Who is lost to follow-up in HIV care? Assessment of care retention over time and the impact of COVID-19. Longitudinal analysis of the PISCIS cohort.

INTRODUCTION: People living with HIV who are lost to follow-up have a greater risk of health deterioration, mortality, and community transmission. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to analyse both how rates of loss to follow-up (LTFU) changed between 2006 and 2020 and how the COVID-19 pandemic affected these rates in the PISCIS cohort study of Catalonia and the Balearic Islands. METHODS: We analysed socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of LTFU yearly and with adjusted odds ratios to assess the impact of these determinants on LTFU in 2020 (the year of COVID-19). We used latent class analysis to categorize classes of LTFU based on their socio-demographic and clinical characteristics at each year. RESULTS: In total, 16.7% of the cohort were lost to follow-up at any time in the 15 years (n = 19 417). Of people living with HIV who were receiving follow-up, 81.5% were male and 19.5% were female; of those who were lost to follow-up, 79.6% and 20.4% were male and female, respectively (p < 0.001). Although rates of LTFU increased during COVID-19 (1.11% vs. 0.86%, p = 0.024), socio-demographic and clinical factors were similar. Eight classes of people living with HIV who were lost to follow-up were identified: six for men and two for women. Classes of men (n = 3) differed in terms of their country of birth, viral load (VL), and antiretroviral therapy (ART); classes of people who inject drugs (n = 2) differed in terms of VL, AIDS diagnosis, and ART. Changes in rates of LTFU included higher CD4 cell count and undetectable VL. CONCLUSIONS: The socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of people living with HIV changed over time. Although the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic increased the rates of LTFU, the characteristics of these people were similar. Epidemiological trends among people who were lost to follow-up can be used to prevent new losses of care and to reduce barriers to achieve Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS 95-95-95 targets.

Comparison of Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Influenza Patients Requiring Supplemental Oxygen in a Cohort Study: Clinical Impact and Resource Consumption.

BACKGROUND: To compare clinical characteristics, outcomes, and resource consumption of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and seasonal influenza requiring supplemental oxygen. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study conducted at a tertiary-care hospital. Patients admitted because of seasonal influenza between 2017 and 2019, or with COVID-19 between March and May 2020 requiring supplemental oxygen were compared. Primary outcome: 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes: 90-day mortality and hospitalization costs. Attempted sample size to detect an 11% difference in mortality was 187 patients per group. RESULTS: COVID-19 cases were younger (median years of age, 67; interquartile range [IQR] 54-78 vs 76 [IQR 64-83]; P < .001) and more frequently overweight, whereas influenza cases had more hypertension, immunosuppression, and chronic heart, respiratory, and renal disease. Compared with influenza, COVID-19 cases had more pneumonia (98% vs 60%, <.001), higher Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and CURB-65 (confusion, blood urea nitrogen, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, and age >65 years) scores and were more likely to show worse progression on the World Health Organization ordinal scale (33% vs 4%; P < .001). The 30-day mortality rate was higher for COVID-19 than for influenza: 15% vs 5% (P = .001). The median age of nonsurviving cases was 81 (IQR 74-88) and 77.5 (IQR 65-84) (P = .385), respectively. COVID-19 was independently associated with 30-day (hazard ratio [HR], 4.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2-10.4) and 90-day (HR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.4-11.4) mortality. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a subgroup considering only patients with pneumonia, did not show different trends. Regarding resource consumption, COVID-19 patients had longer hospital stays and higher critical care, pharmacy, and complementary test costs. CONCLUSIONS: Although influenza patients were older and had more comorbidities, COVID-19 cases requiring supplemental oxygen on admission had worse clinical and economic outcomes.

"It made me more confident that I have it under control": Patient and provider perspectives on moving to a two-drug ART regimen in the United States and Spain.

