COVID-19 hospitalization risk after outpatient nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use, January to August 2022, North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is authorized for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients at least 12 years of age, at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact of outpatient nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on COVID-19 hospitalization risk in a US healthcare system. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using electronic health records among outpatients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between January and August 2022. We evaluated the association of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir therapy with time to hospitalization by estimating adjusted HRs and assessed the impact of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on predicted COVID-19 hospitalizations using machine-learning methods. RESULTS: Among 44 671 patients, 4948 (11%) received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 201 (0.4%) were hospitalized within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients were more likely to be older, white, vaccinated, have comorbidities and reside in areas with higher average socioeconomic status. The 28 day cumulative incidence of hospitalization was 0.06% (95% CI: 0.02%-0.17%) among nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients and 0.52% (95% CI: 0.46%-0.60%) among non-recipients. For nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus no therapy, the age-adjusted HR was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.03-0.26); the fully adjusted HR was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.05-0.50). In the machine-learning model, the primary features reducing predicted hospitalization risk were nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, younger age, vaccination, female gender and residence in a higher socioeconomic status area. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 hospitalization risk was reduced by 84% among nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients in a large, diverse healthcare system during the Omicron wave. These results suggest that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir remained highly effective in a setting substantially different than the original clinical trials.

Multilevel Resilience and HIV Virologic Suppression Among African American/Black Adults in the Southeastern United States.

OBJECTIVE: To assess overall and by neighborhood risk environments whether multilevel resilience resources were associated with HIV virologic suppression among African American/Black adults in the Southeastern United States. SETTING AND METHODS: This clinical cohort sub-study included 436 African American/Black participants enrolled in two parent HIV clinical cohorts. Resilience was assessed using the Multilevel Resilience Resource Measure (MRM) for African American/Black adults living with HIV, where endorsement of a MRM statement indicated agreement that a resilience resource helped a participant continue HIV care despite challenges or was present in a participant's neighborhood. Modified Poisson regression models estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for virologic suppression as a function of categorical MRM scores, controlling for demographic, clinical, and behavioral characteristics at or prior to sub-study enrollment. We assessed for effect measure modification (EMM) by neighborhood risk environments. RESULTS: Compared to participants with lesser endorsement of multilevel resilience resources, aPRs for virologic suppression among those with greater or moderate endorsement were 1.03 (95% confidence interval: 0.96-1.11) and 1.03 (0.96-1.11), respectively. Regarding multilevel resilience resource endorsement, there was no strong evidence for EMM by levels of neighborhood risk environments. CONCLUSIONS: Modest positive associations between higher multilevel resilience resource endorsement and virologic suppression were at times most compatible with the data. However, null findings were also compatible. There was no strong evidence for EMM concerning multilevel resilience resource endorsement, which could have been due to random error. Prospective studies assessing EMM by levels of the neighborhood risk environment with larger sample sizes are needed.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Status, Tenofovir Exposure, and the Risk of Poor Coronavirus Disease 19 Outcomes: Real-World Analysis From 6 United States Cohorts Before Vaccine Rollout.

BACKGROUND: People with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PWH) may be at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. We examined HIV status and COVID-19 severity, and whether tenofovir, used by PWH for HIV treatment and people without HIV (PWoH) for HIV prevention, was associated with protection. METHODS: Within 6 cohorts of PWH and PWoH in the United States, we compared the 90-day risk of any hospitalization, COVID-19 hospitalization, and mechanical ventilation or death by HIV status and by prior exposure to tenofovir, among those with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection between 1 March and 30 November 2020. Adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) were estimated by targeted maximum likelihood estimation, with adjustment for demographics, cohort, smoking, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, calendar period of first infection, and CD4 cell counts and HIV RNA levels (in PWH only). RESULTS: Among PWH (n = 1785), 15% were hospitalized for COVID-19 and 5% received mechanical ventilation or died, compared with 6% and 2%, respectively, for PWoH (n = 189 351). Outcome prevalence was lower for PWH and PWoH with prior tenofovir use. In adjusted analyses, PWH were at increased risk compared with PWoH for any hospitalization (aRR, 1.31 [95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.44]), COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.29 [1.15-1.45]), and mechanical ventilation or death (1.51 [1.19-1.92]). Prior tenofovir use was associated with reduced hospitalizations among PWH (aRR, 0.85 [95% confidence interval, .73-.99]) and PWoH (0.71 [.62-.81]). CONCLUSIONS: Before COVID-19 vaccine availability, PWH were at greater risk for severe outcomes than PWoH. Tenofovir was associated with a significant reduction in clinical events for both PWH and PWoH.

