Suchergebnisse

AbstractIntroductionSeveral antiretroviral drugs are being considered for the treatment of COVID‐19, the disease caused by a newly identified coronavirus, (SARS‐CoV‐2). We systematically reviewed the clinical outcomes of using antiretroviral drugs for the prevention and treatment of coronaviruses and planned clinical trials.MethodsThree databases were screened from inception to 30 March 2020 for studies reporting clinical outcomes of patients with SARS, MERS or COVID‐19 treated with antiretrovirals.ResultsFrom an initial screen of 433 titles, two randomized trials and 24 observational studies provided clinical outcome data on the use of antiretroviral drugs; most studies reported outcomes using LPV/r as treatment. Of the 21 observational studies reporting treatment outcomes, there were three studies among patients with SARS, six studies among patients with MERS and 12 studies among patients with COVID‐19. In one randomized trial 99 patients with severe COVID‐19 illness were randomized to receive LPV/r (400/100 mg twice a day) and 100 patients to standard of care for 14 days: LPV/r was not associated with a statistically significant difference in time to clinical improvement, although LPV/r given within 12 days of symptoms was associated with shorter time to clinical improvement; 28 day mortality was numerically lower in the LPV/r group (14/99) compared to the control group (25/100), but this difference was not statistically significant. The second trial found no benefit. The certainty of the evidence for the randomized trials was low. In the observational studies 3 out of 361 patients who received LPV/r died; the certainty of evidence was very low. Three studies reported a possible protective effect of LPV/r as post‐exposure prophylaxis. Again, the certainty of the evidence was very low due to uncertainty due to limited sample size.ConclusionsOn the basis of the available evidence it is uncertain whether LPV/r and other antiretrovirals improve clinical outcomes or prevent infection among patients at high risk of acquiring COVID‐19.

IntroductionThere have been several important developments in antiretroviral treatment in the past two years. Randomized clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate a lower dose of efavirenz (400 mg once daily). Integrase inhibitors such as dolutegravir have been approved for first‐line treatment. A new formulation of tenofovir (alafenamide) has been developed and has shown equivalent efficacy to tenofovir in randomized trials. Two‐drug combination treatments have been evaluated in treatment‐naïve and ‐experienced patients. The novel pharmacokinetic booster cobicistat has been compared to ritonavir in terms of pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety. The objective of this commentary is to assess recent developments in antiretroviral drug treatment to determine whether new treatments should be included in new international guidelines.DiscussionThe use of first‐line treatment with tenofovir and efavirenz at the standard 600 mg once‐daily dose should remain the first‐choice standard of care treatment. Evidence supporting a switch to efavirenz 400 mg once daily or integrase inhibitors is sufficient to consider these drugs as alternative first‐line options, but more data are needed on their use in pregnant women and people with TB co‐infection. The use of new formulations of tenofovir is currently too preliminary to justify immediate adoption and scale‐up across HIV programmes in low‐ and middle‐income countries. The evidence supporting use of two‐drug combinations is not considered strong enough to justify changed recommendations from use of standard triple drug combinations. Cobicistat does not offer significant safety advantages over ritonavir as a pharmacokinetic booster.ConclusionsFor continued scale‐up of antiretroviral treatment in low‐ and middle‐income countries, use of first‐line triple combinations including efavirenz 600 mg once daily is supported by the largest evidence base. Additional studies are underway to evaluate new treatments in key populations, and these results may justify changes to these recommendations.

In 2007 an estimated 33 million people were living with HIV; 67% resided in sub‐Saharan Africa, with 35% in eight countries alone. In 2007, there were about 1.4 million HIV‐positive tuberculosis cases. Globally, approximately 4 million people had been given highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) by the end of 2008, but in 2007, an estimated 6.7 million were still in need of HAART and 2.7 million more became infected with HIV.Although there has been unprecedented investment in confronting HIV/AIDS ‐ the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS estimates $13.8 billion was spent in 2008 ‐ a key challenge is how to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic given limited and potentially shrinking resources. Economic disparities may further exacerbate human rights issues and widen the increasingly divergent approaches to HIV prevention, care and treatment.HIV transmission only occurs from people with HIV, and viral load is the single greatest risk factor for all modes of transmission. HAART can lower viral load to nearly undetectable levels. Prevention of mother to child transmission offers proof of the concept of HAART interrupting transmission, and observational studies and previous modelling work support using HAART for prevention. Although knowing one's HIV status is key for prevention efforts, it is not known with certainty when to start HAART.Building on previous modelling work, we used an HIV/AIDS epidemic of South African intensity to explore the impact of testing all adults annually and starting persons on HAART immediately after they are diagnosed as HIV positive. This theoretical strategy would reduce annual HIV incidence and mortality to less than one case per 1000 people within 10 years and it would reduce the prevalence of HIV to less than 1% within 50 years. To explore HAART as a prevention strategy, we recommend further discussions to explore human rights and ethical considerations, clarify research priorities and review feasibility and acceptability issues.

