Treatment outcomes of integrase inhibitors, boosted protease inhibitors and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in antiretroviral-naïve persons starting treatment.

OBJECTIVES: Although outcomes of antiretroviral therapy (ART) have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials, experiences from subpopulations defined by age, CD4 count or viral load (VL) in heterogeneous real-world settings are limited. METHODS: The study design was an international multicohort collaboration. Logistic regression was used to compare virological and immunological outcomes at 12 ± 3 months after starting ART with an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI), contemporary nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or boosted protease inhibitor (PI/b) with two nucleos(t)ides after 1 January 2012. The composite treatment outcome (cTO) defined success as VL < 200 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL with no regimen change and no AIDS/death events. Immunological success was defined as a CD4 count > 750 cells/µL or a 33% increase where the baseline CD4 count was ≥ 500 cells/µL. Poisson regression compared clinical failures (AIDS/death ≥ 14 days after starting ART). Interactions between ART class and age, CD4 count, and VL were determined for each endpoint. RESULTS: Of 5198 ART-naïve persons in the International Cohort Consortium of Infectious Diseases (RESPOND), 45.4% started INSTIs, 26.0% PI/b and 28.7% NNRTIs; 880 (17.4%) were aged > 50 years, 2539 (49.4%) had CD4 counts < 350 cells/µL and 1891 (36.8%) had VL > 100 000 copies/mL. Differences in virological and immunological success and clinical failure among ART classes were similar across age groups (≤ 40, 40-50 and > 50 years), CD4 count categories (≤ 350 vs. > 350 cells/µL) and VL categories at ART initiation (≤ 100 000 vs. > 100 000 copies/mL), with all investigated interactions being nonsignificant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Differences among ART classes in virological, immunological and clinical outcomes in ART-naïve participants were consistent irrespective of age, immune suppression or VL at ART initiation. While confounding by indication cannot be excluded, this provides reassuring evidence that such subpopulations will equally benefit from contemporary ART.

Auditing HIV Testing Rates across Europe: Results from the HIDES 2 Study.

European guidelines recommend the routine offer of an HIV test in patients with a number of AIDS-defining and non-AIDS conditions believed to share an association with HIV; so called indicator conditions (IC). Adherence with this guidance across Europe is not known. We audited HIV testing behaviour in patients accessing care for a number of ICs. Participating centres reviewed the case notes of either 100 patients or of all consecutive patients in one year, presenting for each of the following ICs: tuberculosis, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, anal and cervical cancer, hepatitis B and C and oesophageal candidiasis. Observed HIV-positive rates were applied by region and IC to estimate the number of HIV diagnoses potentially missed. Outcomes examined were: HIV test rate (% of total patients with IC), HIV test accepted (% of tests performed/% of tests offered) and new HIV diagnosis rate (%). There were 49 audits from 23 centres, representing 7037 patients. The median test rate across audits was 72% (IQR 32-97), lowest in Northern Europe (median 44%, IQR 22-68%) and highest in Eastern Europe (median 99%, IQR 86-100). Uptake of testing was close to 100% in all regions. The median HIV+ rate was 0.9% (IQR 0.0-4.9), with 29 audits (60.4%) having an HIV+ rate >0.1%. After adjustment, there were no differences between regions of Europe in the proportion with >0.1% testing positive (global p = 0.14). A total of 113 patients tested HIV+. Applying the observed rates of testing HIV+ within individual ICs and regions to all persons presenting with an IC suggested that 105 diagnoses were potentially missed. Testing rates in well-established HIV ICs remained low across Europe, despite high prevalence rates, reflecting missed opportunities for earlier HIV diagnosis and care. Significant numbers may have had an opportunity for HIV diagnosis if all persons included in IC audits had been tested.

Feasibility and acceptability of HIV screening through the use of rapid tests by general practitioners in a Brussels area with a substantial African community.

OBJECTIVES: To assess:1) if HIV screening with rapid tests in neighbourhoods with a substantial African community is feasible and acceptable among GPs and patients; 2) HIV seroprevalence. METHODS: Multicenter prospective study with 10 trained physicians. Use of HIV standard test and INSTI Ultrarapid test. INCLUSION CRITERIA: MSM, sex worker, multiple sexual partners, having returned or coming from a country with high HIV prevalence, IVDU, Indicator conditions as defined by HIV Indicator Diseases across Europe Study, having an AIDS-defining illness, having had a recent pregnancy or abortion; or presenting other risks. RESULTS: From August 2010 to August 2011, 10 trained GPs offered an HIV test to 224 patients: 51% ♀, 48% ♂, 43% Caucasians, 45% Africans. INCLUSION CRITERIA: 32% "high risk group", 9% returning from an endemic country, 29% with an indicator condition; 12 patients (6%) refused the standard test. The INSTI was offered to 217(97%), 197 performed with 2 reactive rapid tests confirmed. The seroprevalence according to ethnic origin was 0% among Caucasians and 2.2% among Africans and was 1.5% among patients with an indicator condition. 1087 consecutive consultations of the same GPs were recorded: 42% patients had ≥ 1 inclusion criteria among which 41% of offered tests, that is to say 59% of "missed opportunities". The reasons for not offering the test as recorded for 55% of patients:"not indicated" 44.5%, "no time" 33%, "impossible to propose" 15%, test completed previously 11%, known HIV-positive 4%. CONCLUSIONS: Standard and rapid tests are well received by patients but were usually not offered by doctors who have been trained.