Opt-out screening strategy for HIV infection among patients attending emergency departments: systematic review and meta-analysis

Analysis of the reasons for requesting HIV serology in the emergency department other than those defined in the targeted screening strategy of the "Urgències VIHgila" program and its potential inclusion in a future consensus document

OBJECTIVE

To describe other reasons for requesting HIV serology in emergency departments (ED) other than the 6 defined in the SEMES-GESIDA consensus document (DC-SEMES-GESIDA) and to analyze whether it would be efficient to include any of them in the future.

METHODS

Review of all HIV serologies performed during 2 years in 20 Catalan EDs. Serologies requested for reasons not defined by the DC-SEMES-GESIDA were grouped by common conditions, the prevalence (IC95%) of seropositivity for each condition was calculated, and those whose 95% confidence lower limit was >0.1% were considered efficient. Sensitivity analysis considered that serology would have been performed on 20% of cases attended and the remaining 80% would have been seronegative.

RESULTS

There were 8044 serologies performed for 248 conditions not recommended by DC-SEMES-GESIDA, in 17 there were seropositive, and in 12 the performance of HIV serology would be efficient. The highest prevalence of detection corresponded to patients from endemic countries (7.41%, 0.91-24.3), lymphopenia (4.76%, 0.12-23.8), plateletopenia (4.37%, 1.20-10.9), adenopathy (3.45%, 0.42-11.9), meningoencephalitis (3.12%, 0.38-10.8) and drug use (2.50%, 0.68-6.28). Sensitivity analysis confirmed efficiency in 6 of them: endemic country origin, plateletopenia, drug abuse, toxic syndrome, behavioral-confusional disorder-agitation and fever of unknown origin.

CONCLUSION

The DC-SEMES-GESIDA targeted HIV screening strategy in the ED could efficiently include other circumstances not previously considered; the most cost-effective would be origin from an endemic country, plateletopenia, drug abuse, toxic syndrome, behavioral-confusional-agitation disorder and fever of unknown origin.

Are behavioral economics interventions effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake: A systematic review of evidence and meta-analysis?

Various interventions have been investigated to improve the uptake of colorectal cancer screening. In this paper, the authors have attempted to provide a pooled estimate of the effect size of the BE interventions running a systematic review based meta-analysis. In this study, all the published literatures between 2000 and 2022 have been reviewed. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases. The main outcome was the demanding the one of the colorectal cancer screening tests. The quality assessment was done by two people so that each person evaluated the studies separately and independently based on the individual participant data the modified Jadad scale. Pooled effect size (odds ratio) was estimated using random effects model at 95% confidence interval. Galbraith, Forrest and Funnel plots were used in data analysis. Publication bias was also investigated through Egger's test. All the analysis was done in STATA 15. From the initial 1966 records, 38 were included in the final analysis in which 72612 cases and 71493 controls have been studied. About 72% have been conducted in the USA. The heterogeneity of the studies was high based on the variation in OR (I2 = 94.6%, heterogeneity X2 = 670.01 (d.f. = 36), p < 0.01). The random effect pooled odds ratio (POR) of behavioral economics (BE) interventions was calculated as 1.26 (95% CI: 1.26 to 1.43). The bias coefficient is noteworthy (3.15) and statistically significant (p< 0.01). According to the results of this meta-analysis, health policy and decision makers can improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of policies to control this type of cancer by using various behavioral economics interventions. It's noteworthy that due to the impossibility of categorizing behavioral economics interventions; we could not perform by group analysis.

Feasibility of a selective targeted strategy of HIV testing in emergency departments: a before-after study

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE

The rates of hidden infection and late diagnosis of HIV still remain high in Western countries. Missed diagnostic opportunities represent the key point in changing the course of the epidemic.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and results of implementation of a selective strategy to test for HIV in the emergency department (ED) in patients with six pre-defined medical situations: sexually transmitted infections, herpes zoster, community-acquired pneumonia, mononucleosis syndrome, practice of chemsex (CS) or request of post-exposure prophylaxis.

