and criteria for evaluating intervention-level evidence. For a strategy-level rubric, additions emerged from interviews, for example, a need to consider the context and specification of strategies. Revisions were made after both Delphi rounds resulting in the confirmation of five evaluation domains - research design, implementation outcomes, limitations and rigor, strategy specification, and equity - and four evidence levels - best practice, promising practice, more evidence needed, and harmful practices. For most domains, criteria were specified at each evidence level. After an initial pilot round to develop an application process and provide training, we achieved 98% reliability when applying the criteria to 18 implementation strategies. Conclusions: We developed a rubric to evaluate the evidence supporting implementation strategies for HIV services. Although the rubric is specific to HIV, this tool is adaptable for evaluating strategies in other health areas.

AIDSVu Cities' Progress Toward HIV Care Continuum Goals: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Public health surveillance data are critical to understanding the current state of the HIV and AIDS epidemics. Surveillance data provide significant insight into patterns within and progress toward achieving targets for each of the steps in the HIV care continuum. Such targets include those outlined in the National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS) goals. If these data are disseminated, they can be used to prioritize certain steps in the continuum, geographic locations, and groups of people. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop and report indicators of progress toward the NHAS goals for US cities and to characterize progress toward those goals with categorical metrics. METHODS: Health departments used standardized SAS code to calculate care continuum indicators from their HIV surveillance data to ensure comparability across jurisdictions. We report 2018 descriptive statistics for continuum steps (timely diagnosis, linkage to medical care, receipt of medical care, and HIV viral load suppression) for 36 US cities and their progress toward 2020 NHAS goals as of 2018. Indicators are reported categorically as met or surpassed the goal, within 25% of attaining the goal, or further than 25% from achieving the goal. RESULTS: Cities were closest to meeting NHAS goals for timely diagnosis compared to the goals for linkage to care, receipt of care, and viral load suppression, with all cities (n=36, 100%) within 25% of meeting the goal for timely diagnosis. Only 8% (n=3) of cities were >25% from achieving the goal for receipt of care, but 69% (n=25) of cities were >25% from achieving the goal for viral suppression. CONCLUSIONS: Display of progress with graphical indicators enables communication of progress to stakeholders. AIDSVu analyses of HIV surveillance data facilitate cities' ability to benchmark their progress against that of other cities with similar characteristics. By identifying peer cities (eg, cities with analogous populations or similar NHAS goal concerns), the public display of indicators can promote dialogue between cities with comparable challenges and opportunities.

Adjunctive interventions: change methods directed at recipients that support uptake and use of health innovations.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science groups change methods into two categories: (1) clinical, behavioral, or biomedical intervention targeting recipient's health outcomes and (2) implementation strategies targeting the delivery system. Differentiating interventions from strategies based on their intended functions is critical to accurately attributing their effects to health or implementation outcomes. However, in coordinating 200+ HIV implementation research projects and conducting systematic reviews, we identified change methods that had characteristics of both interventions and strategies that were inconsistently categorized. To alleviate confusion and improve change method specification, we propose that implementation science should adopt an extant but rarely used term-adjunctive interventions-to classify change methods that are distinct from the common intervention/strategy taxonomy. MAIN TEXT: Adjunctive interventions as change methods that target recipients (e.g., patients, participants) of a health intervention but are designed to increase recipients' motivation, self-efficacy, or capacity for initiating, adhering to, complying with, or engaging with the health intervention over time. In two of our published reviews on implementation of HIV interventions, 25 out of 45 coded change methods fell into this gray area between strategy and intervention. We also noted instances in which the same change method was labelled as the intervention ("the thing"), as an adjunctive intervention, or an implementation strategy in different studies-further muddying the waters. Adjunctive interventions are distinguished from other change methods by their intended targets, desired outcomes, and theory of action and causal processes. Whereas health interventions target recipients and have a direct, causal effect on the health outcome, adjunctive interventions enhance recipients' attitudes and behaviors to engage with the intervention and have an indirect causal link to the health outcome via increasing the probability of recipients' utilization and adherence to the intervention. Adjunctive interventions are incapable of directly producing the health outcome and will themselves require implementation strategies to effectively impact sustained uptake, utilization, and adherence. Case examples, logic modeling, and considerations (e.g., relationship to consumer engagement strategies) for adjunctive intervention research are provided. CONCLUSION: Conceptualizing adjunctive interventions as a separate type of change method will advance implementation research by improving tests of effectiveness, and the specification of mechanisms and outcomes.

