Search

Statin coverage has been examined among HIV-infected patients using Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines, although not with newer National Lipid Association (NLA) guidelines. We investigated statin eligibility, prescribing practices, and therapeutic responses using these three guidelines. Sociodemographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected between 2011 and 2016 for HIV-infected outpatients enrolled in the DC Cohort, a multi-center, prospective, observational study in Washington, DC. This analysis included patients aged ≥21 years receiving primary care at their HIV clinic site with ≥1 cholesterol result available. Of 3312 patients (median age 52; 79% black), 52% were eligible for statins based on ≥1 guideline, including 45% (NLA), 40% (ACC/AHA), and 30% (ATP III). Using each guideline, 49% (NLA), 56% (ACC/AHA), and 73% (ATP III) of eligible patients were prescribed statins. Predictors of new prescriptions included older age (aHR = 1.16 [1.08-1.26]/5 years), body mass index ≥30 (aHR = 1.50 [1.07-2.11]), and diabetes (aHR = 1.35 [1.03-1.79]). Hepatitis C coinfection was inversely associated with statin prescriptions (aHR = 0.67 [0.45-1.00]). Among 216 patients with available cholesterol results pre-/post-prescription, 53% achieved their NLA cholesterol goal after 6 months. Hepatitis C coinfection was positively associated (aHR = 1.87 [1.06-3.32]), and depression (aHR = 0.56 [0.35-0.92]) and protease inhibitor use (aHR = 0.61 [0.40-0.93]) were inversely associated, with NLA goal achievement. Half of patients were eligible for statins based on current US guidelines, with the highest proportion eligible based on NLA guidelines, yet, fewer received prescriptions and achieved treatment goals. Greater compliance with recommended statin prescribing practices may reduce cardiovascular disease risk among HIV-infected individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Characterization of structural barriers that impede the receipt of HIV prevention and care services is critical to addressing the HIV epidemic among Black men who have sex with men (BMSM). This study investigated the utilization of HIV prevention and general care services among a non-clinic-based sample of BMSM who reported at least one structural barrier to engagement in care. Proportions of participants who had received HIV prevention services and general care services in different settings were compared using Fisher’s exact test and correlates of service receipt were assessed using logistic regression. Among 75 BMSM, 60% had accessed a community-based clinic, 21% had accessed a primary care setting, and 36% had accessed an acute care setting in the last 6 months. Greater proportions of participants who had accessed community-based clinics received HIV prevention services during these visits (90%) compared to those who had accessed primary care (53%) and acute care (44%) settings (p = .005). Opportunities for BMSM to receive HIV prevention interventions differed by care setting. Having access to health care did not necessarily facilitate the uptake of HIV prevention interventions. Further investigation of the structurally rooted reasons why BMSM are often unable to access HIV prevention services is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Eliminating racial HIV disparities among men who have sex with men (MSM) will require a greater uptake of HIV prevention and care interventions among Black MSM (BMSM), yet such strategies generally require meaningful engagement in a health care system that often does not meet the unique needs of BMSM. This study assessed the acceptability of, and correlates of having favorable perceptions of, a mobile smartphone application (app) intervention for BMSM that aims to remove structural barriers and improve access to culturally relevant HIV prevention and care services. An Internet-based sample of 93 BMSM completed an online survey on their perceptions of the app using 14 items measured on a 100-point visual analogue scale that were validated in exploratory factor analysis (alpha=0.95). Among the sample, perceptions of two sample app modules were generally favorable and most BMSM agreed that they would use the modules (81.2% and 87.1%). Correlates of having favorable perceptions included trusting medical advice from social networks, lacking private health insurance, and not having accessed a primary care physician in the last year. Our findings warrant the further development of this app and point to subgroups of BMSM for which it may have the greatest impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Persons with moderate-to-severe immunocompromising conditions might have reduced protection after COVID-19 vaccination, compared with persons without immunocompromising conditions (1-3). On August 13, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that adults with immunocompromising conditions receive an expanded primary series of 3 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. ACIP followed with recommendations on September 23, 2021, for a fourth (booster) dose and on September 1, 2022, for a new bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose, containing components of the BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages of the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant (4). Data on vaccine effectiveness (VE) of monovalent COVID-19 vaccines among persons with immunocompromising conditions since the emergence of the Omicron variant in December 2021 are limited. In the multistate VISION Network, § monovalent 2-, 