DESIGN

This quasi-experimental longitudinal study evaluated the pre- and post-implementation results of HIV testing in the six aforementioned clinical scenarios.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients attended 34 Spanish EDs.

INTERVENTION OR EXPOSURE

The intervention was an intensive educational program and pathways to facilitate and track orders and results were designed. We collected and compared pre- and post-implementation ED census and diagnoses, and HIV tests requested and results.

OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS

The main outcome was adherence to the recommendations. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate the effectiveness of the program by the rate of positive test and the new HIV diagnoses. Differences between first and second periods were assessed. The magnitude of changes (absolute and relative) was expressed with the 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

HIV tests increasing from 7080 (0.42% of ED visits) to 13 436 (relative increase of 75%, 95% CI from 70 to 80%). The six conditions were diagnosed in 15 879 and 16 618 patients, and HIV testing was ordered in 3393 (21%) and 7002 (42%) patients (increase: 97%; 95% CI: 90-104%). HIV testing significantly increased for all conditions except for CS. The positive HIV test rates increased from 0.92 to 1.67%. Detection of persons with undiagnosed HIV increased from 65 to 224, which implied a 220% (95% CI: 143-322%) increase of HIV diagnosis among all ED comers and a 71% (95% CI: 30-125%) increase of positive HIV tests.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a strategy to test for HIV in selective clinical situations in the ED is feasible and may lead to a substantial increase in HIV testing and diagnoses.

"I Didn't Know What They're Gonna Do to Me: So That's Why I Said No": Why Youth Decline HIV Testing in Emergency Departments

Youth between the ages of 13 and 24 account for over 20% of new HIV diagnoses in the United States but are the least likely age group to be HIV tested in healthcare settings including the emergency department. This is in part due to the fact that almost 50% of youth decline testing when offered. We elucidated youth patients' perspectives on barriers to and facilitators of routine HIV testing of youth in an urban emergency department setting. Thirty-seven patients aged 13-24 years were recruited from the pediatric and adult emergency departments at a high-volume hospital in New York City from August 2019 to March 2020. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with all participants. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were coded using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Youths' main reasons for declining HIV testing when offered included low risk perception, privacy concerns, HIV-related stigma, and low levels of HIV-related knowledge. Participants' responses suggested that HIV educational materials provided when testing is offered may be insufficient. Participants recommended providing additional HIV education and better incorporating HIV testing into the emergency department routine to increase testing among youth. Efforts are needed to help youth recognize their own HIV risk and increase their HIV-related knowledge. This may be accomplished by providing youth with additional educational materials on HIV, possibly via tablet-based interventions or other methods that may enhance privacy, combined with discussions with healthcare providers. Such efforts may help increase HIV testing acceptance among youth seen in the emergency department.

Comparison of Targeted and Routine Adolescent HIV Screening in a Pediatric Emergency Department

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the study were (1) to compare targeted and routine HIV screening in a pediatric emergency department (PED) and (2) to compare provider documented HIV risk assessment with adolescent perception of HIV risk assessment conducted during the PED visit.

METHODS

This prospective study ran concurrent to a PED routine HIV screening pilot. Adolescents could be tested for HIV by the PED provider per usual care (targeted testing); if not tested, they were approached for the routine screening pilot. A subset of adolescents completed a questionnaire on HIV risk. χ 2 analysis compared adolescents with targeted testing and routine screening. HIV-tested patients were asked if HIV risk was assessed; κ analysis compared this with documentation in the provider note.

