Search

The objective of this study was to elucidate factors that predicted the initiation of HIV postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for blood or body fluid exposures evaluated at Rhode Island emergency departments (EDs). The study involved a retrospective review of patient visits to all civilian Rhode Island EDs for these exposures from 1995 to mid-2001. Multivariate logistic regression models were created to evaluate predictors of the offering and the acceptance and receipt of HIV PEP from 1996 to 2001. The search identified 3622 patients who sustained a blood or body fluid exposure. Of these, 43.8% were health care workers (HCWs) and 57.2% were not HCWs. Most (52.0%) of the exposures were nonsexual. HIV PEP was offered to 21.0% and accepted and received by 9.4% of all patients. HIV PEP was offered more often after significant exposures, exposures to known HIV-infected sources, when time elapsed after the exposure was shorter, if the patients were HCWs, adults, presented to a teaching hospital, presented during the latter years of the study, or sustained nonsexual exposures. Once offered HIV PEP, patients who were male, adult, sustained a significant exposure, knew the source was HIV infected, sustained a nonsexual exposure, or were HCWs had a greater odds of accepting and receiving HIV PEP. Even when controlling for exposure significance, HIV status, and time elapsed since the exposure, several factors such as gender and type of hospital that are unrelated to the exposure appeared to influence the initiation of HIV PEP. ED providers should ensure that these factors do not inappropriately restrict its initiation.

We evaluated treatment failure misclassification in human immunodeficiency virus-infected Kenyan children whose targeted viral loads were determined after suspected immunologic/clinical failure according to 2006 and 2010/2013 World Health Organization guidelines. The misclassification rate was 21% for the 2006 guidelines and 46% for the 2010/2013 guidelines, which supports current recommendations for routine viral load monitoring but not necessarily the proposed CD4 thresholds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

HIV-1 drug resistance remains a global challenge, yet access to testing is limited, particularly in resource-limited settings. We examined feasibility and limitations of genotyping using dried filter analytes in treatment-experienced Kenyan youth with HIV. Youth infected with HIV perinatally were enrolled in 2016-2018 at the Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare in Eldoret, western Kenya. Samples were shipped in real-time at ambient temperature to the US, and those with viral load (VL)>1,000 copies/mL were tested based on convenience. Dried blood spots genotyping was attempted when unsuccessful from Hemaspots. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine predictors of genotyping success. Samples from 49 participants (median age 15 years, 43% female, median CD4 496 cells/μL [18%], median 8 years on therapy, median VL 11,827 copies/mL) were shipped after median 7 days from collection, arrived in 20 shipments after median 5 days, and extracted after median 2 days (1 day for samples processed on arrival; and 42 days for frozen Hemaspots). Overall, 29/49 (59%) samples with VL > 1,000 copies/mL and 25/32 (78%) with VL > 5,000 copies/mL were genotyped by either Hemaspots or DBS. Successful genotyping was associated with higher Hemaspot volume and higher VL. Real-life HIV-1 drug resistance testing from dried filter analytes is feasible, even in settings with constrained resources. Findings, particularly relevant where resistance testing is limited for clinical care, raise awareness to implementation practicability of this guidelines-recommended test in care of more individuals and populations. Further optimization of filter analytes is needed to overcome related challenges. IMPORTANCE In this manuscript we use dried filter analytes shipped from Kenya to the US in real time, to demonstrate the real-life feasibility of conducting HIV drug resistance testing in a vulnerable population of young children and adolescents with HIV in a resource limited setting. Such testing, which is recommended in resource-rich settings, is unavailable in most resource limited settings for individual clinical care. We show that real-life HIV drug resistance testing from dried filter analytes is feasible, even in settings with constrained resources. These findings raise awareness to the importance of HIV drug resistance for individual care, even in such settings, and emphasize the implementation practicability of this guidelines-recommended test.

BACKGROUND: Emergence of HIV-1 drug resistance is at times an inevitable and anticipated consequence of antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure. We examined drug resistance patterns and virus re-suppression among subtype C-infected South African patients receiving first-line ART. METHODS: Treatment records of 431 patients on NNRTI-containing regimens for a median of 45 months were analyzed. Patients with viral load (VL) >400 copies/mL were followed and drug resistance mutations (DRM) were re-assessed. Associations between clinical/demographic measures and drug resistance/virologic outcomes were examined using Fisher exact and ordinal and logistic regression. RESULTS: Ten percent of patients (43/431) were viremic at enrollment (98% previously suppressed); sequences were obtained from 38/43. Of those, 82% had 1-7 DRM. In bivariate analysis remote exposure to single-dose nevirapine or prior ART; higher CD4 counts; lower VL; and >6 months of virologic failure were significantly associated with number of DRM. Of 25 viremic patients followed for a median of 8 months on a continued first-line regimen, 12 (48%) re-suppressed, six with K103N and three with M184V. Thirteen (52%) had continued virologic failure which was significantly associated with detectable VL>6 months prior to enrollment and number of DRM. CONCLUSION: Among these HIV-1 subtype C-infected patients, DRM numbers and patterns were associated with prior exposure to sub-optimal ART, adherence and duration of virologic failure. Viral re-suppression in the presence of K103N and M184V challenges assumptions about drug resistance. In resource-limited settings, where genotyping and alternative drug options are unavailable, continuing first-line treatment, reinforcing adherence and regular virologic monitoring may be effective even after virologic failure.

Objectives: Jail incarceration represents an opportunity to deliver HIV counseling and testing (C&T) services to persons at increased risk of infection. However, jails can be chaotic with rapid turnover of detainees. We conducted a pilot study to investigate the feasibility of comparing the effect of different approaches to HIV C&T in jail on subsequent HIV risk behaviors among persons testing HIV negative., Methods: Consecutive cohorts of newly incarcerated jail detainees were recruited with 132 subjects completing standard HIV C&T as per jail protocol and 132 subjects completing rapid testing with an individualized counseling session. Risk behavior was assessed and compared at baseline and 6 weeks after jail release., Results: Among the 264 male participants, preincarceration substance use and sexual risk were common. The follow-up visit was completed by 59% of eligible participants. There were no differences in postrelease HIV risk behavior between the 2 arms but there was an overall decrease in risk behavior after jail release for the cohort. In addition, all participants in the rapid arm received rapid HIV test results compared with participants receiving 28% of conventional test results., Conclusions: Jail incarceration represents an important public health opportunity to deliver HIV C&T. This study demonstrated (1) feasibility in delivering rapid HIV testing combined with individualized counseling to jail detainees, (2) improved test result delivery rates, and (3) success with evaluating risk behaviors during the transition from jail to the community. Further research is needed to determine the optimal approach to HIV C&T in jail with the goal of increasing awareness of HIV serostatus and decreasing HIV risk behavior.