I Can't Afford it Right Now, So it Doesn't Matter" Structural Drivers of Viral Suppression Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: A Longitudinal Qualitative Approach.

Background: Racial disparities in outcomes across the HIV care continuum, including in viral suppression, have been observed among sexual minority men (SMM) living with HIV. Structural factors are drivers of these disparities, yet data is lacking at the individual level on how day-to-day experiences of these structural factors contribute to losing viral suppression, and what happens to SMM after loss of viral suppression, including whether they achieve viral suppression again over time. Method: We conducted longitudinal semi-structured interviews with a subsample of men living with HIV drawn from a larger cohort study. Three Black and 2 White SMM participated in a series of three interviews after they lost viral suppression, and then again at 6- and 12-months follow-up. The focus of the interviews was on experiences with structural issues (e.g., housing, transportation, employment, insurance) and their impact on HIV care. Results: Content analysis showed that multiple structural issues disrupted HIV care, particularly insurance, housing stability, transportation, and employment. Black SMM described experiencing multiple compounding structural barriers, and they struggled to achieve viral suppression again. Conclusions: These data show how SMM living with HIV are impacted by structural barriers to HIV care over time. Black SMM experienced multiple, compounding barriers, and these negatively impacted HIV care outcomes over time. Efforts to address long-standing HIV care-related disparities need to address the mechanisms of structural racism.

Prevalence of COVID-19 Mitigation Behaviors in US Adults (August-December 2020): Nationwide Household Probability Survey.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 mitigation behaviors, such as wearing masks, maintaining social distancing, and practicing hand hygiene, have been and will remain vital to slowing the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the period prevalence of consistent mask-wearing, social distancing, and hand hygiene practices during the peak of COVID-19 incidence (August-December 2020) and just before COVID-19 vaccine availability, overall and in demographic subgroups. METHODS: We used baseline survey data from a nationwide household probability sample to generate weighted estimates of mitigation behaviors: wearing masks, maintaining social distancing, and practicing hand hygiene. Weighted logistic regression explored differences in mitigation behaviors by demographics. Latent class analysis (LCA) identified patterns in mitigation behaviors. RESULTS: Among 4654 participants, most (n=2727, 58.6%) were female, were non-Hispanic White (n=3063, 65.8%), were aged 55 years or older (n=2099, 45.1%), lived in the South (n=2275, 48.9%), lived in metropolitan areas (n=4186, 89.9%), had at least a bachelor's degree (n=2547, 54.7%), had an income of US $50,000-$99,000 (n=1445, 31%), and were privately insured (n=2734, 58.7%). The period prevalence of consistent mask wearing was 71.1% (sample-weighted 95% CI 68.8-73.3); consistent social distancing, 42.9% (95% CI 40.5-45.3); frequent handwashing, 55.0% (95% CI 52.3-57.7); and frequent hand sanitizing, 21.5% (95% CI 19.4-23.8). Mitigation behaviors were more prevalent among women, older persons, Black or Hispanic persons, those who were not college graduates, and service-oriented workers. LCA identified an optimal-mitigation class that consistently practiced all behaviors (n=2656, 67% of US adults), a low-mitigation class that inconsistently practiced all behaviors (n=771, 20.6%), and a class that had optimal masking and social distancing but a high frequency of hand hygiene (n=463, 12.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high prevalence of COVID-19 mitigation behaviors, there were likely millions who did not consistently practice these behaviors during the time of the highest COVID-19 incidence. In future infectious disease outbreak responses, public health authorities should also consider addressing disparities in mitigation practices through more targeted prevention messaging.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Cumulative Incidence, United States, August 2020-December 2020.

BACKGROUND: Reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases underestimate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. We conducted a national probability survey of US households to estimate cumulative incidence adjusted for antibody waning. METHODS: From August-December 2020 a random sample of US addresses were mailed a survey and self-collected nasal swabs and dried blood spot cards. One adult household member completed the survey and mail specimens for viral detection and total (immunoglobulin [Ig] A, IgM, IgG) nucleocapsid antibody by a commercial, emergency use authorization-approved antigen capture assay. We estimated cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 adjusted for waning antibodies and calculated reported fraction (RF) and infection fatality ratio (IFR). Differences in seropositivity among demographic, geographic, and clinical subgroups were explored. RESULTS: Among 39 500 sampled households, 4654 respondents provided responses. Cumulative incidence adjusted for waning was 11.9% (95% credible interval [CrI], 10.5%-13.5%) as of 30 October 2020. We estimated 30 332 842 (CrI, 26 703 753-34 335 338) total infections in the US adult population by 30 October 2020. RF was 22.3% and IFR was 0.85% among adults. Black non-Hispanics (Prevalence ratio (PR) 2.2) and Hispanics (PR, 3.1) were more likely than White non-Hispanics to be seropositive. CONCLUSIONS: One in 8 US adults had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by October 2020; however, few had been accounted for in public health reporting. The COVID-19 pandemic is likely substantially underestimated by reported cases. Disparities in COVID-19 by race observed among reported cases cannot be attributed to differential diagnosis or reporting of infections in population subgroups.