AbstractIntroductionLong‐acting and extended delivery (LAED) regimens for HIV treatment and prevention offer unique benefits to expand uptake, effective use and adherence. To date, research has focused on basic and clinical science around the safety and efficacy of these products. This commentary outlines opportunities in HIV prevention and treatment programmes, both for the health system and clients, that could be addressed through the inclusion of LAED regimens and the vital role of differentiated service delivery (DSD) in ensuring efficient and equitable access.DiscussionThe realities and challenges within HIV treatment and prevention programmes are different. Globally, more than 28 million people are accessing HIV treatment—the vast majority on a daily fixed‐dose combination oral pill that is largely available, affordable and well‐tolerated. Many people collect extended refills outside of health facilities with clinical consultations once or twice a year. Conversely, uptake of daily oral pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has consistently missed global targets due to limited access with high individual cost and lack of choice contributing to substantial unmet PrEP need. Recent trends in demedicalization, simplification, additional method options and DSD for PrEP have led to accelerated uptake as its availability has become more aligned with user preferences. How people currently receive HIV treatment and prevention services and their barriers to adherence must be considered for the introduction of LAED regimens to achieve the expected improvements in access and outcomes. Important considerations include the building blocks of DSD: who (provider), where (location), when (frequency) and what (package of services). Ideally, all LAED regimens will leverage DSD models that emphasize access at the community level and self‐management. For treatment, LAED regimens may address challenges with adherence but their delivery should provide clear advantages over existing oral products to be scaled. For prevention, LAED regimens expand a potential PrEP user's choice of methods, but like other methods, need to be delivered in a manner that can facilitate frequent re‐initiation.ConclusionsTo ensure that innovative LAED HIV treatment and prevention products reach those who most stand to benefit, service delivery and client considerations during development, trial and early implementation are critical.

AbstractIntroduction: The unchanged global HIV incidence may be related to ignoring acute HIV infection (AHI). This scoping review examines diagnostic, clinical, and public health implications of identifying and treating persons with AHI.Methods: We searched PubMed, in addition to hand‐review of key journals identifying research pertaining to AHI detection and treatment. We focused on the relative contribution of AHI to transmission and the diagnostic, clinical, and public health implications. We prioritized research from low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) published in the last fifteen years.Results and Discussion: Extensive AHI research and limited routine AHI detection and treatment have begun in LMIC. Diagnostic challenges include ease‐of‐use, suitability for application and distribution in LMIC, and throughput for high‐volume testing. Risk score algorithms have been used in LMIC to screen for AHI among individuals with behavioural and clinical characteristics more often associated with AHI. However, algorithms have not been implemented outside research settings. From a clinical perspective, there are substantial immunological and virological benefits to identifying and treating persons with AHI – evading the irreversible damage to host immune systems and seeding of viral reservoirs that occurs during untreated acute infection. The therapeutic benefits require rapid initiation of antiretrovirals, a logistical challenge in the absence of point‐of‐care testing. From a public health perspective, AHI diagnosis and treatment is critical to: decrease transmission via viral load reduction and behavioural interventions; improve pre‐exposure prophylaxis outcomes by avoiding treatment initiation for HIV‐seronegative persons with AHI; and, enhance partner services via notification for persons recently exposed or likely transmitting.Conclusions: There are undeniable clinical and public health benefits to AHI detection and treatment, but also substantial diagnostic and logistical barriers to implementation and scale‐up. Effective early ART initiation may be critical for HIV eradication efforts, but widespread use in LMIC requires simple and accurate diagnostic tools. Implementation research is critical to facilitate sustainable integration of AHI detection and treatment into existing health systems and will be essential for prospective evaluation of testing algorithms, point‐of‐care diagnostics, and efficacious and effective first‐line regimens.

Global commitments aim to provide antiretroviral therapy (ART) to 15 million people living with HIV by 2015, and recent studies have demonstrated the potential for widespread ART to prevent HIV transmission. Increasingly, countries are adapting their national guidelines to start ART earlier, for both clinical and preventive benefits. To maximize the benefits of ART in resource‐limited settings, six key principles need to guide ART choice: simplicity, tolerability and safety, durability, universal applicability, affordability and heat stability. Currently available drugs, combined with those in late‐stage clinical development, hold great promise to simplify treatment in the short term. Over the longer term, newer technologies, such as long‐acting formulations and nanotechnology, could radically alter the treatment paradigm. This commentary reviews recommendations made in an expert consultation on treatment scale up in resource‐limited settings.

AbstractIntroductionAdolescents and young people comprise a growing proportion of new HIV infections globally, yet current approaches do not effectively engage this group, and adolescent HIV‐related outcomes are the poorest among all age groups. Providing psychosocial interventions incorporating psychological, social, and/or behavioural approaches offer a potential pathway to improve engagement in care and health and behavioural outcomes among adolescents and young people living with HIV (AYPLHIV).MethodsA systematic search of all peer‐reviewed papers published between January 2000 and July 2020 was conducted through four electronic databases (Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus). We included randomized controlled trials evaluating psychosocial interventions aimed at improving engagement in care and health and behavioural outcomes of AYPLHIV aged 10 to 24 years.Results and discussionThirty relevant studies were identified. Studies took place in the United States (n = 18, 60%), sub‐Saharan Africa (Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe) and Southeast Asia (Thailand). Outcomes of interest included adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART), ART knowledge, viral load data, sexual risk behaviours, sexual risk knowledge, retention in care and linkage to care. Overall, psychosocial interventions for AYPLHIV showed important, small‐to‐moderate effects on adherence to ART (SMD = 0.3907, 95% CI: 0.1059 to 0.6754, 21 studies, n = 2647) and viral load (SMD = −0.2607, 95% CI −04518 to −0.0696, 12 studies, n = 1566). The psychosocial interventions reviewed did not demonstrate significant impacts on retention in care (n = 8), sexual risk behaviours and knowledge (n = 13), viral suppression (n = 4), undetectable viral load (n = 5) or linkage to care (n = 1) among AYPLHIV. No studies measured transition to adult services. Effective interventions employed various approaches, including digital and lay health worker delivery, which hold promise for scaling interventions in the context of COVID‐19.ConclusionsThis review highlights the potential of psychosocial interventions in improving health outcomes in AYPLHIV. However, more research needs to be conducted on interventions that can effectively reduce sexual risk behaviours of AYPLHIV, as well as those that can strengthen engagement in care. Further investment is needed to ensure that these interventions are cost‐effective, sustainable and resilient in the face of resource constraints and global challenges such as the COVID‐19 pandemic.