A Systematic Review of Implementation Research on Determinants and Strategies of Effective HIV Interventions for Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States.

Men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately affected by HIV, accounting for two-thirds of HIV cases in the United States despite representing ∼5% of the adult population. Delivery and use of existing and highly effective HIV prevention and treatment strategies remain suboptimal among MSM. To summarize the state of the science, we systematically review implementation determinants and strategies of HIV-related health interventions using implementation science frameworks. Research on implementation barriers has focused predominantly on characteristics of individual recipients (e.g., ethnicity, age, drug use) and less so on deliverers (e.g., nurses, physicians), with little focus on system-level factors. Similarly, most strategies target recipients to influence their uptake and adherence, rather than improving and supporting implementation systems. HIV implementation research is burgeoning; future research is needed to broaden the examination of barriers at the provider and system levels, as well as expand knowledge on how to match strategies to barriers-particularly to address stigma. Collaboration and coordination among federal, state, and local public health agencies; community-based organizations; health care providers; and scientists are important for successful implementation of HIV-related health innovations.

Categorising implementation determinants and strategies within the US HIV implementation literature: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite decreased rates of new infections, HIV/AIDS continues to impact certain US populations. In order to achieve the goals laid out in the Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) in the US initiative, implementation science is needed to expand the sustained use of effective prevention and treatment interventions, particularly among priority populations at risk for and living with HIV/AIDS. Over 200 HIV-related implementation studies have been funded by the US National Institutes of Health. Therefore, a comprehensive review of the literature identifying implementation determinants (barriers and facilitators) and categorising implementation strategies across the continuum of HIV prevention and care in the USA is appropriate and needed to enhance current knowledge and help achieve the goals laid out in the EHE national strategic plan. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Between November 2020 and January 2022, a broad database search strategy of Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science was conducted to capture implementation-related studies along the HIV prevention and care continuum. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were: conducted in the USA, published after the year 2000, written in English, related to HIV/AIDS, focused on outcomes related to dissemination and implementation (ie, did not test/evaluate/explore implementation determinants or strategies) and were behavioural studies (ie, not basic science). We plan to conduct three systematic reviews to identify and categorise determinants and strategies associated with three HIV focus areas: pre-exposure prophylaxis, testing/diagnosing and linkage to care, and treatment. Determinants will be coded according to an adapted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 2.0. Implementation strategies and outcomes will be categorised in accordance with existing taxonomies and frameworks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not applicable. No original data will be collected. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and via online tools. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021233089.

Predictors of HIV Molecular Cluster Membership and Implications for Partner Services.

Public health surveillance data used in HIV molecular cluster analyses lack contextual information that is available from partner services (PS) data. Integrating these data sources in retrospective analyses can enrich understanding of the risk profile of people in clusters. In this study, HIV molecular clusters were identified and matched to information on partners and other information gleaned at the time of diagnosis, including coinfection with syphilis. We aimed to produce a more complete understanding of molecular cluster membership in Houston, Texas, a city ranking ninth nationally in rate of new HIV diagnoses that may benefit from retrospective matched analyses between molecular and PS data to inform future intervention. Data from PS were matched to molecular HIV records of people newly diagnosed from 2012 to 2018. By conducting analyses in HIV-TRACE (TRAnsmission Cluster Engine) using viral genetic sequences, molecular clusters were detected. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between molecular cluster membership and completion of a PS interview, number of named partners, and syphilis coinfection. Using data from 4,035 people who had a viral genetic sequence and matched PS records, molecular cluster membership was not significantly associated with completion of a PS interview. Among those with sequences who completed a PS interview (n = 3,869), 45.3% (n = 1,753) clustered. Molecular cluster membership was significantly associated with naming 1 or 3+ partners compared with not naming any partners [adjusted odds ratio, aOR: 1.27 (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.08-1.50), p = .003 and aOR: 1.38 (95% CI: 1.06-1.81), p = .02]. Alone, coinfection with syphilis was not significantly associated with molecular cluster membership. Syphilis coinfection was associated with molecular cluster membership when coupled with incarceration [aOR: 1.91 (95% CI: 1.08-3.38), p = .03], a risk for treatment interruption. Enhanced intervention among those with similar profiles, such as people coinfected with other risks, may be warranted.