BACKGROUND: Two-drug regimens (2DR) to treat HIV infection have the potential to reduce long-term toxicity and increase therapeutic options for people living with HIV (PLHIV). Prior phase III trials, SWORD-1 and SWORD-2, as well as GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2, have demonstrated that a dolutegravir-based 2DR is as effective as three- or four-drug regimens among virologically suppressed patients. Limited information exists, however, on patient and provider experiences with 2DR to inform roll-out and integration into routine clinical care. METHODS: We conducted 39 in-depth interviews with PLHIV currently on 2DR in the context of routine care and 8 of their clinical care providers in the United States (U.S.) and Spain. Participants included 33 male and 6 female PLHIV and 8 providers. Interview topics explored perceptions of and experiences with 2DR compared to prior anti-retroviral regimens (ARVs), side effects, patient satisfaction, and clinical performance. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Participants viewed 2DR as a significant and positive advance, in terms of its ability to effectively treat HIV with reduced toxicity and essentially no reported side effects. Patients noted the central role providers played in the decision to switch to a 2DR regimen and, among U.S. participants, the importance of insurance coverage making this preferred option feasible. Patients and providers agreed that a 2DR regimen would be appropriate for any PLHIV regardless of whether they were treatment naïve or had significant experience with ARVs. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' experiences with a 2DR regimen were positive with no participants, reporting side effects and all reporting continued viral suppression. Providers valued the reduced toxicity offered by 2DR and served as the primary gateway to a transition to 2DR for patients in both settings. This study provides a foundation for further research on the transition to 2DR regimens in other populations and contexts including low- and middle-income settings.

Analysis of the costs and cost-effectiveness of the guidelines recommended by the 2018 GESIDA/Spanish National AIDS Plan for initial antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults.

BACKGROUND: The GESIDA/National AIDS Plan expert panel recommended preferred regimens (PR), alternative regimens (AR) and other regimens (OR) for antiretroviral treatment (ART) as initial therapy in HIV-infected patients for 2018. The objective of this study was to evaluate the costs and the efficiency of initiating treatment with PR and AR. METHODS: Economic assessment of costs and efficiency (cost-effectiveness) based on decision tree analyses. Effectiveness was defined as the probability of reporting a viral load <50copies/mL at week 48, in an intention-to-treat analysis. Cost of initiating treatment with an ART regimen was defined as the costs of ART and its consequences (adverse effects, changes of ART regimen, and drug-resistance studies) over the first 48 weeks. The payer perspective (National Health System) was applied considering only differential direct costs: ART (official prices), management of adverse effects, studies of resistance, and HLA B*5701 testing. The setting was Spain and the costs correspond to those of 2018. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted, building three scenarios for each regimen: base case, most favourable and least favourable. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, the cost of initiating treatment ranges from 6788 euros for TAF/FTC/RPV (AR) to 10,649 euros for TAF/FTC+RAL (PR). The effectiveness varies from 0.82 for TAF/FTC+DRV/r (AR) to 0.91 for TAF/FTC+DTG (PR). The efficiency, in terms of cost-effectiveness, ranges from 7814 to 12,412 euros per responder at 48 weeks, for ABC/3TC/DTG (PR) and TAF/FTC+RAL (PR), respectively. CONCLUSION: Considering ART official prices, the most efficient regimen was ABC/3TC/DTG (PR), followed by TAF/FTC/RPV (AR) and TAF/FTC/EVG/COBI (AR).

Dual Therapy With Darunavir and Ritonavir Plus Lamivudine vs Triple Therapy With Darunavir and Ritonavir Plus Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and Emtricitabine or Abacavir and Lamivudine for Maintenance of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Viral Suppression: Randomized, Open-Label, Noninferiority DUAL-GESIDA 8014-RIS-EST45 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to assess the therapeutic noninferiority of dual therapy with darunavir/ritonavir and lamivudine compared to triple therapy with darunavir/ritonavir plus 2 nucleos(t)ides for maintenance of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) suppression. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial (margin 12%). Patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL for 6 months or longer on triple therapy with darunavir/ritonavir and 2 nucleos(t)ides (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine or abacavir and lamivudine) and with no resistance were randomized to continue therapy (n = 128) or switch to darunavir/ritonavir and lamivudine (n = 129). The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL after 48 weeks of follow-up according to the snapshot algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 249 participants received study drugs (intention-to-treat exposed). The proportion of participants with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL in the dual- and triple-therapy arms was 88.9% (112/126) and 92.7% (114/123; difference, -3.8%; 95% confidence interval, -11.0 to 3.4), respectively. Four participants in the dual-therapy arm and 2 in the triple-therapy arm developed protocol-defined virological failure. Switching to dual therapy was associated with a significant increase in total, low-density lipoprotein, and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, but not in the total-to-HDL cholesterol ratio. Serious adverse events and study drug discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 4.8% vs 4.9%P = .97) and in 0.8% (1/126) vs 1.6% P = .55) in dual therapy vs triple therapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Dual therapy with darunavir/ritonavir and lamivudine demonstrated noninferior therapeutic efficacy and similar tolerability compared to triple therapy. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02159599.

Costs and cost-efficacy analysis of the 2016 GESIDA/Spanish AIDS National Plan recommended guidelines for initial antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults.

