Differences in integrated assessment and management of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) for people with HIV across the WHO European region

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the extent of integration of non-communicable disease (NCD) assessment and management in HIV clinics across Europe.

METHODS

A structured electronic questionnaire with 41 multiple-choice and rating-scale questions assessing NCD assessment and management was sent to 88 HIV clinics across the WHO European Region during March-May 2023. One response per clinic was collected.

RESULTS

In all, 51 clinics from 34 countries with >100 000 people with HIV under regular follow-up responded. Thirty-seven clinics (72.6%) reported shared NCD care responsibility with the general practitioner. Systematic assessment for NCDs and integration of NCD management were common overall [median agreement 80%, interquartile range (IQR): 55-95%; and 70%, IQR: 50-88%, respectively] but were lowest in central eastern and eastern Europe. Chronic kidney disease (median agreement 96%, IQR: 85-100%) and metabolic disorders (90%, IQR: 75-100%) were regularly assessed, while mental health (72%, IQR: 63-85%) and pulmonary diseases (52%, IQR: 40-75%) were less systematically assessed. Some essential diagnostic tests such as glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) for diabetes (n = 38/51, 74.5%), proteinuria for kidney disease (n = 30/51, 58.8%) and spirometry for lung disease (n = 11/51, 21.6%) were only employed by a proportion of clinics. The most frequent barriers for integrating NCD care were the lack of healthcare workers (n = 17/51, 33.3%) and lack of time during outpatient visits (n = 12/51, 23.5%).

CONCLUSION

Most HIV clinics in Europe systematically assess and manage NCDs. People with HIV appear to be screened more frequently than the general population at the same age. There are, however, larger gaps among eastern European clinics in general and for clinics in all regions related to mental health, pulmonary diseases and the employment of some essential diagnostic tests.

Vaccination against HBV and HAV as Mode of Hepatitis Prevention among People Living with HIV-Data from ECEE Network Group

(1) Background: Viral hepatitis C (HCV) and viral hepatitis B (HBV) are common co-infections in people living with HIV (PLWH). All PLWH should be vaccinated against HBV and hepatitis A (HAV) and treated for HBV and HCV. We aimed to compare testing, prophylaxis and treatment of viral hepatitis in PLWH in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in 2019 and 2022. (2) Methods: Data was collected through two on-line surveys conducted in 2019 and 2022 among 18 countries of the Euroguidelines in CEE (ECEE) Network Group. (3) Results: In all 18 countries the standard of care was to screen all PLWH for HBV and HCV both years; screening of HAV was routine in 2019 in 54.5% and in 2022 47.4% of clinics. Vaccination of PLWH against HAV was available in 2019 in 16.7%, in 2022 in 22.2% countries. Vaccination against HBV was available routinely and free of charge in 50% of clinics both in 2019 and 2022. In HIV/HBV co-infected the choice of NRTI was tenofovir-based in 94.4% of countries in both years. All clinics that responded had access to direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) but 50% still had limitations for treatment. (4) Conclusions: Although testing for HBV and HCV was good, testing for HAV is insufficient. Vaccination against HBV and especially against HAV has room for improvement; furthermore, HCV treatment access needs to overcome restrictions.

PrEP Scale-Up and PEP in Central and Eastern Europe: Changes in Time and the Challenges We Face with No Expected HIV Vaccine in the near Future

With no expected vaccine for HIV in the near future, we aimed to define the current situation and challenges for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP and PEP) in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The Euroguidelines CEE Network Group members were invited to respond to a 27-item survey including questions on PrEP (response rate 91.6%). PrEP was licensed in 68.2%; 95 centers offered PrEP and the estimated number on PrEP was around 9000. It was available in daily (40.1%), on-demand (13.3%), or both forms (33.3%). The access rate was <1−80%. Three major barriers for access were lack of knowledge/awareness among people who are in need (59.1%), not being reimbursed (50.0%), and low perception of HIV risk (45.5%). Non-occupational PEP was available in 86.4% and was recommended in the guidelines in 54.5%. It was fully reimbursed in 36.4%, only for accidental exposures in 40.9%, and was not reimbursed in 22.72%. Occupational PEP was available in 95.5% and was reimbursed fully. Although PrEP scale-up in the region has gained momentum, a huge gap exists between those who are in need of and those who can access PrEP. Prompt action is required to address the urgent need for PrEP scale-up in the CEE region.

