CROI 2020 Abstract eBook

Abstract eBook

Poster Abstracts

863 HIGH PROBABILITY OF SURVIVAL IN PATIENTS WHO MAINTAIN VIRAL LOADS <200 COPIES/ML Jennifer S. Lee 1 , Bryan Lau 1 , Joseph J. Eron 2 , Ronald Bosch 3 , Mari M. Kitahata 4 , Julia Fleming 5 , Michael John Gill 6 , W. C. Mathews 7 , Timothy R. Sterling 8 , Viviane D. Lima 9 , Michael J. Silverberg 10 , Michael A.Horberg 11 , Keri N. Althoff 1 , Richard D. Moore 1 , for the NA-ACCORD of IeDEA 1 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA, 2 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 3 Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, 4 University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, 5 The Fenway Institute, Boston, MA, USA, 6 Southern Alberta Clinic, Calgary, AB, Canada, 7 University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA, 8 Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA, 9 British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 10 Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA, 11 Kaiser Permanente Mid- Atlantic States, Rockville, MD, USA Background: It is unclear whether low, detectable viral load (VL), observed as viral blips and low-level viremia, impacts risk of death. Our objective was to estimate mortality risk after initial suppression in patients who maintained VLs <200 copies/mL while in care at NA-ACCORD clinical sites in 2007–2016. Methods: We followed adults who newly initiated ART and achieved initial suppression (first VL under assay limit of detection [LOD]) under observation. Patients were followed from initial suppression until death, loss to follow-up (no VL for 15 months), or administrative censoring. Nearly 80% of VLs after initial suppression fell under varying LODs (LOD range: 20–500 copies/mL); multiple imputation based on demographic and clinical factors was used to address VLs

862 SEX-SPECIFIC ANALYSES IN ORAL ABSTRACTS FROM CROI 2019

William R. Short 1 , Laura M. Smeaton 2 , Sara H. Bares 3 , Susan E. Cohn 4 , Michelle Dalla Piazza 5 , Sharlaa Badal-Faesen 6 , Sara Gianella 7 , Rosie Mngqibisa 8 , Valarie S. Opollo 9 , Anandi N. Sheth 10 , Marije Van Schalkwyk 11 , Selvamuthu Poongulali 12 , Christina Vernon 13 , Elizabeth Connick 14 , Monica Gandhi 15 1 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2 Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA, 3 University of Nebraska, Omaha, NE, USA, 4 Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA, 5 Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA, 6 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, 7 University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA, 8 Enhancing Care Foundation, Durban, South Africa, 9 KEMRI-UCSF, Kisumu, Kenya, 10 Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA, 11 Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa, IDSI, New Delhi, India, 13 Social & Scientific Systems, Silver Spring, MD, USA, 14 University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, 15 University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA Background: Globally, women account for more than half of persons living with HIV (PWLH), yet remain underrepresented in research. Starting in 2018, CROI guidelines specifically recommended reporting of sex distribution and sex- adjusted analyses, but formal review showed rates of such reporting among CROI 2018 oral abstracts were low. Members of the Women’s Health Inter-Network Scientific Committee (WHISC) of the ACTG and IMPAACT networks reviewed adherence to these guidelines among oral presentations from CROI 2019. Methods: Each CROI 2019 webcast of oral abstract presentations was reviewed by at least 2 WHISC members. For presentations of research relevant to both sexes, reviewers assessed whether sex distribution and sex-adjusted analyses were presented. Results: Overall, 85 oral abstracts (79 clinical studies and 6 pre-clinical studies) addressed a scientific question relevant to both sexes. 85% (67 of 79) of clinical studies included sex distribution compared to 76% at CROI 2018. In 10% of these (7 out of 67), sex was incorrectly referred to as gender, which was similar to CROI 2018. 51% (34 of 67) of clinical studies included ≤25%women; 7 included no women and 3 included no men, but only 5 of these 10 communicated this restriction in the abstract title. Reporting of sex of animals in pre-clinical studies remained low (0 of 6 in 2019 and 1 of 13 in 2018). Finally, 49% (39 of 79) of clinical studies at CROI 2019 included sex-adjusted results, which was slightly higher than the 30% reporting at CROI 2018. Sex-adjusted analyses were higher among observational studies (64%, 29 of 45) than in clinical trials (29%, 10 of 34); see Table. Conclusion: While there was some improvement in reporting sex-specific analyses among oral presentations at CROI 2019 compared to 2018, there is still much room for improvement. Consistent failure to report sex distribution in pre- clinical studies needs to be addressed. Reporting of sex distribution in clinical studies needs more emphasis since 15% of oral presentations failed to include this. Education regarding the difference between sex and gender is necessary and titles should indicate whether findings are restricted to one sex. Finally, enrolling adequate numbers of women to performmeaningful sex-stratified analyses and performing such analyses require additional guidance and even mandates given that over half of PLWH worldwide are women.

Poster Abstracts

CROI 2020 322