3-, and 4-dose mRNA VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization were estimated among adults with immunocompromising conditions ¶ hospitalized with COVID-19-like illness,** using a test-negative design comparing odds of previous vaccination among persons with a positive or negative molecular test result (case-patients and control-patients) for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). During December 16, 2021-August 20, 2022, among SARS-CoV-2 test-positive case-patients, 1,815 (36.3%), 1,387 (27.7%), 1,552 (31.0%), and 251 (5.0%) received 0, 2, 3, and 4 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses, respectively. Among test-negative control-patients during this period, 6,928 (23.7%), 7,411 (25.4%), 12,734 (43.6%), and 2,142 (7.3%) received these respective doses. Overall, VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization among adults with immunocompromising conditions hospitalized for COVID-like illness during Omicron predominance was 36% ≥14 days after dose 2, 69% 7-89 days after dose 3, and 44% ≥90 days after dose 3. Restricting the analysis to later periods when Omicron sublineages BA.2/BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 were predominant and 3-dose recipients were eligible to receive a fourth dose, VE was 32% ≥90 days after dose 3 and 43% ≥7 days after dose 4. Protection offered by vaccination among persons with immunocompromising conditions during Omicron predominance was moderate even after a 3-dose monovalent primary series or booster dose. Given the incomplete protection against hospitalization afforded by monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, persons with immunocompromising conditions might benefit from updated bivalent vaccine booster doses that target recently circulating Omicron sublineages, in line with ACIP recommendations. Further, additional protective recommendations for persons with immunocompromising conditions, including the use of prophylactic antibody therapy, early access to and use of antivirals, and enhanced nonpharmaceutical interventions such as well-fitting masks or respirators, should also be considered., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Brian E. Dixon reported grant support from the National Institutes of Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; personal fees from Elsevier and Springer Nature; and consulting fees from Merck. Nicola P. Klein reported institutional grant support from Pfizer, Inc., Merck, GSK, and Sanofi Pasteur. Allison L. Naleway reported institutional support from Pfizer, Inc. and Vir Biotechnology. Suchitra Rao reported grant support from GSK. Charlene McEvoy reported institutional support from AstraZeneca. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

The Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was first identified in the United States in November 2021, with the BA.1 sublineage (including BA.1.1) causing the largest surge in COVID-19 cases to date. Omicron sublineages BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 emerged later and by late April 2022, accounted for most cases.* Estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) can be reduced by newly emerging variants or sublineages that evade vaccine-induced immunity (1), protection from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated persons (2), or increasing time since vaccination (3). Real-world data comparing VE during the periods when the BA.1 and BA.2/BA.2.12.1 predominated (BA.1 period and BA.2/BA.2.12.1 period, respectively) are limited. The VISION network † examined 214,487 emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits and 58,782 hospitalizations with a COVID-19-like illness § diagnosis among 10 states during December 18, 2021-June 10, 2022, to evaluate VE of 2, 3, and 4 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) compared with no vaccination among adults without immunocompromising conditions. VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization 7-119 days and ≥120 days after receipt of dose 3 was 92% (95% CI = 91%-93%) and 85% (95% CI = 81%-89%), respectively, during the BA.1 period, compared with 69% (95% CI = 58%-76%) and 52% (95% CI = 44%-59%), respectively, during the BA.2/BA.2.12.1 period. Patterns were similar for ED/UC encounters. Among adults aged ≥50 years, VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization ≥120 days after receipt of dose 3 was 55% (95% CI = 46%-62%) and ≥7 days (median = 27 days) after a fourth dose was 80% (95% CI = 71%-85%) during BA.2/BA.2.12.1 predominance. Immunocompetent persons should receive recommended COVID-19 booster doses to prevent moderate to severe COVID-19, including a first booster dose for all eligible persons and second booster dose for adults aged ≥50 years at least 4 months after an initial booster dose. Booster doses should be obtained immediately when persons become eligible. ¶ ., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Stephanie A. Irving reports institutional support from Westat. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science, unrelated to the current work, and institutional support from Pfizer for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Allison L. Naleway reports institutional support from Pfizer for a study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy, unrelated to the current work. Charlene McEvoy reports institutional support from AstraZeneca for an AZD1222 COVID-19 vaccine trial. Suchitra Rao reports grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Biofire Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Estimates of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) have declined in recent months (1,2) because of waning vaccine induced immunity over time,* possible increased immune evasion by SARS-CoV-2 variants (3), or a combination of these and other factors. CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥12 years receive a third dose (booster) of an mRNA vaccine ≥5 months after receipt of the second mRNA vaccine dose and that immunocompromised individuals receive a third primary dose. † A third dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine increases neutralizing antibody levels (4), and three recent studies from Israel have shown improved effectiveness of a third dose in preventing COVID-19 associated with infections with the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant (5-7). Yet, data are limited on the real-world effectiveness of third doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in the United States, especially since the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant became predominant in mid-December 2021. The VISION Network § examined VE by analyzing 222,772 encounters from 383 emergency departments (EDs) and urgent care (UC) clinics and 87,904 hospitalizations from 259 hospitals among adults aged ≥18 years across 10 states from August 26, 2021 ¶ to January 5, 2022. Analyses were stratified by the period before and after the Omicron variant became the predominant strain (>50% of sequenced viruses) at each study site. During the period of Delta predominance across study sites in the United States (August-mid-December 2021), VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated ED and UC encounters was 86% 14-179 days after dose 2, 76% ≥180 days after dose 2, and 94% ≥14 days after dose 3. Estimates of VE for the same intervals after vaccination during Omicron variant predominance were 52%, 38%, and 82%, respectively. During the period of Delta variant predominance, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was 90% 14-179 days after dose 2, 81% ≥180 days after dose 2, and 94% ≥14 days after dose 3. During Omicron variant predominance, VE estimates for the same intervals after vaccination were 81%, 57%, and 90%, respectively. The highest estimates of VE against COVID-19-associated ED and UC encounters or hospitalizations during both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods were among adults who received a third dose of mRNA vaccine. All unvaccinated persons should get vaccinated as soon as possible. All adults who have received mRNA vaccines during their primary COVID-19 vaccination series should receive a third dose when eligible, and eligible persons should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccinations., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Stephanie A. Irving reports institutional support from Westat. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Scient (unrelated to the current work), and institutional support from Pfizer for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Allison L. Naleway reports institutional support from Pfizer for a study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy (unrelated to the current work). Charlene McEvoy reports institutional support from AztraZeneca for an AZD1222 COVID-19 vaccine trial. Suchitra Rao reports grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Biofire Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) or COVID-19 vaccination can provide immunity and protection from subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness. CDC used data from the VISION Network* to examine hospitalizations in adults with COVID-19-like illness and compared the odds of receiving a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, and thus having laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, between unvaccinated patients with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection occurring 90-179 days before COVID-19-like illness hospitalization, and patients who were fully vaccinated with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine 90-179 days before hospitalization with no previous documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hospitalized adults aged ≥18 years with COVID-19-like illness were included if they had received testing at least twice: once associated with a COVID-19-like illness hospitalization during January-September 2021 and at least once earlier (since February 1, 2020, and ≥14 days before that hospitalization). Among COVID-19-like illness hospitalizations in persons whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90-179 days earlier, the odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (adjusted for sociodemographic and health characteristics) among unvaccinated, previously infected adults were higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine with no previous documented infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 5.