Chronic Kidney Disease and Nephrology Care in People Living with HIV in Central/Eastern Europe and Neighbouring Countries-Cross-Sectional Analysis from the ECEE Network

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The Central and East Europe (CEE) region consists of countries with highly diversified HIV epidemics, health care systems and socioeconomic status. The aim of the present study was to describe variations in CKD burden and care between countries. The Euroguidelines in the CEE Network Group includes 19 countries and was initiated to improve the standard of care for HIV infection in the region. Information on kidney care in HIV-positive patients was collected through online surveys sent to all members of the Network Group. Almost all centres use regular screening for CKD in all HIV (+) patients. Basic diagnostic tests for kidney function are available in the majority of centres. The most commonly used method for eGFR calculation is the Cockcroft-Gault equation. Nephrology consultation is available in all centres. The median frequency of CKD was 5% and the main cause was comorbidity. Haemodialysis was the only modality of treatment for kidney failure available in all ECEE countries. Only 39% of centres declared that all treatment options are available for HIV+ patients. The most commonly indicated barrier in kidney care was patients' noncompliance. In the CEE region, people living with HIV have full access to screening for kidney disease but there are important limitations in treatment. The choice of dialysis modality and access to kidney transplantation are limited. The main burden of kidney disease is unrelated to HIV infection. Patient care can be significantly improved by addressing noncompliance.

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.

Where are we with pre-exposure prophylaxis use in Central and Eastern Europe? Data from the Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe (ECEE) Network Group

OBJECTIVES

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV infection is an important intervention for control of the HIV epidemic. The incidence of HIV infection is increasing in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Therefore, we investigated the change in PrEP use in CEE over time.

METHODS

The Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe (ECEE) Network Group was initiated in February 2016 to compare standards of care for HIV and viral hepatitis infections in CEE. Data on access to PrEP were collected from 23 countries through online surveys in May-June 2017 (76 respondents) and in November 2018-May 2019 (28 respondents).

RESULTS

About 34.2% of respondents stated that tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) was licensed for use in their country in 2017, and 66.7% that it was licensed for use in 2018 (P = 0.02). PrEP was recommended in national guidelines in 39.5% of responses in 2017 and 40.7% in 2018 (P = 0.378). About 70.7% of respondents were aware of "informal" PrEP use in 2017, while 66.6% were aware of this in 2018 (P = 0.698). In 2018, there were 53 centres offering PreP (the highest numbers in Poland and Romania), whereas six countries had no centres offering PreP. The estimated number of HIV-negative people on PreP in the region was 4500 in 2018. Generic TDF/FTC costs (in Euros) ranged from €10 (Romania) to €256.92 (Slovakia), while brand TDF/FTC costs ranged from €60 (Albania) to €853 (Finland).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the process of licensing TDF/FTC use for PrEP has improved, this is not yet reflected in the guidelines, nor has there been a reduction in the "informal" use of PrEP. PrEP remains a rarely used preventive method in CEE countries.

Health-related quality of life among adults living with HIV: a cross-sectional survey in Armenia

Few studies have examined health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among people living with HIV (PLWHIV) in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 180 PLWHIV aged 18 years+ in Armenia who were on cART and used the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey to assess HRQoL. The highest HRQoL domain score was 85.3 (SD 24.7) for physical functioning, followed by 82.1 (SD 25.0) for pain, 77.9 (SD 24.2) for social functioning, 76.4 (SD 39.6) for emotional role-functioning, 71.1 (SD 39.7) for physical role-functioning, and 64.0 (SD 20.3) for energy/fatigue, 63.7 (SD 22.7) for emotional well-being and 63.4 for general health 63.4 (SD 21.2). In the physical domain, chronic comorbidities and low emotional support were associated with worse physical functioning, physical role-functioning, general health and pain scores (p < 0.05). Unemployment and hepatitis C coinfection were associated with worse physical role functioning and pain scores (p < 0.01). As for mental HRQoL, we found that unemployment, chronic comorbidities, and lower emotional support were associated with poorer emotional well-being, energy, and emotional role-functioning scores (p < 0.05). These findings suggest that improved social support, employment opportunities, mental health services and integrated care for noncommunicable comorbidities may improve HRQoL in Armenia and similar settings.

People who inject drugs remain hard-to-reach population across all HIV continuum stages in Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe - data from Euro-guidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Inadequate HIV care for hard-to-reach populations may result in failing the UNAIDS 90-90-90 goal. Therefore, we aimed to review the HIV continuum of care and hard-to-reach populations for each step of the continuum in Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe.

METHODS

Euro-guidelines in Central and Eastern Europe (ECEE) Network Group were created in February 2016. The aim of the network was to review the standards of HIV care in the countries of the region. Information about each stage of HIV continuum of care and hard-to-reach populations for each stage was collected through on-line surveys. Respondents were ECEE members chosen based on their expertise and involvement in national HIV care. Data sources (year 2016) used by respondents included HIV Clinics electronic databases, Institutes of Public Health, Centres for AIDS Prevention, and HIV Programme Reviews.

