Early Detection of Cancer and Precancerous Lesions in Persons with HIV through a Comprehensive Cancer Screening Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Non-AIDS defining malignancies present a growing challenge for persons with HIV (PWH), yet tailored interventions for timely cancer diagnosis are lacking. The Spanish IMPAC-Neo protocol was designed to compare two comprehensive cancer screening strategies integrated into routine HIV care. This study reports baseline data on the prevalence and types of precancerous lesions and early-stage cancer among participants at enrolment. Acceptability of the procedure was additionally assessed. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of a comprehensive screening protocol to detect precancer and cancer. The readiness of healthcare providers to implement the protocol was evaluated using a validated 4-item survey. RESULTS: Among the 1430 enrolled PWH, 1172 underwent 3181 screening tests, with positive findings in 29.4% of cases, leading to further investigation in 20.7%. Adherence to the protocol was 84%, with HIV providers expressing high acceptability (97.1%), appropriateness (91.4%), and feasibility (77.1%). A total of 145 lesions were identified in 109 participants, including 60 precancerous lesions in 35 patients (3.0%), 9 early-stage cancers in 9 patients (0.8%), and 76 low-risk lesions in 65 subjects (5.5%). Adverse events related to screening occurred in 0.8% of participants, all mild. The overall prevalence of cancer precursors or early-stage cancer was 3.8% (95% CI, 2.74%-5.01%), with highest rates observed in individuals screened for anal and colorectal cancers. CONCLUSIONS: The baseline comprehensive cancer screening protocol of the IMPAC-Neo study successfully identified a significant proportion of PWH with precancerous lesions and early-stage cancer. High adherence rates and positive feedback from providers suggest effective implementation potential in real-world healthcare settings.

Long-term evolution in liver fibrosis and immune profile after direct-acting antivirals therapy in hepatitis C virus-human immunodeficiency virus co-infected patients.

OBJECTIVE: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy with direct-acting antivirals (DAA) achieves high rates of sustained virological response in people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PLWH). Information on its long-term clinical impact is scarce. The aim of this study was to analyse liver fibrosis and immune response evolution after DAA treatment. METHODS: Retrospective, single centre cohort study of HIV-HCV co-infected patients treated with DAA between June 2013 and June 2018. We analysed the changes during follow up in liver fibrosis (assessed by transient elastography (TE), aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (APRI) and FIB-4 scores) and immunity (CD4 and CD8 cells counts and CD4/CD8 ratio). RESULTS: We included 410 patients; 75% (308/407) men with a mean age of 50 years (SD 8); 78% (318/410) had long chronic HCV infection (median 21 years, interquartile range (IQR) 6-27 years) and 27% (107/393) had liver cirrhosis. Liver fibrosis improvement based on the decrease in TE value compared with the baseline occurred in 43% (131/302) of patients and 31% of patients based on biological scores (APRI: 124/398; FIB-4: 104/398) (p < 0.0001), being more frequent in those with advanced baseline fibrosis (83/144). The higher decrease was observed at 6 months after DAA therapy (-0.23; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.18), but a continuum in fibrosis regression of at least 30% from baseline value of TE was observed along the follow up (32% of patients at month 6, 51% at month 24 and 55% at month 48). Regarding the immunological profile, there was a significant decrease in CD8 counts at month 48 (-62.38; 95% CI -106.77 to -17.99; p 0.0001) and a progressive rise in the CD4/CD8 ratio after 24 months of follow up reaching an increment of +0.07 (95% CI 0.03-0.10, p 0.0001) at month 48. CONCLUSIONS: HCV treatment with DAA in PLWH is associated with significant progressive improvement in liver fibrosis and recovery of the immune system with an increase in the CD4/CD8 ratio in long-term follow up.

A randomized clinical trial comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus raltegravir each with tenofovir plus emtricitabine for post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) non-completion at day 28, comparing two regimens. METHODS: A prospective, open, randomized clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Individuals attending the emergency room because of potential sexual exposure to HIV were randomized to tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (245/200 mg) plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (400/100 mg) or raltegravir (400 mg). The primary endpoint was PEP non-completion at day 28. Secondary endpoints were adherence, adverse events and rate of seroconversions. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01576731. RESULTS: One-hundred-and-twenty-one individuals were randomized to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and 122 to raltegravir (n = 243). PEP non-completion at day 28 was 43% with no significant difference between arms. We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended on day 1 (n = 191). PEP non-completion in this subgroup was higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm than in the raltegravir arm (34.6% versus 20.4%, P = 0.04), as was the number of patients lost to follow-up at day 28 (32.6% versus 21.6%, P = 0.08) and the proportion of patients with low adherence (49.2% versus 30.8%, P = 0.03). Adverse events were significantly more common in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (73.4% versus 60.2%, P = 0.007). There was an HIV seroconversion at day 90 in the raltegravir arm in a patient who had multiple potential sexual risk exposures before and after receiving PEP. CONCLUSIONS: Although we found no differences between arms regarding PEP non-completion, poor adherence and adverse events were significantly higher in patients allocated to tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine plus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. These data support the use of raltegravir as the preferred third drug in current PEP recommendations.

A randomized clinical trial comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus maraviroc each with tenofovir plus emtricitabine for post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) non-completion at day 28, comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus maraviroc, both with tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine as the backbone. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, open, randomized clinical trial. Individuals attending the emergency room because of potential sexual exposure to HIV and who met criteria for receiving PEP were randomized to one of two groups: tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (245/200 mg) once daily plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (400/100 mg) or maraviroc (300 mg) twice daily. Five follow-up visits were scheduled for days 1, 10, 28, 90 and 180. The primary endpoint was PEP non-completion at day 28. Secondary endpoints were adherence, adverse events and rate of seroconversions. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01533272. RESULTS: One-hundred-and-seventeen individuals were randomized to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and 120 to maraviroc (n = 237). PEP non-completion at day 28 was 38% (n = 89), with significant differences between arms [ritonavir-boosted lopinavir 44% (n = 51) versus maraviroc 32% (n = 38), P = 0.05]. We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended on day 1 (n = 182). PEP non-completion in this subgroup was also significantly higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (27% versus 13%, P = 0.004). The proportion of patients with low adherence was similar between arms (52% versus 47%, P = 0.56). Adverse events were reported by 111 patients and were significantly more common in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (72% versus 51%, P = 0.003). No seroconversions were observed during the study. CONCLUSIONS: PEP non-completion and adverse events were both significantly higher in patients allocated to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. These data suggest that maraviroc is a well-tolerated antiretroviral that can be used in this setting.