Evaluation of the efficacy and mechanisms of a novel intervention for chronic pain tailored to people with HIV: The STOMP protocol.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral interventions for chronic pain among people with HIV (PWH) are understudied, with great potential to improve pain and function. Chronic pain is an important comorbidity that affects between 30% and 85% of PWH and is associated with greater odds of functional impairment, increased emergency room utilization, suboptimal retention in HIV care, and failure to achieve virologic suppression. However, to date, there are few effective and scalable interventions for chronic pain in PWH. OBJECTIVE: This manuscript outlines the protocol for a randomized control trial of a novel theory-based pain self-management intervention, "Skills TO Manage Pain" (STOMP), developed for and tailored to PWH versus enhanced usual care controls. STOMP is a 12-week intervention developed from prior work on pain self-management in PWH and rigorous intervention mapping. The STOMP intervention has three major components: group sessions, one-on-one pain self-management sessions, and peer leaders. METHODS: STOMP is a 2-arm randomized trial conducted with PWH with chronic pain. The trial compares STOMP, a theory-based intervention tailored to improving chronic pain in PWH, with a comparison group receiving enhanced usual care effectiveness on pain and HIV proximal outcome measures. The proposed sample size is 280 PWH recruited from two high-volume Center for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems clinical sites. RESULTS: Study procedures are ongoing, and results will be recorded in future manuscripts. CONCLUSION: The study will generate evidence on the effectiveness of STOMP with the potential to dramatically change chronic pain treatment for PWH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicialtrials.gov, Clinical Trials Registration # NCT03692611https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03692611?term=STOMP&cond=Hiv&draw=2&rank=1.

Characterizing the neighborhood risk environment in multisite clinic-based cohort studies: A practical geocoding and data linkages protocol for protected health information.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining patient privacy when geocoding and linking residential address information with neighborhood-level data can create challenges during research. Challenges may arise when study staff have limited training in geocoding and linking data, or when non-study staff with appropriate expertise have limited availability, are unfamiliar with a study's population or objectives, or are not affordable for the study team. Opportunities for data breaches may also arise when working with non-study staff who are not on-site. We detail a free, user-friendly protocol for constructing indices of the neighborhood risk environment during multisite, clinic-based cohort studies that rely on participants' protected health information. This protocol can be implemented by study staff who do not have prior training in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and can help minimize the operational costs of integrating geographic data into public health projects. METHODS: This protocol demonstrates how to: (1) securely geocode patients' residential addresses in a clinic setting and match geocoded addresses to census tracts using Geographic Information System software (Esri, Redlands, CA); (2) ascertain contextual variables of the risk environment from the American Community Survey and ArcGIS Business Analyst (Esri, Redlands, CA); (3) use geoidentifiers to link neighborhood risk data to census tracts containing geocoded addresses; and (4) assign randomly generated identifiers to census tracts and strip census tracts of their geoidentifiers to maintain patient confidentiality. RESULTS: Completion of this protocol generates three neighborhood risk indices (i.e., Neighborhood Disadvantage Index, Murder Rate Index, and Assault Rate Index) for patients' coded census tract locations. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol can be used by research personnel without prior GIS experience to easily create objective indices of the neighborhood risk environment while upholding patient confidentiality. Future studies can adapt this protocol to fit their specific patient populations and analytic objectives.

Differences in COVID-19 testing and adverse outcomes by race, ethnicity, sex, and health system setting in a large diverse US cohort.

BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic disparities during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic led to differences in COVID-19 testing and adverse outcomes. We examine differences in testing and adverse outcomes by race/ethnicity and sex across a geographically diverse and system-based COVID-19 cohort collaboration. METHODS: Observational study among adults (≥18 years) within six US cohorts from March 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020 using data from electronic health record and patient reporting. Race/ethnicity and sex as risk factors were primary exposures, with health system type (integrated health system, academic health system, or interval cohort) as secondary. Proportions measured SARS-CoV-2 testing and positivity; attributed hospitalization and death related to COVID-19. Relative risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals quantified associations between exposures and main outcomes. RESULTS: 5,958,908 patients were included. Hispanic patients had the highest proportions of SARS-CoV-2 testing (16%) and positivity (18%), while Asian/Pacific Islander patients had the lowest portions tested (11%) and White patients had the lowest positivity rates (5%). Men had a lower likelihood of testing (RR = 0.90 [0.89-0.90]) and a higher positivity risk (RR = 1.16 [1.14-1.18]) compared to women. Black patients were more likely to have COVID-19-related hospitalizations (RR = 1.36 [1.28-1.44]) and death (RR = 1.17 [1.03-1.32]) compared with White patients. Men were more likely to be hospitalized (RR = 1.30 [1.16-1.22]) or die (RR = 1.70 [1.53-1.89]) compared to women. These racial/ethnic and sex differences were reflected in both health system types. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports evidence of disparities by race/ethnicity and sex during the COVID-19 pandemic that persisted even in healthcare settings with reduced barriers to accessing care. Further research is needed to understand and prevent the drivers that resulted in higher burdens of morbidity among certain Black patients and men.

Analysis of Severe Illness After Postvaccination COVID-19 Breakthrough Among Adults With and Without HIV in the US.

Importance: Understanding the severity of postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 (ie, COVID-19) breakthrough illness among people with HIV (PWH) can inform vaccine guidelines and risk-reduction recommendations. Objective: To estimate the rate and risk of severe breakthrough illness among vaccinated PWH and people without HIV (PWoH) who experience a breakthrough infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, the Corona-Infectious-Virus Epidemiology Team (CIVET-II) collaboration included adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV who were receiving care and were fully vaccinated by June 30, 2021, along with PWoH matched according to date fully vaccinated, age group, race, ethnicity, and sex from 4 US integrated health systems and academic centers. Those with postvaccination COVID-19 breakthrough before December 31, 2021, were eligible. Exposures: HIV infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was severe COVID-19 breakthrough illness, defined as hospitalization within 28 days after a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection with a primary or secondary COVID-19 discharge diagnosis. Discrete time proportional hazards models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs of severe breakthrough illness within 28 days of breakthrough COVID-19 by HIV status adjusting for demographic variables, COVID-19 vaccine type, and clinical factors. The proportion of patients who received mechanical ventilation or died was compared by HIV status. Results: Among 3649 patients with breakthrough COVID-19 (1241 PWH and 2408 PWoH), most were aged 55 years or older (2182 patients [59.8%]) and male (3244 patients [88.9%]). The cumulative incidence of severe illness in the first 28 days was low and comparable between PWoH and PWH (7.3% vs 6.7%; risk difference, -0.67%; 95% CI, -2.58% to 1.23%). The risk of severe breakthrough illness was 59% higher in PWH with CD4 cell counts less than 350 cells/µL compared with PWoH (aHR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.46; P = .049). In multivariable analyses among PWH, being female, older, having a cancer diagnosis, and lower CD4 cell count were associated with increased risk of severe breakthrough illness, whereas previous COVID-19 was associated with reduced risk. Among 249 hospitalized patients, 24 (9.6%) were mechanically ventilated and 20 (8.0%) died, with no difference by HIV status. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the risk of severe COVID-19 breakthrough illness within 28 days of a breakthrough infection was low among vaccinated PWH and PWoH. PWH with moderate or severe immune suppression had a higher risk of severe breakthrough infection and should be included in groups prioritized for additional vaccine doses and risk-reduction strategies.

Development of Long and Short Forms of the Multilevel Resilience Resource Measure for African American/Black Adults Living with HIV.

Understanding resilience in relation to HIV-related outcomes may help address racial/ethnic disparities, however, significant gaps in its measurement preclude in-depth study. Thus, this research aims to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of long and short forms of the Multilevel Resilience Resource Measure for African American/Black Adults Living with HIV. To develop the items, we conducted a mixed methods study (N = 48) and reviewed published resilience measures. We completed content validity index analyses to ensure the items reflected the resilience construct. Next, we conducted 20 cognitive interviews and a field survey (N = 400). The long and short forms demonstrated acceptable to excellent psychometric properties based on factorial validity, internal consistency and convergent validity and on measurement invariance (conducted for the short form only). These measures provide a comprehensive framework to examine resilience and HIV-related outcomes and can inform resilience-building interventions to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities.