OBJECTIVE: This study leverages estimates of the number of members of a social app geared towards gay men (Hornet) and members of Facebook using self-reported relationship interests in men, men and women, and those with at least one reported same-sex interest. Results were categorized by country of residence to validate official size estimates of GBMSM in 13 countries across five continents.
METHODS: Data were collected through the Hornet Gay Social Network and by using an a priori determined framework to estimate the numbers of Facebook members with interests associated with GBMSM in South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, Côte d'Ivoire, Mauritania, The Gambia, Lebanon, Thailand, Malaysia, Brazil, Ukraine, and the United States. These estimates were compared with the most recent Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and national estimates across 143 countries.
RESULTS: The estimates that leveraged social media apps for the number of GBMSM across countries are consistently far higher than official UNAIDS estimates. Using Facebook, it is also feasible to assess the numbers of GBMSM aged 13-17 years, which demonstrate similar proportions to those of older men. There is greater consistency in Facebook estimates of GBMSM compared to UNAIDS-reported estimates across countries.
CONCLUSIONS: The ability to use social media for epidemiologic and HIV prevention, treatment, and care needs continues to improve. Here, a method leveraging different categories of same-sex interests on Facebook, combined with a specific gay-oriented app (Hornet), demonstrated significantly higher estimates than those officially reported. While there are biases in this approach, these data reinforce the need for multiple methods to be used to count the number of GBMSM (especially in more stigmatizing settings) to better inform mathematical models and the scale of HIV program coverage. Moreover, these estimates can inform programs for those aged 13-17 years; a group for which HIV incidence is the highest and HIV prevention program coverage, including the availability of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), is lowest. Taken together, these results highlight the potential for social media to provide comparable estimates of the number of GBMSM across a large range of countries, including some with no reported estimates.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate clinical laboratory markers of SARS-CoV-2 and PASC.
DESIGN: Propensity score-weighted linear regression models were fitted to evaluate differences in mean laboratory measures by prior infection and PASC index (≥12 vs. 0). (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05172024).
SETTING: 83 enrolling sites.
PARTICIPANTS: RECOVER-Adult cohort participants with or without SARS-CoV-2 infection with a study visit and laboratory measures 6 months after the index date (or at enrollment if >6 months after the index date). Participants were excluded if the 6-month visit occurred within 30 days of reinfection.
MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed questionnaires and standard clinical laboratory tests.
RESULTS: Among 10 094 participants, 8746 had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1348 were uninfected, 1880 had a PASC index of 12 or higher, and 3351 had a PASC index of zero. After propensity score adjustment, participants with prior infection had a lower mean platelet count (265.9 × 109 cells/L [95% CI, 264.5 to 267.4 × 109 cells/L]) than participants without known prior infection (275.2 × 109 cells/L [CI, 268.5 to 282.0 × 109 cells/L]), as well as higher mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level (5.58% [CI, 5.56% to 5.60%] vs. 5.46% [CI, 5.40% to 5.51%]) and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (81.9 mg/g [CI, 67.5 to 96.2 mg/g] vs. 43.0 mg/g [CI, 25.4 to 60.6 mg/g]), although differences were of modest clinical significance. The difference in HbA1c levels was attenuated after participants with preexisting diabetes were excluded. Among participants with prior infection, no meaningful differences in mean laboratory values were found between those with a PASC index of 12 or higher and those with a PASC index of zero.
LIMITATION: Whether differences in laboratory markers represent consequences of or risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection could not be determined.
CONCLUSION: Overall, no evidence was found that any of the 25 routine clinical laboratory values assessed in this study could serve as a clinically useful biomarker of PASC.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.