Keep It Up! 3.0: Study protocol for a type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence that eHealth approaches can be effective in reducing HIV risk, their implementation requirements for public health scale up are not well established, and effective strategies to bring these programs into practice are still unknown. Keep It Up! (KIU!) is an online program proven to reduce HIV risk among young men who have sex with men (YMSM) and ideal candidate to develop and evaluate novel strategies for implementing eHealth HIV prevention programs. KIU! 3.0 is a Type III Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation cluster randomized trial designed to 1) compare two strategies for implementing KIU!: community-based organizations (CBO) versus centralized direct-to-consumer (DTC) recruitment; 2) examine the effect of strategies and determinants on variability in implementation success; and 3) develop materials for sustainment of KIU! after the trial concludes. In this article, we describe the approaches used to achieve these aims. METHODS: Using county-level population estimates of YMSM, 66 counties were selected and randomized 2:1 to the CBO and DTC approaches. The RE-AIM model was used to drive outcome measurements, which were collected from CBO staff, YMSM, and technology providers. Mixed-methods research mapped onto the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will examine determinants and their relationship with implementation outcomes. DISCUSSION: In comparing our implementation recruitment models, we are examining two strategies which have shown effectiveness in delivering health technology interventions in the past, yet little is known about their comparative advantages and disadvantages in implementation. The results of the trial will further the understanding of eHealth prevention intervention implementation.

Determinants of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Implementation in Transgender Populations: A Qualitative Scoping Review.

We conducted a scoping review of contextual factors impeding uptake and adherence to pre-exposure prophylaxis in transgender communities as an in-depth analysis of the transgender population within a previously published systematic review. Using a machine learning screening process, title and abstract screening, and full-text review, the initial systematic review identified 353 articles for analysis. These articles were peer-reviewed, implementation-related studies of PrEP in the U.S. published after 2000. Twenty-two articles were identified in this search as transgender related. An additional eleven articles were identified through citations of these twenty-two articles, resulting in thirty-three articles in the current analysis. These thirty-three articles were qualitatively coded in NVivo using adapted constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research as individual codes. Codes were thematically assessed. We point to barriers of implementing PrEP, including lack of intentional dissemination efforts and patience assistance, structural factors, including sex work, racism, and access to gender affirming health care, and lack of provider training. Finally, over 60% of articles lumped cisgender men who have sex with men with trans women. Such articles included sub-samples of transgender individuals that were not representative. We point to areas of growth for the field in this regard.

RESUMEN: En este revisión de alcance, examinamos los factores contextuales que impiden la adopción y el cumplimiento de la profilaxis previa a la exposición en las comunidades transgénero. Este revisión sistemática se formó a partir de una revisión sistemática más grande. Utilizando un proceso de selección de aprendizaje automático, filtración de los titulus y examines, y revision del texto complete, el primer revisión sistemática identificó 353 artículos por el analisis. Estes artículos fueron estudios revisados por pares, relacionados con la implementación de la PrEP en los EE.UU. publicados despues de 2000. Veintidós artículos se identificaron en esta b?squeda como relacionados con personas transgénero. Se identificaron once artículos adicionales a través de citas de estos veintidós artículos, lo que resultó en treinta y tres artículos en el análisis actual. Estos treinta y tres artículos fueron codificados cualitativamente en NVivo utilizando construcciones adaptadas del Marco Consolidado para la Investigación de Implementación (CFIR) como códigos individuales. Los códigos fueron evaluados temáticamente. Señalamos las barreras de la implementación de la PrEP, como la falta de esfuerzos intencionales de difusión y asistencia al paciente, las barreras estructurales como el trabajo sexual, el racism, y el acceso a la salud de afirmación de género, y la falta del entrenamiento de los doctores. Finalmente, más de sesenta por ciento de los artículos tuvieron submuestras de personas transgénero que no eran representativas. Se?alamos áreas de crecimiento para el campo en este sentido.

Agent-based model projections for reducing HIV infection among MSM: Prevention and care pathways to end the HIV epidemic in Chicago, Illinois.

