Search

Rurally located people living with HIV (PLWH) face unique challenges associated with remoteness that may negatively affect their HIV care outcomes. The Programmatic Compliance Score (PCS) has been used previously as a quality of care metric, and is predictive of mortality for treatment-naïve individuals initiating combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). This study looked at whether the rurality of PLWH impacted their PCS. PCS was calculated for PLWH (≥19 years old) initiating cART in British Columbia between 2000 and 2013. Rurality was determined at the time of cART initiation using two methodologies: (1) a categorical postal code method; and (2) the General Practice Rurality Index (GPRI), a score representing an individual’s degree of rurality. Ordinal logistic regression modeling was used to assess the relationship between rurality and PCS. Among 4616 PLWH with an evaluable PCS, 176 were classified as rural and 3512 as urban (928 had an unknown postal code). After adjusting for age, sex, hepatitis C status, Indigenous ancestry, and year of cART initiation, categorical rurality was not associated with a worse PCS (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.04; 95% CI: 0.77–1.39). However, an increasing degree of rurality was associated with a worse PCS (AOR (per 10 increase in GPRI) 1.13; 95% CI: 1.06–1.20). Given that a poor PCS has been shown to be predictive of all-cause mortality for individuals initiating cART, strategies to improve access to HIV care for rural individuals should be evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure. Methods We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19–compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations. Results We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was.72 (95% CI,.44–1.16; P =.18) and for twice-weekly was.74 (95% CI,.46–1.19; P =.22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82–120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159–258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19–compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P =.08). Conclusions Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19–compatible illness among healthcare workers. Clinical Trials Registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially in combination with azithromycin, has raised safety concerns. Here, we report safety data from 3 outpatient randomized clinical trials. Methods We conducted 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials investigating hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis, postexposure prophylaxis, and early treatment for COVID-19 using an internet-based design. We excluded individuals with contraindications to hydroxychloroquine. We collected side effects and serious adverse events. We report descriptive analyses of our findings. Results We enrolled 2795 participants. The median age of research participants (interquartile range) was 40 (34–49) years, and 59% (1633/2767) reported no chronic medical conditions. Overall 2544 (91%) participants reported side effect data, and 748 (29%) reported at least 1 medication side effect. Side effects were reported in 40% with once-daily, 36% with twice-weekly, 31% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, compared with 19% with placebo. The most common side effects were upset stomach or nausea (25% with once-daily, 19% with twice-weekly, and 18% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 11% for placebo), followed by diarrhea, vomiting, or abdominal pain (23% for once-daily, 17% twice-weekly, and 13% once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 7% for placebo). Two individuals were hospitalized for atrial arrhythmias, 1 on placebo and 1 on twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine. No sudden deaths occurred. Conclusions Data from 3 outpatient COVID-19 trials demonstrated that gastrointestinal side effects were common but mild with the use of hydroxychloroquine, while serious side effects were rare. No deaths occurred related to hydroxychloroquine. Randomized clinical trials, in cohorts of healthy outpatients, can safely investigate whether hydroxychloroquine is efficacious for COVID-19. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04308668 for postexposure prophylaxis and early treatment trials; NCT04328467 for pre-exposure prophylaxis trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: No effective oral therapy exists for early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Objective: To investigate whether hydroxychloroquine could reduce COVID-19 severity in adult outpatients.Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 22 March through 20 May 2020. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04308668).Setting: Internet-based trial across the United States and Canada (40 states and 3 provinces).Participants: Symptomatic, nonhospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or probable COVID-19 and high-risk exposure within 4 days of symptom onset.Intervention: Oral hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 more days) or masked placebo.Measurements: Symptoms and severity at baseline and then at days 3, 5, 10, and 14 using a 10-point visual analogue scale. The primary end point was change in overall symptom severity over 14 days.Results: Of 491 patients randomly assigned to a group, 423 contributed primary end point data. Of these, 341 (81%) had laboratory-confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or epidemiologically linked exposure to a person with laboratory-confirmed infection; 56% (236 of 423) were enrolled within 1 day of symptoms starting. Change in symptom severity over 14 days did not differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (difference in symptom severity: relative, 12%; absolute, -0.27 point [95% CI, -0.61 to 0.07 point]; P = 0.117). At 14 days, 24% (49 of 201) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine had ongoing symptoms compared with 30% (59 of 194) receiving placebo (P = 0.21). Medication adverse effects occurred in 43% (92 of 212) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine versus 22% (46 of 211) receiving placebo (P < 0.001). With placebo, 10 hospitalizations occurred (2 non-COVID-19-related), including 1 hospitalized death. With hydroxychloroquine, 4 hospitalizations occurred plus 1 nonhospitalized death (P = 0.29).Limitation: Only 58% of participants received SARS-CoV-2 testing because of severe U.S. testing shortages.Conclusion: Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19.Primary Funding Source: Private donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The nature of the HIV epidemic in the United States and Canada has changed with a shift toward rural areas. Socioeconomic factors, geography, cultural context, and evolving epidemics of injection drug use are coalescing to move the epidemic into locations where populations are dispersed and health care resources are limited. Rural-urban differences along the care continuum demonstrate the implications of this sociogeographic shift. Greater attention is needed to build a more comprehensive understanding of the rural HIV epidemic in the United States and Canada, including research efforts, innovative approaches to care delivery, and greater community engagement in prevention and care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]