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.75-10.99). These findings suggest that among hospitalized adults with COVID-19-like illness whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90-179 days earlier, vaccine-induced immunity was more protective than infection-induced immunity against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Stephanie A. Irving reports support from Westat to Kaiser Permanente Northwest Center for Health Research. Nicola P. Klein reports support from Pfizer to Kaiser Permanente, Northern California for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, and institutional support from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi Pasteur outside the current study. Charlene McEvoy reports support from AstraZeneca to HealthPartners Institute for COVID-19 vaccine trials. Allison L. Naleway reports Pfizer Research funding to Kaiser Permanente Northwest for unrelated study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy. Suchitra Rao reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline and Biofire Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Immunocompromised persons, defined as those with suppressed humoral or cellular immunity resulting from health conditions or medications, account for approximately 3% of the U.S. adult population (1). Immunocompromised adults are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes (2) and might not acquire the same level of protection from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as do immunocompetent adults (3,4). To evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE) among immunocompromised adults, data from the VISION Network* on hospitalizations among persons aged ≥18 years with COVID-19-like illness from 187 hospitals in nine states during January 17-September 5, 2021 were analyzed. Using selected discharge diagnoses, † VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization conferred by completing a 2-dose series of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine ≥14 days before the index hospitalization date § (i.e., being fully vaccinated) was evaluated using a test-negative design comparing 20,101 immunocompromised adults (10,564 [53%] of whom were fully vaccinated) and 69,116 immunocompetent adults (29,456 [43%] of whom were fully vaccinated). VE of 2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was lower among immunocompromised patients (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-80%) than among immunocompetent patients (90%; 95% CI = 89%-91%). This difference persisted irrespective of mRNA vaccine product, age group, and timing of hospitalization relative to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance in the state of hospitalization. VE varied across immunocompromising condition subgroups, ranging from 59% (organ or stem cell transplant recipients) to 81% (persons with a rheumatologic or inflammatory disorder). Immunocompromised persons benefit from mRNA COVID-19 vaccination but are less protected from severe COVID-19 outcomes than are immunocompetent persons, and VE varies among immunocompromised subgroups. Immunocompromised persons receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should receive 3 doses and a booster, consistent with CDC recommendations (5), practice nonpharmaceutical interventions, and, if infected, be monitored closely and considered early for proven therapies that can prevent severe outcomes., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Allison L. Naleway reports institutional support from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Anupam B. Kharbanda reports institutional support through HealthPartners to Children’s Minnesota for VISION. Charlene McEvoy reports institutional support from AstraZeneca for the AZD1222 COVID-19 vaccine trial. Jill Ferdinands reports travel support from Institute for Influenza Epidemiology, funded in part by Sanofi Pasteur. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials and institutional support from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Sciences (now Sanofi Pasteur) outside the submitted work. Suchitra Rao reports grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Biofire Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Objective: To evaluate associations of mood, anxiety, stress-/trauma-related, and psychotic disorders, both treated and untreated, with duration of unsuppressed HIV viral load (VL) among persons living with HIV (PLWH)., Setting: The DC Cohort, an observational clinical cohort of PLWH followed from 2011 to 2018 at 14 sites in Washington, DC., Methods: Among PLWH ≥18 years old who received primary care at their HIV clinic, we determined in a time-updated manner whether participants had diagnoses and pharmacologic prescriptions for mood, anxiety, stress-/trauma-related, and/or psychotic disorders. Associations between psychiatric disorders/treatments and the proportion of subsequent days with VL ≥200 copies/mL were assessed using multivariable Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations., Results: Among 5904 participants (median age 51; 70% men; 82% Black), 45% had ≥1 psychiatric disorder, including 38% with mood disorders (50% treated), 18% with anxiety or stress-/trauma-related disorders (64% treated), and 4% with psychotic disorders (52% treated). Untreated major depressive disorder (adjusted rate ratio = 1.17; 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.37), untreated other/unspecified depressive disorder (1.23; 1.01 to 1.49), untreated bipolar disorder (1.39; 1.15 to 1.69), and treated bipolar disorder (1.25; 1.02 to 1.53) (vs. no mood disorder) predicted more time with VL ≥200 copies/mL. Treated anxiety disorders (vs. no anxiety disorder) predicted less time (0.78; 0.62 to 0.99). Associations were weaker and nonsignificant for treated depressive disorders (vs. no mood disorder) and untreated anxiety disorders (vs. no anxiety disorder)., Conclusions: PLWH with depressive and bipolar disorders, particularly when untreated, spent more time with unsuppressed VL than PLWH without a mood disorder. Treatment of mood disorders may be important for promoting sustained viral suppression.