HIV and Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Persons with Monkeypox - Eight U.S. Jurisdictions, May 17-July 22, 2022.

High prevalences of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) have been reported in the current global monkeypox outbreak, which has affected primarily gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) (1-5). In previous monkeypox outbreaks in Nigeria, concurrent HIV infection was associated with poor monkeypox clinical outcomes (6,7). Monkeypox, HIV, and STI surveillance data from eight U.S. jurisdictions* were matched and analyzed to examine HIV and STI diagnoses among persons with monkeypox and assess differences in monkeypox clinical features according to HIV infection status. Among 1,969 persons with monkeypox during May 17-July 22, 2022, HIV prevalence was 38%, and 41% had received a diagnosis of one or more other reportable STIs in the preceding year. Among persons with monkeypox and diagnosed HIV infection, 94% had received HIV care in the preceding year, and 82% had an HIV viral load of <200 copies/mL, indicating HIV viral suppression. Compared with persons without HIV infection, a higher proportion of persons with HIV infection were hospitalized (8% versus 3%). Persons with HIV infection or STIs are disproportionately represented among persons with monkeypox. It is important that public health officials leverage systems for delivering HIV and STI care and prevention to reduce monkeypox incidence in this population. Consideration should be given to prioritizing persons with HIV infection and STIs for vaccination against monkeypox. HIV and STI screening and other recommended preventive care should be routinely offered to persons evaluated for monkeypox, with linkage to HIV care or HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as appropriate.

Longitudinal outcomes of HIV- infected persons re-engaged in care using a community-based re-engagement approach.

Re-engaging people living with HIV (PLWH) who are out of care (OOC) is of utmost importance to ending the HIV epidemic in the U.S. We used DC Department of Health (DCDOH) HIV surveillance data to determine whether re-engaging PLWH results in improved long-term clinical outcomes. PLWH identified as OOC for 6-12 months at both the clinic-level and using DCDOH data were targeted for re-engagement efforts through Recapture Blitz (RB). Uni- and bivariate analyses were conducted comparing engagement in care (EIC), CD4 counts, and viral suppression (VS) at 6, 12, and 18-months post-re-engagement between persons re-engaged through RB and those not re-engaged via RB. Of the 569 PLWH contacted; 57 were re-engaged through RB, 46 were not but may have reengaged on their own. Compared to those not re-engaged via RB, at 18-months of follow-up, more PLWH re-engaged through RB were EIC (71.9% vs. 56.5%) and VS (52.6% vs. 30.4%). Higher proportions of PLWH re-engaged through RB were virally suppressed at 6, 12, and 18-months (p = 0.0238, p = 0.0347, p = 0.0238, respectively). Combining surveillance and clinical data to identify persons OOC allowed for successful re-engagement and improved longer-term outcomes post-re-engagement, underscoring the importance of re-engagement efforts to improve rates of retention and viral suppression.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors Related to Hepatitis C Screening and Treatment among Health Care Providers in Washington, DC.

Elimination of chronic hepatitis C (HCV) will require scaling up treatment, including possible HCV treatment by primary care providers. The District of Columbia (DC) has a substantial population living with untreated hepatitis C, and treatment expansion would benefit the resident population. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of primary care providers and specialists related to hepatitis C screening and treatment. We conducted a prospective, online survey of physicians and nurse practitioners (n = 153) in DC on their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to hepatitis C screening and treatment, as well as referral patterns, interest in learning, and preferred learning modalities. We compared responses by provider type. Key findings indicated that HCV screening and treatment knowledge was higher among specialty physicians as compared to primary care providers. The most common reported facilitators of HCV screening included a prompt in the electronic medical record (63%), patient education (57%), and support staff (41%). While 71% reported that HCV treatment was important in the community they serve, only 26% indicated that access to HCV specialist expertise and consultation was a major area of need. Additionally, 59% reported that they refer all HCV patients to specialists for treatment. Primary care providers in DC had moderate interest in learning how to treat chronic hepatitis C, but they need additional training. Patients are typically referred to gastroenterology, infectious diseases, and hepatology specialists who may have limited capacity to expand treatment.

Characterization of HIV Risk Behaviors and Clusters Using HIV-Transmission Cluster Engine Among a Cohort of Persons Living with HIV in Washington, DC.

Molecular epidemiology (ME) is one tool used to end the HIV epidemic in the United States. We combined clinical and behavioral data with HIV sequence data to identify any overlap in clusters generated from different sequence datasets; to characterize HIV transmission clusters; and to identify correlates of clustering among people living with HIV (PLWH) in Washington, District of Columbia (DC). First, Sanger sequences from DC Cohort participants, a longitudinal HIV study, were combined with next-generation sequences (NGS) from participants in a ME substudy to identify clusters. Next, demographic and self-reported behavioral data from ME substudy participants were used to identify risks of secondary transmission. Finally, we combined NGS from ME substudy participants with Sanger sequences in the DC Molecular HIV Surveillance database to identify clusters. Cluster analyses used HIV-Transmission Cluster Engine to identify linked pairs of sequences (defined as distance ≤1.5%). Twenty-eight clusters of ≥3 sequences (size range: 3-12) representing 108 (3%) participants were identified. None of the five largest clusters (size range: 5-12) included newly diagnosed PLWH. Thirty-four percent of ME substudy participants (n = 213) reported condomless sex during their last sexual encounter and 14% reported a Syphilis diagnosis in the past year. Seven transmission clusters (size range: 2-19) were identified in the final analysis, each containing at least one ME substudy participant. Substudy participants in clusters from the third analysis were present in clusters from the first analysis. Combining HIV sequence, clinical and behavioral data provided insights into HIV transmission that may not be identified using traditional epidemiological methods alone. Specifically, the sexual risk behaviors and STI diagnoses reported in the substudy survey may not have been disclosed during Partner Services activities and the survey data complemented clinical data to fully characterize transmission clusters. These findings can be used to enhance local efforts to interrupt transmission and avert new infections.

Sorting through the lost and found: are patient perceptions of engagement in care consistent with standard continuum of care measures?

BACKGROUND: Indicators for determining one's status on the HIV care continuum are often measured using clinical and surveillance data but do not typically assess patient perspectives. We assessed patient-reported care status along the care continuum and whether it differed from medical records and surveillance data. METHODS: Between June 2013 and October 2014, a convenience sample of clinic-attending HIV-infected persons was surveyed regarding care-seeking behaviors and self-perceived status along the care continuum. Participant responses were matched to DC Department of Health surveillance data and clinic records. Participants' care patterns were classified using Health Resources Services Administration-defined care status: in care (IC), sporadic care (SC), or out of care (OOC). Semistructured qualitative interviews were analyzed using an open coding process to elucidate relevant themes regarding participants' perceptions of engagement in care. RESULTS: Of 169 participants, most were male participants (64%) and black (72%), with a mean age of 50.7 years. Using self-reported visit patterns, 115 participants (68%) were consistent with being IC, 33 (20%) SC, and 21 (12%) OOC. Among OOC participants, 52% perceived themselves to be fully engaged in HIV care. In the previous year, among OOC participants, 71% reported having a non-HIV-related medical visit and 90% reported current antiretroviral use. Qualitatively, most SC and OOC persons did not see their HIV providers regularly because they felt healthy. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' perceptions of HIV care engagement differed from actual care receipt as measured by surveillance and clinical records. Measures of care engagement may need to be reconsidered as persons not receiving regular HIV care maybe accessing other health care and HIV medications elsewhere.