RESULTS

Over 4 months, 107 adolescents received targeted testing and 344 received routine screening. One 14-year-old patient tested positive by routine screening; this adolescent had 2 PED visits without targeted testing within 60 days. Compared with routine screening, adolescents with targeted testing were more likely female (82% vs 57%, P < 0.001), 16 years or older (71% vs 44%, P < 0.001), or had genitourinary/gynecologic concerns (48% vs 6%, P < 0.001). Adolescents with HIV risk factors were missed by targeted testing but received routine screening. Adolescents with documented HIV risk assessment were more likely to receive targeted testing. There was moderate agreement (κ = 0.61) between provider documentation and adolescent perception of HIV risk assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

There are gaps in PED HIV risk assessment and testing, which may miss opportunities to diagnose adolescent HIV. Routine HIV screening addresses these gaps and expands adolescent HIV testing in the PED.

HIV Testing Uptake According to Opt-In, Opt-Out or Risk-Based Testing Approaches: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose of Review

Improving HIV testing uptake is essential to ending the HIV pandemic. HIV testing approaches can be opt-in, opt-out or risk-based. This systematic review examines and compares the uptake of HIV testing in opt-in, opt-out and risk-based testing approaches.

Recent Findings

There remain missed opportunities for HIV testing in a variety of settings using different approaches: opt-in (a person actively accepts to be tested for HIV), opt-out (a person is informed that HIV testing is routine/standard of care, and they actively decline if they do not wish to be tested for HIV) or risk-based (using risk-based screening tools to focus testing on certain individuals or sub-populations at greater risk of HIV). It is not clear how the approach could impact HIV test uptake when adjusted for other factors (e.g. rapid testing, country-income level, test setting and population tested).

Summary

We searched four databases for studies reporting on HIV test uptake. In total, 18,238 records were screened, and 150 studies were included in the review. Most studies described an opt-in approach (87 estimates), followed by opt-out (76) and risk-based (19). Opt-out testing was associated with 64.3% test uptake (I² = 99.9%), opt-in testing with 59.8% (I² = 99.9%) and risk-based testing with 54.4% (I² = 99.9%). When adjusted for settings that offered rapid testing, country income level, setting and population tested, opt-out testing had a significantly higher uptake (+ 12% (95% confidence intervals: 3–21), p = 0.007) than opt-in testing. We also found that emergency department patients and hospital outpatients had significantly lower HIV test uptake than other populations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11904-022-00614-0.

Evaluation of emergency department visits prior to an HIV diagnosis: Missed opportunities

OBJECTIVE

There is a high rate of occult infection and late diagnosis in HIV. Hospital emergency departments (ED) are an important point of health care. The present work aims to know the number of missed opportunities for HIV diagnosis occurring in the ED.

METHOD

Retrospective multicenter cohort study that included all patients diagnosed with HIV infection in 2019 in 27 Spanish hospitals in 7 different autonomous communities. All ED consultation episodes in the 5 years prior to diagnosis were reviewed to find out the reason for consultation and whether this represented a missed opportunity for HIV diagnosis.

RESULT

Seven hundred twenty-three patients were included, and 352 (48.7%, 95%CI: 45.1%-52.3%) had at least one ED visit during the 5 years prior to diagnosis (median 2, p25-p75: 1-4). One hundred and eighteen patients (16.3%, 95%CI: 13.8%-19.2%) had a missed diagnostic opportunity. The main consultations were drug use [145 (15%)], sexually transmitted infections [91 (9.4%)] and request for post-exposure HIV prophylaxis [39 (4%)]. One hundred and fifty-five (42.9%) of the 352 had less than 350 CD4/mm³ when the HIV diagnosis was established. In patients with previous ED visits, the mean time to diagnosis from this visit was 580 (SD 647) days.

CONCLUSIONS

Sixteen percent of patients diagnosed with HIV missed the opportunity to be diagnosed in the 5 years prior to diagnosis, highlighting the need to implement ED screening measures different from current ones to improve these outcomes.

Interventions to Increase HIV Testing Uptake in Global Settings

Purpose of Review

HIV testing is the critical first step to direct people living with HIV (PLWH) to treatment. However, progress is still being made towards the UNAIDS benchmark of 95% of PLWH knowing their status by 2030. Here, we discuss recent interventions to improve HIV testing uptake in global settings.