Correction: Disparities in Care Outcomes in Atlanta Between Black and White Men Who Have Sex With Men Living With HIV: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study (Engage[men]t).

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/21985.].

Understanding disparities in viral suppression among Black MSM living with HIV in Atlanta Georgia.

INTRODUCTION: Due to factors associated with structural racism, Black men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV are less likely to be virally suppressed compared to white MSM. Most of these data come from clinical cohorts and modifiable reasons for these racial disparities need to be defined in order to intervene on these inequities. Therefore, we examined factors associated with racial disparities in baseline viral suppression in a community-based cohort of Black and white MSM living with HIV in Atlanta, GA. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort of Black and white MSM living with HIV infection in Atlanta. Enrolment occurred from June 2016 to June 2017 and men were followed for 24 months; laboratory and behavioural survey data were collected at 12 and 24 months after enrolment. Explanatory factors for racial disparities in viral suppression included sociodemographics and psychosocial variables. Poisson regression models with robust error variance were used to estimate prevalence ratios (PR) for Black/white differences in viral suppression. Factors that diminished the PR for race by ≥5% were considered to meaningfully attenuate the racial disparity and were included in a multivariable model. RESULTS: Overall, 26% (104/398) of participants were not virally suppressed at baseline. Lack of viral suppression was significantly more prevalent among Black MSM (33%; 69/206) than white MSM (19%; 36/192) (crude Prevalence Ratio (PR) = 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.5). The age-adjusted Black/white PR was diminished by controlling for: ART coverage (12% decrease), housing stability (7%), higher income (6%) and marijuana use (6%). In a multivariable model, these factors cumulatively mitigated the PR for race by 21% (adjusted PR = 1.1 [95% CI: 0.8 to 1.6]). CONCLUSIONS: Relative to white MSM, Black MSM living with HIV in Atlanta were less likely to be virally suppressed. This disparity was explained by several factors, many of which should be targeted for structural, policy and individual-level interventions to reduce racial disparities.

Disparities in Care Outcomes in Atlanta Between Black and White Men Who Have Sex With Men Living With HIV: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study (Engage[men]t).

BACKGROUND: The US HIV epidemic is driven by infections in men who have sex with men and characterized by profound disparities in HIV prevalence and outcomes for Black Americans. Black men who have sex with men living with HIV are reported to have worse care outcomes than other men who have sex with men, but the reasons for these health inequities are not clear. We planned a prospective observational cohort study to help understand the reasons for worse HIV care outcomes for Black versus White men who have sex with men in Atlanta. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to identify individual, dyadic, network, neighborhood, and structural factors that explain disparities in HIV viral suppression between Black and White men who have sex with men living with HIV in Atlanta. METHODS: Black and White men who have sex with men living with HIV were enrolled in a prospective cohort study with in-person visits and viral suppression assessments at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months; additional surveys of care and risk behaviors at 3, 6, and 18 months; analysis of care received outside the study through public health reporting; and qualitative interviews for participants who experienced sentinel health events (eg, loss of viral suppression) during the study. The study is based on the Bronfenbrenner socioecological theoretical model. RESULTS: Men who have sex with men (n=400) were enrolled between June 2016 and June 2017 in Atlanta. Follow-up was completed in June 2019; final study retention was 80% at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Health disparities for Black men who have sex with men are hypothesized to be driven by structural racism and barriers to care. Observational studies are important to document and quantify the specific factors within the socioecological framework that account for disparities in viral suppression. In the meantime, it is also critical to push for steps to improve access to care, including Medicaid expansion in Southern states, such as Georgia, which have not yet moved to expand Medicaid. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/21985.

At-home self-collection of saliva, oropharyngeal swabs and dried blood spots for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and serology: Post-collection acceptability of specimen collection process and patient confidence in specimens.