Our objective is to improve local decision-making for strategies to end the HIV epidemic using the newly developed Levers of HIV agent-based model (ABM). Agent-based models use computer simulations that incorporate heterogeneity in individual behaviors and interactions, allow emergence of systemic behaviors, and extrapolate into the future. The Levers of HIV model (LHM) uses Chicago neighborhood demographics, data on sex-risk behaviors and sexual networks, and data on the prevention and care cascades, to model local dynamics. It models the impact of changes in local preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and antiretroviral treatment (ART) (ie, levers) for meeting Illinois' goal of "Getting to Zero" (GTZ) -reducing by 90% new HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) by 2030. We simulate a 15-year period (2016-2030) for 2304 distinct scenarios based on 6 levers related to HIV treatment and prevention: (1) linkage to PrEP for those testing negative, (2) linkage to ART for those living with HIV, (3) adherence to PrEP, (4) viral suppression by means of ART, (5) PrEP retention, and (6) ART retention. Using tree-based methods, we identify the best scenarios at achieving a 90% HIV infection reduction by 2030. The optimal scenario consisted of the highest levels of ART retention and PrEP adherence, next to highest levels of PrEP retention, and moderate levels of PrEP linkage, achieved 90% reduction by 2030 in 58% of simulations. We used Bayesian posterior predictive distributions based on our simulated results to determine the likelihood of attaining 90% HIV infection reduction using the most recent Chicago Department of Public Health surveillance data and found that projections of the current rate of decline (2016-2019) would not achieve the 90% (p = 0.0006) reduction target for 2030. Our results suggest that increases are needed at all steps of the PrEP cascade, combined with increases in retention in HIV care, to approach 90% reduction in new HIV diagnoses by 2030. These findings show how simulation modeling with local data can guide policy makers to identify and invest in efficient care models to achieve long-term local goals of ending the HIV epidemic.

Supporting the Growth of Domestic HIV Implementation Research in the United States Through Coordination, Consultation, and Collaboration: How We Got Here and Where We Are Headed.

BACKGROUND: The Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative sets a goal to virtually eliminate new HIV infections in the United States by 2030. The plan is predicated on the fact that tools exist for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment, and the current scientific challenge is how to implement them effectively and with equity. Implementation research (IR) can help identify strategies that support effective implementation of HIV services. SETTING: NIH funded the Implementation Science Coordination Initiative (ISCI) to support rigorous and actionable IR by providing technical assistance to NIH-funded projects and supporting local implementation knowledge becoming generalizable knowledge. METHODS: We describe the formation of ISCI, the services it provided to the HIV field, and data it collected from 147 NIH-funded studies. We also provide an overview of this supplement issue as a dissemination strategy for HIV IR. CONCLUSION: Our ability to reach EHE 2030 goals is strengthened by the knowledge compiled in this supplement, the services of ISCI and connected hubs, and a myriad of investigators and implementation partners collaborating to better understand what is needed to effectively implement the many evidence-based HIV interventions at our disposal.

Profile of the Portfolio of NIH-Funded HIV Implementation Research Projects to Inform Ending the HIV Epidemic Strategies.

BACKGROUND: The US government created an initiative to end the HIV epidemic in the United States by the year 2030 (EHE). This multiagency initiative was structured around four pillars: Prevent, Diagnose, Treat, and Respond to improve HIV programs, resources, and service delivery infrastructure. In support of its research mission, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded implementation research (IR) projects by addressing the four pillars and encouraging investigators to collaborate with local partners and Health and Human Services (HHS) grantees in 57 priority jurisdictions. METHODS: This paper analyzed data from the NIH funded CFAR/ARC supplement projects from 2019 to 2021. The Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework was used to characterize projects by stage of implementation. RESULTS: The Prevent pillar was most frequently studied, with Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) being the most studied intervention. The most common partners were health departments, community-based organizations (CBOs), and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) framework was the most utilized to investigate implementation determinants, followed by the RE-AIM framework and Proctor model to assess implementation outcomes. CONCLUSION: Monitoring the projects resulting from NIH investments is fundamental to understanding the response to EHE, and achieving these results requires systematic and continuous effort that can support the generalizable implementation knowledge emerging from individual studies. There are some remaining gaps in the project portfolio, including geographical coverage, range of implementation outcomes being measured, and interventions still requiring further research to ensure equitable scale-up of evidence based interventions and achieve EHE goals.

Data Velocity in HIV-Related Implementation Research: Estimating Time From Funding to Publication.