Recent Findings

Successful facility-based HIV testing interventions involve couples and index testing, partner notification, and offering of incentives. Community-based interventions such as home-based self-testing, mobile outreach, and hybrid approaches have improved HIV testing in low-resource settings and among priority populations. Partnerships with trusted community leaders have also increased testing among populations disproportionally impacted by HIV.

Summary

Recent HIV testing interventions span a breadth of facility- and community-based approaches. Continued research is needed to engage men in sub-Saharan Africa, people who inject drugs, and people who avoid biomedical care. Interventions should consider supporting linkage to care for newly diagnosed PLWH.

Opt-out universal HCV and HIV screening in a Canadian emergency room: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of undiagnosed hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HIV cases in a population sample tested in the emergency room (ER) and to evaluate linkage-to-care.

SETTING

Canadian university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults born after 1945 who consulted at ER for any condition and on any shift were included. Patients unable to opt-out were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

ER nurse confirmed patients' eligibility and provided them with the option to opt-out. A physician met patients with a new diagnosis. Linkage-to-care was assessed 3 months postdiagnosis. Patients newly diagnosed with HCV were considered linked if they had an HCV RNA test, genotype, liver fibrosis evaluation, and if indicated, treatment prescription. Patients newly diagnosed with HIV were considered linked to care if they had an HIV serology confirmation test, viral load, CD4 cell count and started antiretroviral therapy.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary objective: to determine the prevalence (overall and undiagnosed cases) of HIV and HCV among the patients who consult the ER. Secondary objectives: to determine the proportion of patients who opt-out, assess the adherence of emergency staff to the offer of testing, determine the proportion of patients linked to care at 3 months.

RESULTS

Among 6350 eligible patients informed of the screening programme, 62.1% of patients were tested for at least one virus (HIV: 3905; HCV: 3910). 25% patients opted-out, 12% were not tested for organisational reasons, 0.3% (18) patients were HCV-HIV coinfected. Overall prevalence of HCV and HIV cases were 1.9% and 1.2%, respectively. Prevalence of new cases was 0.23% (95% CI 0.12% 0.45%) for HCV and 0.05% (95% CI 0.01% to 0.20%) for HIV. Among the new cases, only two HCV-infected and one HIV-infected patients were linked-to-care 3 months postdiagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of new cases of HCV and HIV through universal screening at the ER and linkage-to-care were both low.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03595527; Results.

Acceptability of HIV testing for adolescents and young adults by delivery model: a systematic review

HIV infections are prevalent among adolescents and young adults, of whom 44% remain unaware of their diagnosis. HIV screening presents numerous challenges including stigma, fear, and concerns about confidentiality, which may influence young people's acceptance of HIV screening and linkage to care differently from individuals in other age groups. It is imperative to understand which care delivery models are most effective in facilitating these services for youth. This systematic review analyzes the rates of HIV test acceptance and linkage to care by care delivery model for adolescents and young adults. Studies were classified into emergency department (ED), primary care/inpatient setting, community-based program, or sexually transmitted infection clinic models of care. From 6395 studies initially identified, 59 met criteria for inclusion in the final analyses. Rate of test acceptance and linkage to care were stratified by model of care delivery, gender, race, age ranges (13-17, 18-24 years) as well as site (North America vs rest of the world). A significant difference in acceptance of HIV testing was found between care models, with high rates of test acceptance in the ED setting in North America and primary care/hospital setting in the rest of the world. Similarly, linkage to care differed by model of care, with EDs having high rates of linkages to HIV care in North America. Future studies are needed to test mechanisms for optimizing outcomes for each care delivery model in addressing the unique challenges faced by adolescents and young adults.