RESULTS

The percentage of people living with HIV (PLHIV) linked to HIV care after HIV diagnosis was ranged between 80% and 96% in Central Europe, 51% and 92% in Eastern Europe and 80% and 100% in South-Eastern Europe. The percentage of PLHIV who are on ART was ranged from 80% to 93% in Central Europe, 18% to 92% in Eastern Europe and 80% to 100% in South-Eastern Europe. The percentage of people virologically suppressed while on ART was reported as 70-95%, 12-95% and 62-97% in Central, Eastern, and South Eastern Europe, respectively. All three regions reported people who inject drugs (PWID) as hard-to-reach population across all HIV continuum stages. Migrants were the second most reported hard-to-reach population. The proportion of late presenters among newly diagnosed ranged between 20% and 55%, 40% and 55% and 48% and 60% in Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe, respectively. Four countries reported ARVs' delivery delays resulting in treatment interruptions in 2016: two (25%) in South-Eastern, one (20%) in Central and 1 (16.7%) in Eastern Europe.

CONCLUSION

Irrespective of the diversity in national HIV epidemics, countries from all three regions reported PWIDs as hard-to-reach population across all HIV continuum stages. Some countries are close to the UNAIDS 2020 goals, others need to strive for progress. However, differences in data sources and variations in definitions limit the utility of continuum of care as a comparative tool.

HIV care in Central and Eastern Europe: How close are we to the target?

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this survey was to describe the current status of HIV care in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and to investigate how close the region is to achieving the UNAIDS 2020 target of 90-90-90.

METHODS

In 2014, data were collected from 24 Central and Eastern European countries using a 38-item questionnaire.

RESULTS

All countries reported mandatory screening of blood and organ donors for HIV. Other groups subjected to targeted screening included people who inject drugs (PWID) (15/24, 62.5%), men who have sex with men (MSM) (14/24, 58.3%), and sex workers (12/24, 50.0%). Only 14 of the 24 countries (58.3%) screened pregnant women. The percentages of late presentation and advanced disease were 40.3% (range 14-80%) and 25.4% (range 9-50%), respectively. There was no difference between countries categorized by income or by region in terms of the percentages of persons presenting late or with advanced disease. The availability of newer antiretroviral drugs (rilpivirine, etravirine, darunavir, maraviroc, raltegravir, dolutegravir) tended to be significantly better with a higher country income status. Ten countries reported initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) regardless of CD4+ T cell count (41.7%), five countries (20.8%) used the threshold of <500 cells/μl, and nine countries (37.5%) used the threshold of <350cells/μl. Initiation of ART regardless of the CD4+ T cell count was significantly more common among high-income countries than among upper-middle-income and lower-middle-income countries (100% vs. 27.3% and 0%, respectively; p=0.001). Drugs were provided free of charge in all countries and mostly provided by governments. There were significant discrepancies between countries regarding the follow-up of people living with HIV.

CONCLUSIONS

There are major disparities in the provision of HIV care among sub-regions in Europe, which should be addressed. More attention in terms of funding, knowledge and experience sharing, and capacity building is required for the resource-limited settings of Central and Eastern Europe. The exact needs should be defined and services scaled up in order to achieve a standard level of care and provide an adequate and sustainable response to the HIV epidemic in this region.

Ritonavir-Boosted Darunavir Plus Two Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors versus Other Regimens for Initial Antiretroviral Therapy for People with HIV Infection: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Darunavir is a second-generation protease-inhibitor used with ritonavir (DRV/r) and two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors as an option in first-line antiretroviral treatment (ART).

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DRV/r versus other regimens in patients initiating ART. We searched five bibliographic databases and other key resources. We had no language limitations. We assessed bias risk with the Cochrane tool and used GRADE to assess evidence quality. We report findings in terms of risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

FINDINGS

Three RCTs met inclusion criteria. In plasma viral load suppression, DRV/r outperformed ritonavir-boosted lopinavir at 48 weeks (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.25), 96 weeks (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.21), and 192 weeks (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.07-1.35). DRV/r was similar to dolutegravir at 48 weeks (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87-1.06) but less effective at 96 weeks (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.93). At 96 weeks, DRV/r underperformed raltegravir (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88-0.99) but was similar to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96-1.09). Overall bias risk was moderate. Evidence quality was also moderate.

INTERPRETATION

Initial ART regimens using DRV/r should be considered in future World Health Organization guidelines.