RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) is an important challenge in the fight against HIV/AIDS and can threaten progress toward achieving the target of HIV elimination by 2030. Genotyping pretreatment HIVDR testing (DRT) has been proposed as a potential solution. However, the cost-effectiveness of this intervention needs to be evaluated to determine its feasibility and potential impact on healthcare systems. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of DRT among people living with HIV (PLHIV) in Iran. METHODS: 1000 hypothetical PLHIV were simulated in terms of cost and effectiveness based on quality-adjusted life Years (QALY). The Markov Model was developed to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using TreeAge Pro 2020. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed for sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Results showed that compared to not performing pretreatment HIVDR testing, this intervention gained 0.035999 QALY with an incremental cost of 1,695.32 USD. The ICER was calculated as 47,093.53 USD, indicating that pretreatment DRT was not cost-effective. The probability of opportunistic infection (OI) in people with viral failure, the effectiveness of Dolutegravir in people without drug resistance, and the quality of life (QoL) of people in the AIDS stage were found to be the most important variables affecting ICER. With an increasing willingness to pay more than 53,000 USD, pretreatment DRT testing will become cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, pretreatment HIVDR testing is not currently cost-effective in Iran as it imposes high costs on healthcare systems with few benefits for People living with HIV (PLHIV). However, if resources are available, drug resistance testing can be a valuable tool in generating HIV molecular data and molecular surveillance of HIV.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background & Objective: Occurrence of Hepatitis E Virus (HEV) infection may be common in Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV-1) patients and may lead to chronic infection as well as cirrhosis. We intended to determine the incidence of HEV infection among HIV-1 patients compared to individuals without HIV-1 infection. Methods: In our cross-sectional study, 87 HIV-1-positive patients were compared to 93 healthy individuals in Kerman, Iran. Plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were obtained from all the participants. Plasma samples were evaluated for HEV IgM and IgG using the ELISA kit. Then, reverse transcriptase-nested polymerase chain reaction (RT-nested PCR) was used in RNA extractions from PBMCs to check for the presence of HEV RNA. Results: Among the subjects examined in our study, 61 (70.1%) and 71 (77.4%) out of patients with HIV-1 infection and healthy individuals were male, respectively. The average ages of patients with HIV-1 and the control group were 40.2 years and 39.9 years, respectively. No discernible differences were found between the two groups based on IgM and IgG seropositivity against the HEV. However, HEV-RNA was found in 8% of patients with HIV-1 and 1.1% of HIV-1-negative individuals (P=0.03). There was also an association between the HEV genome and anti-HEV and anti-HCV antibodies in HIV-1-positive patients (P=0.02 and P=0.014, respectively). Conclusion: HEV infection may be more common in HIV-1 patients and may develop a chronic infection in immunocompromised individuals. Molecular-based HEV diagnostic tests, including RT-PCR assays, should be performed in HIV-1 patients with unknown impaired liver function tests.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: This study described the epidemiology and geographical distribution of people diagnosed with HIV in Kerman, Iran, between 1997 and 2020. METHODS: We used case-based HIV surveillance data of all people diagnosed with HIV in Kerman between 1997 and 2020. We compared the age, gender, modes of transmission and spatial distribution of newly diagnosed HIV-infected people in three time periods (1997-2004, 2005-2012 and 2013-2020). The χ2 test for trend, one-sample t-test and Kruskal-Wallis H test were used to compare the differences between the three time periods. We also used ArcGIS to map both HIV services and people living with HIV (PLWH) in 2020. The nearest neighbour index and kernel density were used to identify the spatial distribution of PLWH. RESULTS: A total of 459 (27.5% women) people were diagnosed with HIV during 1997-2020. The proportion of women (9.3% in 1997-2004 and 48.3% in 2013-2020, p<0.001), HIV infection through sexual contacts (11.6% in 1997-2004 and 50.3% in 2013-2020, p<0.001), HIV infection under the age of 5 years (0.8% in 1997-2004 and 5.4% in 2013-2020, p=0.01) and mean age at diagnosis among men (34.9 in 1997-2004 and 39.8 years in 2013-2020, p=0.004) significantly increased over time. 36.2% of diagnosed cases had CD4 counts under 200 x 10ˆ6/L between 2013 and 2020, with no significant improvement over time. Most newly diagnosed cases of HIV were from the eastern parts of the city. The clusters of PLWH in 2020 matched with the locations of HIV services. CONCLUSION: We observed important changes in HIV epidemiology regarding gender, modes of transmission, number of paediatric cases and density maps over time in Kerman. These changes should be considered for precise targeting of HIV prevention and treatment programmes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Low access to HIV prevention, care, and treatment services among people living with HIV (PLWH) is a barrier to the control of the epidemic worldwide. The present study aimed to assess the barriers and facilitators to HIV services among PLWH in Kerman, Iran. METHODS: In this qualitative study, a convenience sample of 25 PLWH who had received HIV prevention, treatment, or care services, and six PLWH who had not yet received services were recruited between August-October 2020. Data were collected using a semi-structured, face-to-face interview. Data were examined by inductive content analysis using MAXQDA 10 software. RESULTS: Nine categories of facilitators and 11 categories of barriers to HIV services were identified. Facilitating factors included: maintaining health status, feeling scared, trust in the health system, how they were treated by service providers, provision of suitable hours by the service provider center, changing attitudes towards HIV in society, acceptance of the disease by the patient's family, hope for the future and feeling the need for consulting services. Barriers included financial problems, side effects and belief in efficacy, distance and transportation problems, fear of being recognized, stigma towards PLWH, organization of services, improper treatment by service providers, unsuitable hours by the service provider center, lack of trust in the health system, lack of family support, and inadequate or low-quality service. CONCLUSION: Many facilitators and barriers to HIV prevention, treatment, and care are amenable to change and better management by healthcare and service providers. Addressing these factors is likely to increase the willingness to use services by those who have never previously accessed them.

Asunto(s)