Emergency Room "Opt-Out" HIV Testing Pre- and During COVID-19 Pandemic in a Large Community Health System

Background:

South Florida has the highest HIV rates across the country. Emergency Rooms (ERs) are optimal clinical sites for the identification of people living with HIV. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and yield of opt-out HIV testing among ER patients in a large community healthcare system in South Florida, and determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HIV testing.

Methods:

This was a retrospective study conducted in the Memorial Healthcare System, Hollywood, Florida. HIV test was offered on an “opt-out” basis to patients aged 16 years or older presenting to the ER of the Memorial Regional Hospital between July 2018 and August 2020. Number of ER visits, HIV testing offered, acceptance of HIV testing, tested positive for HIV infection and linkage to care were reviewed and analyzed.

Results:

A total of 105,264 (53.7%) patients of 196,110 ER visits were eligible for HIV testing and 39,261 (37.3%) completed HIV testing. Of those tested, 206 (0.5%) patients tested positive, with 54 (26.2%) new infected patients and 152 (73.8%) known infected patients who had not disclosed their status. 45 (60%) of 75 patients with known HIV infections who were not engaged in HIV care were successfully relinked into care after testing, and engagement in care increased from 50.7% pre-testing to 80.3% post-testing (p = 0.001). 45 (83.3%) of 54 newly diagnosed patients were successfully linked into care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant reduction in both the ER visits and HIV tests as compared with the pre-pandemic period (p = 0.007 and p < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion:

An “Opt-out” HIV testing program was successfully implemented in a community hospital ERs. The use of this strategy successfully identified patients with undiagnosed HIV infection and improved their engagement in HIV care. Given the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the testing program, new strategies should develop to reduce service disruption and maintain the progress of “Opt-out” HIV testing.

Utilizing emergency departments for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)

HIV incidence and prevalence rates in emergency departments (EDs) around the nation warrant strategies to protect and sustain the HIV negative status of persons who are at risk for HIV. The ED provides a rare opportunity to serve as a vehicle for connecting pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)-eligible patients with clinical settings such as an ED that are knowledgeable and well informed about PrEP. PrEP has established efficacy at preventing HIV acquisition. The greatest challenge is access to PrEP and uptake thereof among vulnerable populations. We propose recommendations to improve the functionality of EDs as access points for PrEP referrals as an HIV prevention strategy to increase PrEP availability and uptake.

Unique Needs for the Implementation of Emergency Department Human Immunodeficiency Virus Screening in Adolescents

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend universal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening starting at 13 years, which has been implemented in many general U.S. emergency departments (EDs) but infrequently in pediatric EDs. We aimed to 1) implement a pilot of routine adolescent HIV screening in a pediatric ED and 2) determine the unique barriers to CDC-recommended screening in this region of high HIV prevalence.

METHODS

This was a prospective 4-month implementation of a routine HIV screening pilot in a convenience sample of adolescents 13 to 18 years at a single pediatric ED, based on study personnel availability. Serum-based fourth-generation HIV testing was run through a central laboratory. Parents were allowed to remain in the room for HIV counseling and testing. Data were collected regarding patient characteristics and HIV testing quality metrics. Comparisons were made using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Regression analysis was performed to assess for an association between parent presence at the time of enrollment and adolescent decision to participate in HIV screening.

RESULTS

Over 4 months, 344 of 806 adolescents approached consented to HIV screening (57% female, mean ± SD = 15.1 ± 1.6 years). Adolescents with HIV screening were more likely to be older than those who declined (p = 0.025). Other blood tests were collected with the HIV sample for 21% of adolescents; mean time to result was 105 minutes (interquartile range = 69 to 123) and 79% were discharged before the result was available. Having a parent present for enrollment was not associated with adolescent participation (adjusted odds ratio = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.70). Barriers to testing included: fear of needlestick, time to results, cost, and staff availability. One of 344 tests was positive in a young adolescent with Stage 1 HIV.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine HIV screening in adolescents was able to be implemented in this pediatric ED and led to the identification of early infection in a young adolescent who would have otherwise been undetected at this stage of disease. Addressing the unique barriers to adolescent HIV screening is critical in high-prevalence regions and may lead to earlier diagnosis and treatment in this vulnerable population.

