Troubling Issues with HIV and Monkeypox Co-Infection

In the process of gathering state-level data on the incidence and demographics of Monkeypox (MPV) in the United States, we have come across several reports of people who have been diagnosed with MPV being co-infected with HIV. This worrisome trend indicates the need for targeted interventions, increased testing, and better communication about MPV in both patient and provider settings. 

The Community Access National Network (CANN) has launched an ambitious patient awareness campaign focused on the ongoing Monkeypox outbreak. Its ‘MPV Response Project for People Living with HIV’ seeks to gather data and issue reports covering MPV in the United States. The reports will focus on epidemiological trends, vaccine access and equity, state-level access to vaccine and antiviral supplies, HIV and MPV co-infection risk and reporting, and the latest news related to the outbreak. The project is broad in scope, and it will tackle the MPV outbreak in a way that is both data-focused and patient-centric. This month’s blog will focus on the disparities faced by people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) and MPV. 

Data from the European Union, United Kingdom, and the United States suggest that between 28% and 51% of persons diagnosed with MPV are also living with HIV (Kuehn, 2022). According to estimates from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), an estimated 40% of people who have been diagnosed with MPV in the U.S. are also living with HIV (HIV [dot] gov, 2022). 

These data are considerably troublesome, particularly as research is beginning to show that PLWHA are likelier to have worse manifestations of MPV, require hospitalization more frequently than persons who are not living with HIV, and are likelier to die as a result of MPV co-infection. 

The underlying issue? 

We simply don’t have enough localized data (or really, financial resources) to create strategic responses. 

Currently, there are only three major jurisdictions in the U.S. that publicly report on HIV co-infection in MPV diagnoses—Michigan, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. This includes looking at the municipal jurisdictions that were specifically targeted for JYNNEOS vaccine supplies—Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, and Houston—of which only Los Angeles’ reporting mentions HIV, and even then, only in relation to tecovirimat (TPOXX) prescribing data. 

So, what does this mean? 

Primarily, it means that we need to look at other sources in order to extrapolate co-infection data and use modeling to make educated guesses about where risks of co-infection are highest and how best to respond. 

There are currently only a handful of recent studies and surveys that focus on the United States outbreak of MPV from which we can glean these data: 

1. Curran, et al., published in September 2022, focused on a sample of 1,969 from eight jurisdictions:

• California

• Los Angeles

• San Francisco

• District of Columbia

• Georgia

• Illinois

• Chicago

• New York (excluding New York City) 

These jurisdictions were selected because they were independently funded for HIV surveillance and because they represented areas with the highest rates of MPV infections in the United States.

Curran, et al., found that 755 patients (38%) of that sample were co-infected with HIV. Of those patients, 94% had received HIV care in the past year, and 82% were virally suppressed (Curran, et al., 2022). 

2. Miller, et al., released in October 2022, looked at a significantly smaller sample size of just 57 patients who had been admitted to hospitals for severe manifestations of MPV.

Of this sample, 47 (82%) were co-infected with HIV, just four of whom (9%) were receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) to treat their HIV prior to being diagnosed with MPV.

In terms of demographics, 68% of this sample were non-Hispanic Black Americans, which highlights disparities in HIV treatment in Black communities.

Prior to the release of this report, 12 of those patients died. MPV was listed either as the cause of death or a contributing factor in five of those deaths, six deaths remain under investigation to determine if MPV was the cause or a factor, and 1 death was deemed neither the cause nor a contributing factor (Miller, et al., 2022)

So, what can we learn from these relatively limited findings: 

1. We can determine that PLWHA, particularly Men who have Sex with Men (MSM), are at higher risk of contracting MPV than their heterosexual or women peers.

From the data we have reported in previous blog posts and the reports we’ve released, MPV infection rates are highest in three primary populations:

a. MSM
b. Black Americans
c. Hispanic Americans 

This should lead us to build strategies that focus on education of providers about properly identifying MPV lesions, testing, vaccination, and treatment of MPV in these communities.

An additional consideration is a lack of uniformity in gender identity reporting and data collections. As of current, while some jurisdictions are collecting gender identity data for MPV metrics (with many more getting a much better handle on the same data for HIV-related metrics), most are not. Similar to data collection and reporting in HIV prior to about 2016, MPV data does not typically distinguish between a person’s sex assigned at birth and gender identity, thus not adequately capturing data that would appropriately represent transgender communities.

In our gathering of state-level MPV reporting, we found that 22 of the 32 jurisdictions that provide gender demographic reporting either do not report on transgender patient populations, at all, or lump all non-cisgender patients into an “Other” category that fails to capture the diversity of patient populations and health outcomes between them.

Two examples of how this data delineation proves particularly relevant can be observed in the emergence of information regarding HIV prevalence among transgender women, particularly transgender women of color, and, more recently, transgender men have largely been ignored as a target population, likely because of stereotypes and assumptions as to the types of sexual activity transgender men might engage in and because transgender men are less likely to access care (Demmons, 2019). A recent study conducted by AIDS United highlighted how deeply flawed some of those assumptions are, with 35% of the transgender men responding to the survey with a self-reported HIV-positive status (AIDS United, 2022).