BACKGROUND: Given available effective biomedical and behavioral prevention and treatment interventions, HIV-related implementation research (IR) is expanding. The rapid generation and dissemination of IR to inform guidelines and practice has the potential to optimize the impact of the Ending the Epidemic Initiative and the HIV pandemic response more broadly. METHODS: We leveraged a prior mapping review of NIH-funded awards in HIV and IR from January 2013 to March 2018 and identified all publications linked to those grants in NIH RePORTER through January 1, 2021 (n = 1509). Deduplication and screening of nonoriginal research reduced the count to 1032 articles, of which 952 were eligible and included in this review. Publication volume and timing were summarized; Kaplan-Meier plots estimated time to publication. RESULTS: Among the 215 NIH-funded IR-related awards, 127 of 215 (59%) published original research directly related to the grant, averaging 2.0 articles (SD: 3.3) per award, largely in the early IR phases. Many articles (521 of 952, 55%) attributed to grants did not report grant-related data. Time from article submission to publication averaged 205 days (SD: 107). The median time-to-first publication from funding start was 4 years. Data dissemination velocity varied by award type, trending toward faster publication in recent years. Delays in data velocity included (1) time from funding to enrollment, (2) enrollment length, and (3) time from data collection completion to publication. CONCLUSION: Research publication was high overall, and time-to-publication is accelerating; however, over 40% of grants have yet to publish findings from grant-related data. Addressing bottlenecks in the production and dissemination of HIV-related IR would reinforce its programmatic and policy relevance in the HIV response.

Determinants of Implementation for HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Based on an Updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Delivery and use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are suboptimal in the United States. Previous reviews of barriers and facilitators have not used an implementation science lens, limiting comprehensiveness and the link to implementation strategies. To summarize the state of the science, we systematically reviewed determinants of PrEP implementation using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0). SETTING: PrEP-eligible communities and delivery settings in the United States. METHODS: In January 2021, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for peer-reviewed articles related to HIV/AIDS, interventions, implementation, and determinants or strategies. We identified 286 primary research articles published after 1999 about US-based PrEP implementation. Team members extracted discrete "mentioned" and "measured" determinants, coding each by setting, population, valence, measurement, and CFIR 2.0 construct. RESULTS: We identified 1776 mentioned and 1952 measured determinants from 254 to 239 articles, respectively. Two-thirds of measured determinants were of PrEP use by patients as opposed to delivery by providers. Articles contained few determinants in the inner setting or process domains (ie, related to the delivery context), even among studies of specific settings. Determinants across priority populations also focused on individual patients and providers rather than structural or logistical factors. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest substantial knowledge in the literature about general patient-level barriers to PrEP use and thus limited need for additional universal studies. Instead, future research should prioritize identifying determinants, especially facilitators, unique to understudied populations and focus on structural and logistical features within current and promising settings (eg, pharmacies) that support integration of PrEP into clinical practice.

Do partner services linked to molecular clusters yield people with viremia or new HIV?

OBJECTIVES: We examined whether molecular cluster membership was associated with public health identification of HIV transmission potential among named partners in Chicago. DESIGN: Historical cohort study. METHODS: We matched and analyzed HIV surveillance and partner services data from HIV diagnoses (2012-2016) prior to implementation of cluster detection and response interventions. We constructed molecular clusters using HIV-TRACE at a pairwise genetic distance threshold of 0.5% and identified clusters exhibiting recent and rapid growth according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition (three new cases diagnosed in past year). Factors associated with identification of partners with HIV transmission potential were examined using multivariable Poisson regression. RESULTS: There were 5208 newly diagnosed index clients over this time period. Average age of index clients in clusters was 28; 47% were Black, 29% Latinx/Hispanic, 6% female and 89% MSM. Of the 537 named partners, 191 (35.6%) were linked to index cases in a cluster and of those 16% were either new diagnoses or viremic. There was no statistically significant difference in the probability of identifying partners with HIV transmission potential among index clients in a rapidly growing cluster versus those not in a cluster [adjusted relative risk 1.82, (0.81-4.06)]. CONCLUSION: Partner services that were initiated from index clients in a molecular cluster yielded similar new HIV case finding or identification of those with viremia as did interviews with index clients not in clusters. It remains unclear whether these findings are due to temporal disconnects between diagnoses and cluster identification, unobserved cluster members, or challenges with partner services implementation.

Geographic disparities in COVID-19 case rates are not reflected in seropositivity rates using a neighborhood survey in Chicago.