The emergency department as a setting-specific opportunity for population-based hepatitis C screening: An economic evaluation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The World Health Organization's hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination strategy recognizes the need for interventions that identify populations most affected by infection. The emergency department (ED) has been suggested as a setting for HCV screening. The study objective was to explore the health and economic impact of HCV screening in the ED setting.

METHODS

We used a microsimulation model to conduct a cost-utility analysis evaluating two ED setting-specific strategies: no screening, and screening and subsequent treatment. Strategies were examined for two populations: (a) the general ED patient population; and (b) ED patients born between 1945 and 1975. The analysis was conducted from a healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime time horizon. A reference and high ED HCV seroprevalence measure were examined in the Canadian healthcare setting.US costs of chronic infection were used for a scenario analysis of screening in the US healthcare setting.

RESULTS

For birth cohort screening, in comparison to no screening, one liver-related death was averted for every 760 and 123 persons screened for the reference and high seroprevalence measures. For general population screening, one liver-related death was averted for every 831 and 147 persons screened for the reference and high seroprevalence measures. In comparison to no screening, birth cohort screening was cost-effective at CAN$25,584/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and US$42,615/QALY. General population screening was cost-effective at CAN$19,733/QALY and US$32,187/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

ED screening may represent a cost-effective component of population-based strategies to eliminate HCV. Further studies are warranted to explore the feasibility and acceptability of this approach.

Opt-out screening for HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C: observational study of screening acceptance, yield and treatment outcomes

BACKGROUND

We initiated an emergency department (ED) opt-out screening programme for HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) at our hospital in Dublin, Ireland. The objective of this study was to determine screening acceptance, yield and the impact on follow-up care.

METHODS

From July 2015 through June 2018, ED patients who underwent phlebotomy and could consent to testing were tested for HIV, HBV and HCV using an opt-out approach. We examined acceptance of screening, linkage to care, treatment and viral suppression using screening programme data and electronic health records. The duration of follow-up ranged from 1 to 36 months.

RESULTS

Over the 36-month study period, there were 140 550 ED patient visits, of whom 88 854 (63.2%, 95% CI 63.0% to 63.5%) underwent phlebotomy and 54 817 (61.7%, 95% CI 61.4% to 62.0%) accepted screening for HIV, HBV and HCV, representing 41 535 individual patients. 2202 of these patients had a positive test result. Of these, 267 (12.1%, 95% CI 10.8% to 13.6%) were newly diagnosed with an infection and 1762 (80.0%, 95% CI 78.3% to 81.7%) had known diagnoses. There were 38 new HIV, 47 new HBV and 182 new HCV diagnoses. 81.5% (95% CI 74.9% to 87.0%) of known patients who were not linked were relinked to care after screening. Of the new diagnoses, 86.2% (95% CI 80.4 to 90.8%) were linked to care.

CONCLUSION

Although high proportions of patients had known diagnoses, our programme was able to identify many new infected patients and link them to care, as well as relink patients with known diagnoses who had been lost to follow-up.

Acceptance of Opt-Out HIV Screening in Outpatient Settings in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

In the United States, about 15% of persons living with HIV infection do not know they are infected. Opt-out HIV screening aims to normalize HIV testing by performing an HIV test during routine medical care unless the patient declines. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the acceptance of opt-out HIV screening in outpatient settings in the United States.

METHODS

We searched in PubMed and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) for studies published from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2018, of opt-out HIV screening in outpatient settings. We collected data from selected studies and calculated for each study (1) the percentage of persons who were offered HIV testing, (2) the percentage of persons who accepted the test, and (3) the percentage of new HIV diagnoses among persons tested. We also collected information on the reasons given by patients for opting out. The meta-analysis used a random-effects model to estimate the average percentages of HIV testing offered, HIV testing accepted, and new HIV diagnoses.