Further consideration should also be given to persons experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness. Miller, et al., found that 23% of the admitted patients were experiencing homelessness, which is likely indicative of a growing outbreak among a key population: PLWHA who may be housing insecure.

2. We don’t know what we don’t know.

One of the largest concerns, here, is that a majority of providers in the United States simply aren’t familiar enough with MPV to identify the disease consistently and correctly. Since the beginning of the epidemic, physicians have struggled to do so, with many misdiagnosing MPV as other diseases or infections, such as herpes or syphilis (Doucleff, 2022). This is because both of those sexually transmitted infections may manifest as skin lesions, similar to MPV. Misdiagnosis can lead to both the provision of ineffective treatments and result in the unchecked spread of MPV. This highlights the need for better provider education about MPV, its manifestations, and how to correctly differentiate between various diseases.

Additionally, while both Curran and Miller provide reporting on HIV co-infection in persons diagnosed with MPV, none of the listed jurisdictions from which they selected their sample groups provide public-facing reporting on HIV co-infection.

In the three jurisdictions we found with this reporting—Michigan, North Carolina, and Rhode Island—48.6% of MPV patients were co-infected in Michigan, 51.6% in North Carolina, and 27.7% in Rhode Island.

These findings fall relatively neatly into the HIV.gov reporting that 28% - 52% of MPV patients are likely to be co-infected with HIV.

However, these numbers could potentially be higher, particularly in major cities, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, DC, Atlanta, and other areas that have higher populations of PLWHA and more areas and venues where PLWHA tend to congregate (e.g., bars, restaurants, sex clubs, steam rooms, et cetera).

3. Although overall diagnoses of MPV have fallen precipitously since August 2022, there is a significant risk of MPV becoming endemic in MSM, LGBTQ, and PLWHA populations.

This will require the development and wider distribution of better MPV-specific vaccines, better MPV-specific treatments, and better education and health communication about MPV and its transmissibility.

There seems to be a prevailing belief that the United States has weathered the worst of MPV. With declining positivity rates, there are some in the public health community who have decided that resources and attention would be better spent elsewhere—specifically, they’re looking at the tridemic of COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that is leaving hospitals once again scrambling for ICU beds. More accurately, it may be said that jurisdictions either cannot or will not expand the existing resources and personnel to allow for the continued surveillance of MPV. This essentially relegates the work of focusing on, addressing, and frankly caring about MPV to those working in HIV and infectious disease spaces.

Already, we are seeing this trend in data reporting: the state of Texas has removed MPV data entirely from its data dashboard, replacing it with Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). This is indicative that a lack of financial and human resources, or the lack of political will or interest to increase those resources, will force state departments of health to reduce reporting on MPV in favor of diseases that impact populations they deem “more important” than MSM, Black, and Hispanic populations.

This, again, raises the concern that MPV will become a virus that is all but forgotten by the general public and general practitioners, as those who face the greatest impacts are already marginalized populations. The disparities faced by those bearing the brunt of MPV mirror those in new HIV diagnoses; it is incumbent upon us to respond evaluate and respond to those trends accordingly.

References

AIDS United. (2022, November). CHANGING THE GAME: Visibility of Trans Men in the South. Washington, DC: AIDS United: News and Resources. https://aidsunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ChangingTheGame-FinalReport.pdf

Curran, K.G., Eberly, K., Russell, O.O., et al. (2022, September 09). HIV and Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Persons with Monkeypox — Eight U.S. Jurisdictions, May 17–July 22, 2022. MMWR Weekly 71(36), 1141-1147. http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7136a1

Demmons, S. (2019, July 10. Why are trans men invisible in HIV prevention & care? San Francisco, CA: San Francisco AIDS Foundation: Our Voices. https://www.sfaf.org/collections/beta/why-are-trans-men-invisible-in-hiv-prevention-care/

Doucleff, M. (2022, June 06). Monkeypox cases are going undetected or misdiagnosed. Washington, DC: National Public Radio: All Things Considered. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/06/1103372564/monkeypox-cases-are-going-undetected-or-misdiagnosed

HIV [dot] gov. (2022, November 30). mpox and People with HIV. Washington, DC: United States Department of Health and Human Services: Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy: HIV.gov. https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/staying-in-hiv-care/other-related-health-issues/monkeypox

Kuehn, B. M. (2022, September 27). Interim Guidance for Monkeypox Among Patients With HIV. JAMA 328(12), 1173-1174. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.14727

Miller, M J., Cash-Goldwasser, S., Marx, G.E., Schrodt, C.A., Kimball, A., Padgett, K., Noe, R.S., McCormick, D.W., et. al. (2022, October 26). Severe Monkeypox in Hospitalized Patients — United States, August 10–October 10, 2022. MMWR ePub. http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7144e1