INTRODUCTION: GESIDA and the AIDS National Plan panel of experts suggest preferred (PR), alternative (AR), and other regimens (OR) for antiretroviral treatment (ART) as initial therapy in HIV-infected patients for the year 2016. The objective of this study is to evaluate the costs and the efficacy of initiating treatment with these regimens. METHODS: Economic assessment of costs and efficiency (cost/efficacy) based on decision tree analyses. Efficacy was defined as the probability of reporting a viral load <50copies/mL at week 48 in an intention-to-treat analysis. Cost of initiating treatment with an ART regimen was defined as the costs of ART and its consequences (adverse effects, changes of ART regimen, and drug resistance studies) during the first 48 weeks. The payer perspective (National Health System) was applied, only taking into account differential direct costs: ART (official prices), management of adverse effects, studies of resistance, and HLA B*5701 testing. The setting is Spain and the costs correspond to those of 2016. A sensitivity deterministic analysis was conducted, building three scenarios for each regimen: base case, most favourable, and least favourable. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, the cost of initiating treatment ranges from 4663 Euros for 3TC+LPV/r (OR) to 10,894 Euros for TDF/FTC+RAL (PR). The efficacy varies from 0.66 for ABC/3TC+ATV/r (AR) and ABC/3TC+LPV/r (OR), to 0.89 for TDF/FTC+DTG (PR) and TDF/FTC/EVG/COBI (AR). The efficiency, in terms of cost/efficacy, ranges from 5280 to 12,836 Euros per responder at 48 weeks, for 3TC+LPV/r (OR), and RAL+DRV/r (OR), respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite the overall most efficient regimen being 3TC+LPV/r (OR), among the PR and AR, the most efficient regimen was ABC/3TC/DTG (PR). Among the AR regimes, the most efficient was TDF/FTC/RPV.

[Economic impact of nosocomial bacteraemia. A comparison of three calculation methods]. / Impacto económico de las bacteriemias nosocomiales. Comparación de tres metodologías de cálculo.

INTRODUCTION: The excess cost associated with nosocomial bacteraemia (NB) is used as a measurement of the impact of these infections. However, some authors have suggested that traditional methods overestimate the incremental cost due to the presence of various types of bias. The aim of this study was to compare three assessment methods of NB incremental cost to correct biases in previous analyses. METHODS: Patients who experienced an episode of NB between 2005 and 2007 were compared with patients grouped within the same All Patient Refined-Diagnosis-Related Group (APR-DRG) without NB. The causative organisms were grouped according to the Gram stain, and whether bacteraemia was caused by a single or multiple microorganisms, or by a fungus. Three assessment methods are compared: stratification by disease; econometric multivariate adjustment using a generalised linear model (GLM); and propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to control for biases in the econometric model. RESULTS: The analysis included 640 admissions with NB and 28,459 without NB. The observed mean cost was €24,515 for admissions with NB and €4,851.6 for controls (without NB). Mean incremental cost was estimated at €14,735 in stratified analysis. Gram positive microorganism had the lowest mean incremental cost, €10,051. In the GLM, mean incremental cost was estimated as €20,922, and adjusting with PSM, the mean incremental cost was €11,916. The three estimates showed important differences between groups of microorganisms. CONCLUSIONS: Using enhanced methodologies improves the adjustment in this type of study and increases the value of the results.

Costs and cost-effectiveness analysis of 2015 GESIDA/Spanish AIDS National Plan recommended guidelines for initial antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults.

INTRODUCTION: GESIDA and the AIDS National Plan panel of experts suggest a preferred (PR), alternative (AR) and other regimens (OR) for antiretroviral treatment (ART) as initial therapy in HIV-infected patients for 2015. The objective of this study is to evaluate the costs and the effectiveness of initiating treatment with these regimens. METHODS: Economic assessment of costs and effectiveness (cost/effectiveness) based on decision tree analyses. Effectiveness was defined as the probability of reporting a viral load <50 copies/mL at week 48, in an intention-to-treat analysis. Cost of initiating treatment with an ART regimen was defined as the costs of ART and its consequences (adverse effects, changes of ART regimen, and drug resistance studies) during the first 48 weeks. The payer perspective (National Health System) was applied, only taking into account differential direct costs: ART (official prices), management of adverse effects, studies of resistance, and HLA B*5701 testing. The setting is Spain and the costs correspond to those of 2015. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted, building three scenarios for each regimen: base case, most favourable and least favourable. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, the cost of initiating treatment ranges from 4663 Euros for 3TC+LPV/r (OR) to 10,902 Euros for TDF/FTC+RAL (PR). The effectiveness varies from 0.66 for ABC/3TC+ATV/r (AR) and ABC/3TC+LPV/r (OR), to 0.89 for TDF/FTC+DTG (PR) and TDF/FTC/EVG/COBI (AR). The efficiency, in terms of cost/effectiveness, ranges from 5280 to 12,836 Euros per responder at 48 weeks, for 3TC+LPV/r (OR) and RAL+DRV/r (OR), respectively. CONCLUSION: The most efficient regimen was 3TC+LPV/r (OR). Among the PR and AR, the most efficient regimen was TDF/FTC/RPV (AR). Among the PR regimes, the most efficient was ABC/3TC+DTG.

