To give an overview of the HIV epidemic in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Articles on the MENA region were reviewed. The MENA region comprises a geographically defined group of countries including both high-income, well-developed nations and low- and middle-income countries. While the annual number of new HIV infections in Sub-Saharan Africa has declined by 33% since 2005, new HIV infections in the MENA region have increased by 31% since 2001, which is the highest increase among all regions in the world. Moreover, the number of AIDS-related deaths in 2013 was estimated to be 15000, representing a 66% increase since 2005. However, the current prevalence of 0.1% is still among the lowest rates globally. There is substantial heterogeneity in HIV epidemic dynamics across MENA, and different risk contexts are present throughout the region. Despite unfavorable conditions, many countries in the region have put significant effort into scaling up their response to this growing epidemic, while in others the response to HIV is proving slower due to denial, stigma, and reluctance to address sensitive issues. The HIV epidemic in the MENA region is still at a controllable level, and this opportunity should not be missed.

Testing for HIV is one of the cornerstones in the fight against HIV spread. The 2014 European Guideline on HIV Testing provides advice on testing for HIV infection in individuals aged 16 years and older who present to sexually transmitted infection, genito-urinary or dermato-venereology clinics across Europe. It may also be applied in other clinical settings where HIV testing is required, particularly in primary care settings. The aim of the guideline is to provide practical guidance to clinicians and laboratories that within these settings undertake HIV testing, and to indicate standards for best practice.

The aim of this survey was to describe the current status of HIV care in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and to investigate how close the region is to achieving the UNAIDS 2020 target of 90-90-90. In 2014, data were collected from 24 Central and Eastern European countries using a 38-item questionnaire. All countries reported mandatory screening of blood and organ donors for HIV. Other groups subjected to targeted screening included people who inject drugs (PWID) (15/24, 62.5%), men who have sex with men (MSM) (14/24, 58.3%), and sex workers (12/24, 50.0%). Only 14 of the 24 countries (58.3%) screened pregnant women. The percentages of late presentation and advanced disease were 40.3% (range 14-80%) and 25.4% (range 9-50%), respectively. There was no difference between countries categorized by income or by region in terms of the percentages of persons presenting late or with advanced disease. The availability of newer antiretroviral drugs (rilpivirine, etravirine, darunavir, maraviroc, raltegravir, dolutegravir) tended to be significantly better with a higher country income status. Ten countries reported initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) regardless of CD4+ T cell count (41.7%), five countries (20.8%) used the threshold of <500 cells/μl, and nine countries (37.5%) used the threshold of <350cells/μl. Initiation of ART regardless of the CD4+ T cell count was significantly more common among high-income countries than among upper-middle-income and lower-middle-income countries (100% vs. 27.3% and 0%, respectively; p=0.001). Drugs were provided free of charge in all countries and mostly provided by governments. There were significant discrepancies between countries regarding the follow-up of people living with HIV. There are major disparities in the provision of HIV care among sub-regions in Europe, which should be addressed. More attention in terms of funding, knowledge and experience sharing, and capacity building is required for the resource-limited settings of Central and Eastern Europe. The exact needs should be defined and services scaled up in order to achieve a standard level of care and provide an adequate and sustainable response to the HIV epidemic in this region.

With no expected vaccine for HIV in the near future, we aimed to define the current situation and challenges for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP and PEP) in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The Euroguidelines CEE Network Group members were invited to respond to a 27-item survey including questions on PrEP (response rate 91.6%). PrEP was licensed in 68.2%; 95 centers offered PrEP and the estimated number on PrEP was around 9000. It was available in daily (40.1%), on-demand (13.3%), or both forms (33.3%). The access rate was <1–80%. Three major barriers for access were lack of knowledge/awareness among people who are in need (59.1%), not being reimbursed (50.0%), and low perception of HIV risk (45.5%). Non-occupational PEP was available in 86.4% and was recommended in the guidelines in 54.5%. It was fully reimbursed in 36.4%, only for accidental exposures in 40.9%, and was not reimbursed in 22.72%. Occupational PEP was available in 95.5% and was reimbursed fully. Although PrEP scale-up in the region has gained momentum, a huge gap exists between those who are in need of and those who can access PrEP. Prompt action is required to address the urgent need for PrEP scale-up in the CEE region.

Background: There is limited evidence on the modification or stopping of antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens, including novel antiretroviral drugs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the discontinuation of first ART before and after the availability of better tolerated and less complex regimens by comparing the frequency, reasons and associations with patient characteristics.Methods: A total of 3019 ART-naive patients registered in the HIV-TR cohort who started ART between Jan 2011 and Feb 2017 were studied. Only the first modification within the first year of treatment for each patient was included in the analyses. Reasons were classified as listed in the coded form in the web-based database. Cumulative incidences were analysed using competing risk function and factors associated with discontinuation of the ART regimen were examined using Cox proportional hazards models and Fine-Gray competing risk regression models.Results: The initial ART regimen was discontinued in 351 out of 3019 eligible patients (11.6%) within the first year. The main reason for discontinuation was intolerance/toxicity (45.0%), followed by treatment simplification (9.7%), patient willingness (7.4%), poor compliance (7.1%), prevention of future toxicities (6.0%), virologic failure (5.4%), and provider preference (5.4%). Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based (aHR = 4.4, [95% CI 3.0–6.4]; p < 0.0001) or protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimens (aHR = 4.3, [95% CI 3.1–6.0]; p < 0.0001) relative to integrase strand transfer inhibitor (InSTI)-based regimens were significantly associated with ART discontinuation. ART initiated at a later period (2015-Feb 2017) (aHR = 0.6, [95% CI 0.4–0.9]; p < 0.0001) was less likely to be discontinued. A lower rate of treatment discontinuation for intolerance/toxicity was observed with InSTI-based regimens (2.0%) than with NNRTI- (6.6%) and PI-based regimens (7.5%) (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients who achieved HIV RNA < 200 copies/mL within 12 months of ART initiation was 91% in the ART discontinued group vs. 94% in the continued group (p > 0.05).Conclusion: ART discontinuation due to intolerance/toxicity and virologic failure decreased over time. InSTI-based regimens were less likely to be discontinued than PI- and NNRTI-based ART.

The aim of this descriptive article is to share the experience in Ege University, Turkey with favipiravir in the treatment of severe SARS CoV-2 pneumonia. This retrospective descriptive study included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who presented with or developed severe pneumonia. Forty patients who completed a full course (at least 5 days) of favipiravir were included in the study. At baseline, 30 (75%) patients required treatment for respiratory distress. Thirty three patients (82.5%) were discharged from the hospital with full recovery, 6 patients (15%) died and 1 case (2.5%) was still at the ICU when this paper was written. This study provides relevant information for the treatment of COVID-19, suggesting that favipiravir was associated with significant clinical and laboratory improvements in the majority of the patients, is a safe drug with no serious side effects and would merit further investigation.