Impact of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines on HIV persistence and immune dynamics during suppressive antiretroviral therapy.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if standard influenza and pneumococcal vaccines can be used to stimulate HIV reservoirs during antiretroviral therapy (ART). DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of two clinically recommended vaccines (influenza and pneumococcal). METHODS: Persons with HIV on ART ( N  = 54) were enrolled in the clinical trial. Blood was collected at baseline and days 2,4,7,14, and 30 postimmunizations. Levels of cellular HIV RNA and HIV DNA were measured by ddPCR. Expression of immunological markers on T cell subsets was measured by flow cytometry. Changes in unspliced cellular HIV RNA from baseline to day 7 postinjection between each vaccine and placebo was the primary outcome. RESULTS: Forty-seven participants completed at least one cycle and there were no serious adverse events related to the intervention. We observed no significant differences in the change in cellular HIV RNA after either vaccine compared with placebo at any timepoint. In secondary analyses, we observed a transient increase in total HIV DNA levels after influenza vaccine, as well as increased T cell activation and exhaustion on CD4 + T cells after pneumococcal vaccine. CONCLUSION: Clinically recommended vaccines were well tolerated but did not appear to stimulate the immune system strongly enough to elicit significantly noticeable HIV RNA transcription during ART.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02707692.

Denial of risk behavior does not exclude asymptomatic anorectal sexually transmitted infection in HIV-infected men.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control recommend screening for asymptomatic sexually transmitted infection (STI) among HIV-infected men when there is self-report of unprotected anal-receptive exposure. The study goals were: (1) to estimate the validity and usefulness for screening policies of self-reported unprotected anal-receptive exposure as a risk indicator for asymptomatic anorectal infection with Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) and/or Chlamydia trachomatis (CT). (2) to estimate the number of infections that would be missed if anal diagnostic assays were not performed among patients who denied unprotected anorectal exposure in the preceding month. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Retrospective analysis in HIV primary care and high resolution anoscopy (HRA) clinics. HIV-infected adult men were screened for self-reported exposure during the previous month at all primary care and HRA appointments. Four sub-cohorts were defined based on microbiology methodology (GC culture and CT direct fluorescent antibody vs. GC/CT nucleic acid amplification test) and clinical setting (primary care vs. HRA). Screening question operating characteristics were estimated using contingency table methods and then pooled across subcohorts. Among 803 patients, the prevalence of anorectal GC/CT varied from 3.5-20.1% in the 4 sub-cohorts. The sensitivity of the screening question for self-reported exposure to predict anorectal STI was higher in the primary care than in the HRA clinic, 86-100% vs. 12-35%, respectively. The negative predictive value of the screening question to predict asymptomatic anorectal STI was > or = 90% in all sub-cohorts. In sensitivity analyses, the probability of being an unidentified case among those denying exposure increased from 0.4-8.1% in the primary care setting, and from 0.9-18.8% in the HRA setting as the prevalence varied from 1-20%. CONCLUSION: As STI prevalence increases, denial of unprotected anal-receptive exposure leads to an increasingly unacceptable proportion of unidentified asymptomatic anorectal STI if used as a criterion not to obtain microbiologic assays.