Costs and cost-efficacy analysis of the 2014 GESIDA/Spanish National AIDS Plan recommended guidelines for initial antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults.

INTRODUCTION: GESIDA and the National AIDS Plan panel of experts suggest preferred (PR) and alternative (AR) regimens of antiretroviral treatment (ART) as initial therapy in HIV-infected patients for 2014. The objective of this study is to evaluate the costs and the efficiency of initiating treatment with these regimens. METHODS: An economic assessment was made of costs and efficiency (cost/efficacy) based on decision tree analyses. Efficacy was defined as the probability of reporting a viral load <50 copies/mL at week 48, in an intention-to-treat analysis. Cost of initiating treatment with an ART regimen was defined as the costs of ART and its consequences (adverse effects, changes of ART regimen, and drug resistance studies) during the first 48 weeks. The payer perspective (National Health System) was applied by considering only differential direct costs: ART (official prices), management of adverse effects, studies of resistance, and HLA B*5701 testing. The setting is Spain and costs correspond to those of 2014. A sensitivity deterministic analysis was conducted, building three scenarios for each regimen: base case, most favourable and least favourable. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, the cost of initiating treatment ranges from 5133 Euros for ABC/3TC+EFV to 11,949 Euros for TDF/FTC+RAL. The efficacy varies between 0.66 for ABC/3TC+LPV/r and ABC/3TC+ATV/r, and 0.89 for TDF/FTC/EVG/COBI. Efficiency, in terms of cost/efficacy, ranges from 7546 to 13,802 Euros per responder at 48 weeks, for ABC/3TC+EFV and TDF/FTC+RAL respectively. CONCLUSION: Considering ART official prices, the most efficient regimen was ABC/3TC+EFV (AR), followed by the non-nucleoside containing PR (TDF/FTC/RPV and TDF/FTC/EFV). The sensitivity analysis confirms the robustness of these findings.

[Analysis of costs and cost-effectiveness of preferred GESIDA/National AIDS Plan regimens for initial antiretroviral therapy in human immunodeficiency virus infected adult patients in 2013]. / Análisis de costes y de coste/eficacia de las pautas preferentes de GESIDA/Plan Nacional sobre el Sida en 2013 para el tratamiento antirretroviral inicial en adultos infectados por el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana.

INTRODUCTION: The GESIDA and National AIDS Plan panel of experts have proposed "preferred regimens" of antiretroviral treatment (ART) as initial therapy in HIV infected patients for 2013. The objective of this study is to evaluate the costs and effectiveness of initiating treatment with these "preferred regimens". METHODS: An economic assessment of costs and effectiveness (cost/effectiveness) was performed using decision tree analysis models. Effectiveness was defined as the probability of having viral load <50copies/mL at week48, in an intention-to-treat analysis. Cost of initiating treatment with an ART regime was defined as the costs of ART and its consequences (adverse effects, changes of ART regime and drug resistance analyses) during the first 48weeks. The perspective of the analysis is that of the National Health System was applied, only taking into account differential direct costs: ART (official prices), management of adverse effects, resistance studies, and determination of HLA B*5701. The setting is Spain and the costs are those of 2013. A sensitivity deterministic analysis was performed, constructing three scenarios for each regimen: baseline, most favourable, and most unfavourable cases. RESULTS: In the baseline case scenario, the cost of initiating treatment ranges from 6,747euros for TDF/FTC+NVP to 12,059euros for TDF/FTC+RAL. The effectiveness ranges between 0.66 for ABC/3TC+LPV/r and ABC/3TC+ATV/r, and 0.87 for TDF/FTC+RAL and ABC/3TC+RAL. Effectiveness, in terms of cost/effectiveness, varies between 8,396euros and 13,930euros per responder at 48weeks, for TDF/FTC/RPV and TDF/FTC+RAL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Taking ART at official prices, the most effective regimen was TDF/FTC/RPV, followed by the rest of non-nucleoside containing regimens. The sensitivity analysis confirms the robustness of these findings.

