Determinants of HIV late presentation among men who have sex with men in Portugal (2014–2019): who’s being left behind?

To investigate differences in pathogenesis, diagnosis and resistance pathways between HIV-1 subtypes, an accurate subtyping tool for large datasets is needed. We aimed to evaluate the performance of automated subtyping tools to classify the different subtypes and circulating recombinant forms using pol, the most sequenced region in clinical practice. We also present the upgraded version 3 of the Rega HIV subtyping tool (REGAv3). HIV-1 pol sequences (PR+RT) for 4674 patients retrieved from the Portuguese HIV Drug Resistance Database, and 1872 pol sequences trimmed from full-length genomes retrieved from the Los Alamos database were classified with statistical-based tools such as COMET, jpHMM and STAR; similarity-based tools such as NCBI and Stanford; and phylogenetic-based tools such as REGA version 2 (REGAv2), REGAv3, and SCUEAL. The performance of these tools, for pol, and for PR and RT separately, was compared in terms of reproducibility, sensitivity and specificity with respect to the gold standard which was manual phylogenetic analysis of the pol region. The sensitivity and specificity for subtypes B and C was more than 96% for seven tools, but was variable for other subtypes such as A, D, F and G. With regard to the most common circulating recombinant forms (CRFs), the sensitivity and specificity for CRF01_AE was ~99% with statistical-based tools, with phylogenetic-based tools and with Stanford, one of the similarity based tools. CRF02_AG was correctly identified for more than 96% by COMET, REGAv3, Stanford and STAR. All the tools reached a specificity of more than 97% for most of the subtypes and the two main CRFs (CRF01_AE and CRF02_AG). Other CRFs were identified only by COMET, REGAv2, REGAv3, and SCUEAL and with variable sensitivity. When analyzing sequences for PR and RT separately, the performance for PR was generally lower and variable between the tools. Similarity and statistical-based tools were 100% reproducible, but this was lower for phylogenetic-based tools such as REGA (~99%) and SCUEAL (~96%). REGAv3 had an improved performance for subtype B and CRF02_AG compared to REGAv2 and is now able to also identify all epidemiologically relevant CRFs. In general the best performing tools, in alphabetical order, were COMET, jpHMM, REGAv3, and SCUEAL when analyzing pure subtypes in the pol region, and COMET and REGAv3 when analyzing most of the CRFs. Based on this study, we recommend to confirm subtyping with 2 well performing tools, and be cautious with the interpretation of short sequences. Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Programs that monitor local, national, and regional levels of transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance inform treatment guidelines and provide feedback on the success of HIV-1 treatment and prevention programs. To accurately compare transmitted drug resistance rates across geographic regions and times, the World Health Organization has recommended the adoption of a consensus genotypic definition of transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance. In January 2007, we outlined criteria for developing a list of mutations for drug-resistance surveillance and compiled a list of 80 RT and protease mutations meeting these criteria (surveillance drug resistance mutations; SDRMs). Since January 2007, several new drugs have been approved and several new drug-resistance mutations have been identified. In this paper, we follow the same procedures described previously to develop an updated list of SDRMs that are likely to be useful for ongoing and future studies of transmitted drug resistance. The updated SDRM list has 93 mutations including 34 NRTI-resistance mutations at 15 RT positions, 19 NNRTI-resistance mutations at 10 RT positions, and 40 PI-resistance mutations at 18 protease positions.

Treatment as prevention (TaSP) is a critical component of biomedical interventions to prevent HIV transmission. However, its success is predicated on testing and identifying undiagnosed individuals to ensure linkage and retention in HIV care. Research has examined the impact of HIV-associated stigma on HIV-positive individuals, but little work has explored how anticipated HIV stigma-the expectation of rejection or discrimination against by others in the event of seroconversion-may serve as a barrier to HIV testing behaviors. This study examined the association between anticipated stigma and HIV testing behaviors among a sample of 305 men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women living in New York City. Participants' mean age was 33.0; 65.5% were racial/ethnic minority; and 50.2% earned <$20,000 per year. Overall, 32% of participants had not had an HIV test in the past 6 months. Anticipated stigma was negatively associated with risk perception. In multivariate models, anticipated stigma, risk perception, and younger age were significant predictors of HIV testing behaviors. Anti-HIV stigma campaigns targeting HIV-negative individuals may have the potential to significantly impact social norms around HIV testing and other biomedical strategies, such pre-exposure prophylaxis, at a critical moment for the redefinition of HIV prevention.