BACKGROUND: Options to increase the ease of testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune response are needed. Self-collection of diagnostic specimens at home offers an avenue to allow people to test for SARS-CoV-2 infection or immune response without traveling to a clinic or laboratory. Before this study, survey respondents indicated willingness to self-collect specimens for COVID-related tests, but hypothetical willingness can differ from post-collection acceptability after participants collect specimens. METHODS: 153 US adults were enrolled in a study of the willingness and feasibility of patients to self-collect three diagnostic specimens (saliva, oropharyngeal swab (OPS) and dried blood spot (DBS) card) while observed by a clinician through a telehealth session. After the specimens were collected, 148 participants participated in a survey about the acceptability of the collection, packing and shipping process, and their confidence in the samples collected for COVID-related laboratory testing. RESULTS: A large majority of participants (>84%) reported that collecting, packing and shipping of saliva, OPS, and DBS specimens were acceptable. Nearly nine in 10 (87%) reported being confident or very confident that the specimens they collected were sufficient for laboratory analysis.There were no differences in acceptability for any specimen type, packing and shipping, or confidence in samples, by gender, age, race/ethnicity, or educational level. CONCLUSIONS: Self-collection of specimens for SARS-CoV-2 testing, and preparing and shipping specimens for analysis, were acceptable in a diverse group of US adults. Further refinement of materials and instructions to support self-collection of saliva, OPS and DBS specimens for COVID-related testing is needed.

Suitability and Sufficiency of Telehealth Clinician-Observed, Participant-Collected Samples for SARS-CoV-2 Testing: The iCollect Cohort Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic calls for expanded opportunities for testing, including novel testing strategies such as home-collected specimens. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand whether oropharyngeal swab (OPS), saliva, and dried blood spot (DBS) specimens collected by participants at home and mailed to a laboratory were sufficient for use in diagnostic and serology tests of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Eligible participants consented online and were mailed a participant-collection kit to support collection of three specimens for SARS-CoV-2 testing: saliva, OPS, and DBS. Participants performed the specimen collection procedures during a telehealth video appointment while clinical observers watched and documented the suitability of the collection. The biological sufficiency of the specimens for detection of SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction and serology testing was assessed by laboratorians using visual inspection and quantification of the nucleic acid contents of the samples by ribonuclease P (RNase P) measurements. RESULTS: Of the enrolled participants,153/159 (96.2%) returned their kits, which were included in this analysis. All these participants attended their video appointments. Clinical observers assessed that of the samples collected, 147/153 (96.1%) of the saliva samples, 146/151 (96.7%) of the oropharyngeal samples, and 135/145 (93.1%) of the DBS samples were of sufficient quality for submission for laboratory testing; 100% of the OPS samples and 98% of the saliva samples had cycle threshold values for RNase P <30, indicating that the samples contained sufficient nucleic acid for RNA-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: These pilot data indicate that most participant-collected OPS, saliva, and DBS specimens are suitable and sufficient for testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and serology. Clinical observers rated the collection of specimens as suitable for testing, and visual and quantitative laboratory assessment indicated that the specimens were biologically sufficient. These data support the utility of participant-collected and mailed-in specimens for SARS-CoV-2 testing. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/19054.

Performance evaluation of the Aptima HIV-1 RNA Quant assay on the Panther system using the standard and dilution protocols.