RESULTS

We initially identified 6986 studies; the final analysis comprised 14 studies. Among the 8 studies that reported the size of the study population eligible for HIV screening, 71.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9%-89.0%) of the population was offered an HIV test on an opt-out basis. The test was accepted by 58.7% (95% CI, 47.2%-70.2%) of persons offered the test. Among 9 studies that reported data on new HIV diagnoses, 0.18% (95% CI, 0.08%-0.26%) of the persons tested had a new HIV diagnosis. Patients' most frequently cited reasons for refusal of HIV screening were that they perceived a low risk of having HIV or had previously been tested.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of offering and accepting an HIV test on an opt-out basis could be improved by addressing health system and patient-related factors. Setting a working target for these rates would be useful for measuring the success of opt-out HIV screening programs.

Routine HIV testing program in the University Infectious Diseases Centre in Lithuania: a four-year analysis

BACKGROUND

HIV transmission remains a major concern in Eastern Europe, and too many people are diagnosed late. Expanded testing strategies and early and appropriate access to care are required. Infectious disease departments might be targets for expanded HIV testing owing to the intense passage of key patient populations that carry indicators of HIV disease. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility and clinical effectiveness of a fully integrated, opt-out routine, rapid HIV testing program.

METHODS

A retrospective four-year study of a screening program was conducted from 2010 through 2014. The program was divided into two periods: from 2010 to 2012 (pilot study) and from 2013 to 2014. The pilot study consisted of routine HIV testing of patients aged 18-55 that were hospitalized in one department. In the second period, all inpatients aged 18-65 were eligible. Targeted testing was conducted in the other inpatient department during the pilot study and the outpatient department during both periods.

RESULTS

During the pilot study, 2203 patients were hospitalized, 1314 (59.6%) were eligible, 954 (72.6%) were tested, and 3 (0.31%) were newly diagnosed HIV-positive. In the second period, 4911 patients were hospitalized, 3727 (75.9%) were eligible, 3303 (88.6%) were tested, and 7 (0.21%) were HIV-positive. In total, 2800 targeted tests were performed, and 4 (0.14%) patients tested positive with newly discovered HIV. All 14 newly diagnosed patients were provided with care. Comparing cumulative groups of routine and targeted testing, the HIV prevalence was 0.23% vs. 0.14% (p = 0.40) and was above the reported cost-effectiveness threshold of 0.1% (p = 0.012). A lower proportion of advanced disease and a higher proportion of heterosexually transmitted infection were found in the routine testing group.

CONCLUSION

Routine HIV testing in admissions of infectious diseases is acceptable, feasible, sustainable and clinically effective. Compared to targeted testing, routine testing helped to discover more patients in earlier stages and those with heterosexually transmitted HIV infection.

Non-targeted HIV testing in the emergency department: not just how but where

INTRODUCTION

The emergency department (ED) has the potential to enhance early HIV diagnosis through HIV testing programs. How these are implemented is a subject of debate. Areas covered: We describe the main HIV testing approaches: diagnostic testing, targeted screening, and non-targeted screening, and review ED-based non-targeted HIV screening studies conducted after 2006 among ≥5000 patients. As well as examining how testing is offered, we focus on where it is offered, through the patient's journey from registration, via triage and the waiting room, to the bedside. Barriers to the testing offer, acceptance and performance were examined at each location. While testing offer rates were higher at registration and triage, compared to the waiting room and bedside, this was sometimes at the expense of testing acceptance and performance. Variables affecting testing rates included type of consent, employment of external staff and type of testing: fourth generation serological testing versus rapid testing. Expert commentary: These large studies shed light on the importance of where as well as how HIV testing is performed, and the ways in which the 'where' can influence non-targeted screening yields. This perspective enables testing approaches to be tailored to specific ED settings in order to maximize testing rates.