To date, COVID-19 case rates are disproportionately higher in Black and Latinx communities across the US, leading to more hospitalizations, and deaths in those communities. These differences in case rates are evident in comparisons of Chicago neighborhoods with differing race and/or ethnicities of their residents. Disparities could be due to neighborhoods with more adverse health outcomes associated with poverty and other social determinants of health experiencing higher prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or due to greater morbidity and mortality resulting from equivalent SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence. We surveyed five pairs of adjacent ZIP codes in Chicago with disparate COVID-19 case rates for highly specific and quantitative serologic evidence of any prior infection by SARS-CoV-2 to compare with their disparate COVID-19 case rates. Dried blood spot samples were self-collected at home by internet-recruited participants in summer 2020, shortly after Chicago's first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Pairs of neighboring ZIP codes with very different COVID-19 case rates had similar seropositivity rates for anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain IgG antibodies. Overall, these findings of comparable exposure to SARS-CoV-2 across neighborhoods with very disparate COVID-19 case rates are consistent with social determinants of health, and the co-morbidities related to them, driving differences in COVID-19 rates across neighborhoods.

Forecasting HIV-1 Genetic Cluster Growth in Illinois,United States.

BACKGROUND: HIV intervention activities directed toward both those most likely to transmit and their HIV-negative partners have the potential to substantially disrupt HIV transmission. Using HIV sequence data to construct molecular transmission clusters can reveal individuals whose viruses are connected. The utility of various cluster prioritization schemes measuring cluster growth have been demonstrated using surveillance data in New York City and across the United States, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). METHODS: We examined clustering and cluster growth prioritization schemes using Illinois HIV sequence data that include cases from Chicago, a large urban center with high HIV prevalence, to compare their ability to predict future cluster growth. RESULTS: We found that past cluster growth was a far better predictor of future cluster growth than cluster membership alone but found no substantive difference between the schemes used by CDC and the relative cluster growth scheme previously used in New York City (NYC). Focusing on individuals selected simultaneously by both the CDC and the NYC schemes did not provide additional improvements. CONCLUSION: Growth-based prioritization schemes can easily be automated in HIV surveillance tools and can be used by health departments to identify and respond to clusters where HIV transmission may be actively occurring.

The HIV Treat Pillar: An Update and Summary of Promising Approaches.

The Treat pillar of the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. plan calls for comprehensive strategies to enhance linkage to, and engagement in, HIV medical care to improve viral suppression among people with HIV and achieve the goal of 95% viral suppression by 2025. The U.S. has seen large increases in the proportion of people with HIV who have a suppressed viral load. Viral suppression has increased 41%, from 46% in 2010 to 65% in 2018. An additional increase of 46% is needed to meet the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. goal. The rate of viral suppression among those in care increased to 85% in 2018, highlighting the need to ensure sustained care for people with HIV. Greater increases in all steps along the HIV care continuum are needed for those disproportionately impacted by HIV, especially the young, sexual and racial/ethnic minorities, people experiencing homelessness, and people who inject drugs. Informed by systematic reviews and current research findings, this paper describes more recent promising practices that suggest an impact on HIV care outcomes. It highlights rapid linkage and treatment interventions; interventions that identify and re-engage people in HIV care through new collaborations among health departments, providers, and hospital systems; coordinated care and low-barrier clinic models; and telemedicine-delivered HIV care approaches. The interventions presented in this paper provide additional approaches that state and local jurisdictions can use to reach their local HIV elimination plans' goals and the ambitious Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. Treat pillar targets by 2030.

Cohabitation With a Known Coronavirus Disease 2019 Case Is Associated With Greater Antibody Concentration and Symptom Severity in a Community-Based Sample of Seropositive Adults.

In a community-based sample of seropositive adults (n = 1101), we found that seropositive individuals who lived with a known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case exhibited higher blood anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G concentrations and greater symptom severity compared to seropositive individuals who did not live with a known COVID-19 case.

Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 within the household is associated with greater symptom severity and stronger antibody responses in a community-based sample of seropositive adults.

Magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 virus exposure may contribute to symptom severity. In a sample of seropositive adults (n=1101), we found that individuals who lived with a known COVID-19 case exhibited greater symptom severity and IgG concentrations compared to individuals who were seropositive but did not live with a known case (P<0.0001).