BACKGROUND: Currently, FDA-approved HIV-1 viral load (VL) assays use venipuncture-derived plasma. The Hologic Panther system uses 0.7 mL total volume for the Aptima HIV-1 Quant Assay standard (APT-Quant-std) and dilution (APT-Quant-dil) protocols. However, smaller plasma volumes from fingerstick whole blood (FSB) collected in EDTA-microtainer tubes (MCT) could provide an easier sample collection method for HIV-1 VL testing. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of the APT-Quant-std compared to the Roche CAP/CTM and Abbott m2000RT VL assays and an alternative APTQuant 1:7 dilution protocol, the latter using 100 µL of MCT-derived plasma from FSB. STUDY DESIGN: Linearity was determined using commercial HIV-1 RNA plasma controls. Dilutions ranging 1.56-2.95 log10 copies/mL were prepared to determine the APT-Quant-dil Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) using Probit analysis. Specificity of APT-Quant-std was calculated using 326 HIVnegative samples. To evaluate agreement, 329 plasma specimens were tested with APT-Quant-std, CAP/CTM, and m2000RT. Forty-seven matched venipuncture and MCT-derived plasma specimens were tested with APT-Quant-std and APT-Quant-dil. RESULTS: Among the RNA controls, specificity was 99.69 % for APT-Quant-std. The R2 values were 0.988 (APT-Quant-std/CAP/CTM), 0.980 (APT-Quant-std/ m2000RT), and 0.997 (APT-Quant-std/APT-Quant-dil). The APT-Quant-dil LOQ was estimated at 2.7 log10 copies/mL (500 copies/mL) (95 %CI 2.62-2.87). At 2.3 log10 copies/mL (200 copies/mL), the overall agreement was 91.0 % for APT-Quant-std/CAP/CTM, 85.7 % for APT-Quant-std/m2000RT, and 82.9 % for APT-Quant-std/APT-Quant-dil. Quantified APT-Quant-std results were on average 0.2 log10 copies/mL higher than CAP/CTM and m2000RT and 0.14 log10 copies/mL higher than APT-Quant-dil. CONCLUSION: APT-Quant showed similar performance compared to the CAP/CTM and m2000RT assays and remains sensitive and accurate using the dilution protocol.

At-home self-collection of saliva, oropharyngeal swabs and dried blood spots for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and serology: post-collection acceptability of specimen collection process and patient confidence in specimens.

BACKGROUND: Options to increase the ease of testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune response are needed. Self-collection of diagnostic specimens at home offers an avenue to allow people to test for SARS-CoV-2 infection or immune response without traveling to a clinic or laboratory. Before this study, survey respondents indicated willingness to self-collect specimens for COVID-related tests, but hypothetical willingness can differ from post-collection acceptability after participants collect specimens. METHODS: 153 US adults were enrolled in a study of the willingness and feasibility of patients to self-collect three diagnostic specimens (saliva, oropharyngeal swab (OPS) and dried blood spot (DBS) card) while observed by a clinician through a telehealth session. After the specimens were collected, 148 participants participated in a survey about the acceptability of the collection, packing and shipping process, and their confidence in the samples collected for COVID-related laboratory testing. RESULTS: A large majority of participants (>84%) reported that collecting, packing and shipping of saliva, OPS, and DBS specimens were acceptable. Nearly nine in 10 (87%) reported being confident or very confident that the specimens they collected were sufficient for laboratory analysis. There were no differences in acceptability for any specimen type, packing and shipping, or confidence in samples by gender, age, race/ethnicity, or educational level. CONCLUSIONS: Self-collection of specimens for SARS-CoV-2 testing and preparing and shipping specimens for analysis were acceptable in a diverse group of US adults. Further refinement of materials and instructions to support self-collection of saliva, OPS and DBS specimens for COVID-related testing is needed.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and Antibodies in Diverse Samples: Protocol to Validate the Sufficiency of Provider-Observed, Home-Collected Blood, Saliva, and Oropharyngeal Samples.

BACKGROUND: The response in the United States to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has been hampered by a lack of aggressive testing for the infection. Testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cornerstone of an effective public health response. However, efforts to test have been hampered by limited reagents, limitations in the availability of swabs used for the collection of nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens, limitations in personal protective equipment (PPE) for health care providers collecting the NPS specimens, and limitations in viral transport media for transporting the specimens. Therefore, more flexible options for screening for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and serologic responses are critical to inform clinical and public health responses. OBJECTIVE: We aim to document the ability of patients to self-collect sufficient specimens for SARS-CoV-2 viral detection and serology. METHODS: Patient self-collection of samples will be done with observation by a health care provider during a telemedicine session. Participants will be mailed a specimen collection kit, engage in a telehealth session with a provider through a HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996)-compliant video meeting, and collect specimens while being observed by the provider. Providers will record whether they are confident in the suitability of the specimen for laboratory testing that would inform clinical decision making. We will objectively assess the sufficiency of biological material in the mailed-in specimens. RESULTS: The protocol was approved by the Emory University Institutional Review Board (IRB) on March 30, 2020 (Protocol number 371). To date, we have enrolled 159 participants. CONCLUSIONS: Defining a conceptual framework for assessing the sufficiency of patient-collected samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and serologic responses to infection is critical for facilitating public health responses and providing PPE-sparing options to increase testing. Validation of alternative methods of specimen collection should include objective measures of the sufficiency of specimens for testing. A strong evidence base for diversifying testing modalities will improve tools to guide public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.