[Costs and cost-efficacy analysis of the preferred treatments by GESIDA/National Plan for AIDS for the initial antiretroviral therapy in adult human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected patients in 2012]. / Análisis de costes y de coste/eficacia de las pautas preferentes de GESIDA/Plan Nacional sobre el Sida en 2012 para el tratamiento antirretroviral inicial en adultos infectados por el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH).

INTRODUCTION: The GESIDA and National AIDS Plan panel of experts propose «preferred regimens¼ of antiretroviral treatment (ART) as initial therapy in HIV infected patients for 2012. The objective of this study is to evaluate the costs and the efficiency of initiating treatment with these «preferred regimens¼. METHODS: Economic assessment of costs and efficiency (cost/efficacy) using decision tree analysis model. Efficacy was defined as the probability of having a viral load <50 copies/ml at week 48, in an intention-to-treat analysis. Cost of initiating treatment with an ART regime was defined as the costs of ART and all its consequences (adverse effects, changes of ART regime, and drug resistance analyses) during the first 48 weeks. The perspective of the analysis is that of the National Health System, considering only differential direct costs: ART (official prices), management of adverse effects, studies of resistance and determination of HLA B 5701. The setting is Spain and the costs are those of 2012. A sensitivity deterministic analysis was conducted, building three scenarios for each regime: baseline, most favourable, and most unfavourable cases. RESULTS: In the baseline case scenario, the cost of initiating treatment ranges from 6,895 euros for TDF/FTC+NVP to 12,067 euros for TDF/FTC+RAL. The efficacy ranges between 0.66 for ABC/3TC+LPV/r and 0.87 for TDF/FTC+RAL. Efficiency, in terms of cost/efficacy, varies between 9,387 and 13,823 euros per responder at 48 weeks, for TDF/FTC/EFV and TDF/FTC+RAL, respectively. In the most unfavourable scenario, the most efficient regime is TDF/FTC+NVP (9,742 per responder). CONCLUSION: Considering the official prices of ART, the most efficient regimens are TDF/FTC/EFV (baseline case and most favourable scenarios), and TDF/FTC+NVP (most unfavourable scenario).

[Costs associated with nosocomial bacteraemias in a University Hospital]. / Costes asociados a las bacteriemias nosocomiales en un hospital universitario.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the increase in costs due to patients who had any episode of nosocomial bacteraemia (NB) in a University Hospital, compared to the costs of patients with the same illness who did not. METHODS: Descriptive and retrospective study. POPULATION: all hospitalisation episodes between January 2005 and December 2007. We compared the patients who suffered some episode of NB, with the patients who did not. Dependent variable: cost of the hospitalisation episode. Main explanatory variable: presence of nosocomial bacteraemia. A generalized linear model was adjusted, with Gamma distribution and link logarithm function, given the distribution of the costs. RESULTS: There were 640 hospital episodes with NB and 28,459 with no NB. The average incremental cost for the hospitalisations with NB was 14,735.5€, adjusted for the disease. The impact on the costs for the hospital due to patients with NB was 9,430,713€. The most frequent source of infection was the catheter (35.5%), with an average increase in cost of 18,078€. In the multivariable model, the cost of patients with NB and involving a Gram(+) microorganism was 2.1 times more than that of patients without bacteraemia (95% CI; 1.96-2.23), if the microorganism was Gram(-) it was 1.8 times more (95% CI; 1.70-1.93), and for a fungus it was 2.4 time more (95% CI; 1.95-2.89). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows the significant impact in the financial costs due to NB, and gives a measure of the cost-benefit of investing in resources to prevent them. Knowing the source cause of the bacteraemia allows priority to be given to these areas and to promote the necessary actions designed to prevent them.

[Assessment and management of kidney disease in the HIV-1-infected patient. A practical review]. / Evaluación y tratamiento de la nefropatía en el paciente con infección por VIH-1. Una revisión práctica.

Renal dysfunction in the setting of HIV-1 infection and antiretroviral therapy is an increasingly more common event that has a significant impact on the clinical management of HIV-1-infected patients. The present review examines the epidemiology of renal dysfunction in HIV-1-infected patients, the spectrum of renal injury associated with HIV-1 infection and its treatment, and the various forms of presentation seen in daily clinical practice. As a practical contribution to the management of HIV-1-associated renal dysfunction, guidelines are proposed for assessing the most common kidney-related problems and their management in daily practice.