An analysis of patients' understanding of ‘routine’ preoperative blood tests and HIV screening. Is no news really good news?

Comparing Routine HIV and Hepatitis C Virus Screening to Estimate the Effect of Required Consent on HIV Screening Rates Among Hospitalized Patients

OBJECTIVES

Routine screening for HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) among specified age cohorts is recommended. New York State requires consent before screening for HIV but not HCV. We sought to estimate the effect of the consent requirement on screening rates for HIV.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients hospitalized in 2015-2016 at a tertiary care hospital in the Bronx, New York, during a period when prompts in the electronic health record facilitated screening for HIV and HCV among specified age cohorts. We compared proportions of patients eligible for screening for HIV and/or HCV who underwent screening and used generalized estimating equations and a meta-analytic weighted average to estimate an adjusted risk difference between undergoing HIV screening and undergoing HCV screening.

RESULTS

Among 11 938 hospitalized patients eligible for HIV and/or HCV screening, 38.5% underwent screening for HIV and 59.1% underwent screening for HCV. The difference in screening rates persisted after adjusting for patient and admission characteristics (adjusted risk difference = 22.0%; 95% CI, 20.6%-23.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas the requirement for consent was the only difference in the processes of screening for HIV compared with screening for HCV, differences in how the 2 viruses are perceived may also have contributed to the difference in screening rates. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that requiring consent continues to impede progress toward the public health goal of routine HIV screening.

"That Can't Be!": Perceptions of HIV and Hepatitis C Screening during Admission to an Acute Care Surgery Service

Background:

A large number of patients live with undiagnosed HIV and/or hepatitis C despite broadened national screening guidelines. European studies, however, suggest many patients falsely believe they have been screened during a prior hospitalization. This study aims to define current perceptions among trauma and emergency general surgery (EGS) patients regarding HIV and hepatitis C screening practices.

Methods:

Prospective survey administered to adult (>18 years old) acute care surgery service (trauma and EGS) patients at a Level 1 academic trauma center. The survey consisted of 13 multiple choice questions: demographics, whether admission tests included HIV and hepatitis C at index and prior hospital visits and whether receiving no result indicated a negative result, prior primary care screening. Response percentages calculated in standard fashion.

Results:

One hundred and twenty-five patients were surveyed: 80 trauma and 45 EGS patients. Overall, 32% and 29.6% of patients believed they were screened for HIV and hepatitis C at admission. There was no significant difference in beliefs between trauma and EGS. Sixty-eight percent of patients had a hospital visit within 10 years of these, 49.3% and 44.1% believe they had been screened for HIV and hepatitis C. More EGS patients believed they had a prior screen for both conditions. Among patients who believed they had a prior screen and did not receive any results, 75.9% (HIV) and 80.8% (hepatitis C) believed a lack of results meant they were negative. Only 28.9% and 23.6% of patients had ever been offered outpatient HIV and hepatitis C screening.

Conclusions:

A large portion of patients believe they received admission or prior hospitalization HIV and/or hepatitis C screening and the majority interpreted a lack of results as a negative diagnosis. Due to these factors, routine screening of trauma/EGS patients should be considered to conform to patient expectations and national guidelines, increase diagnosis and referral for medical management, and decrease disease transmission.

A different form of injury prevention: Successful screening and referral for human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus in a trauma population

BACKGROUND

In the United States, millions of patients are living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) (0.44% and 1.5%) and many are currently undiagnosed. Because highly effective treatments are now available, early identification of these patients is extremely important to achieve improved clinical outcomes. Prior data and trauma-associated risk factors suggest a higher prevalence of both diseases in the trauma population. We hypothesized that a screening program could be successfully initiated among trauma activation patients and that a referral and linkage-to-care program could be developed.

METHODS

Hepatitis C virus and HIV screening tests were added to standard trauma activation laboratory orders at an academic Level I Trauma Center. Confirmatory viral load was sent when indicated. Patients with positive results were educated about their disease and referred to disease-specific follow-up. Data were collected prospectively from January 1, 2016, until June 30, 2017. Total and new diagnosis, referral rates, and linkage-to-care rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

One thousand eight hundred ninety-eight patients arrived as trauma activations. One thousand two hundred seventeen (64.1%) patients were screened (Level A, 75.6%; Level B, 60.2%). Seven percent of the screened patients were initially positive, and 5.5% were confirmed positive. Rates of both HIV (1.1%) and HCV (4.4%) were almost triple the national average. Overall, 3.3% screened positive for a new diagnosis. For HCV, the rate of new diagnosis was twice the national average (3%). Over 85% of all cases were referred for follow-up, and the combined linkage-to-care rate was 43.3%.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients were screened and referred for follow-up, indicating successful implementation of our trauma screening program. Routine screening of trauma patients should be considered to increase diagnosis rate, increase linkage-to-care rates, and decrease disease transmission. These screening efforts would help bridge the health care gap that exists in the trauma population due to lower insurance rates and limited access to primary care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care management, level III.

Routine screening for HIV, hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus in individuals undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery

OBJECTIVES

Given the effectiveness of treatment of HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections, there are considerable benefits associated with determining HIV/HBV/HCV status. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of systematic screening and subsequent care in an oral and maxillofacial surgery department.

METHODS

The anaesthesiologists proposed screening for HIV, HBV and HCV to all individuals of unknown infection status undergoing surgery between 19 April 2016 and 19 April 2017. The endpoints were the rates of test offer, acceptance/refusal and new diagnoses. Seropositive individuals were referred to infectious disease specialists. Associations between age, sex or surgery type and test offer (eligible individuals) or acceptance/refusal (those offered testing) were investigated.

RESULTS

Of the 1407 individuals attending the department, 1322 were eligible for inclusion in the study. Testing was proposed to 899 individuals [68%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 65-71%], 831 of whom accepted the offer (92.4%; 95% CI 90.5-94.1%). Results were obtained for 787 individuals (41 samples were uncollected and three were invalid). Age was the only factor associated with test offer in multivariable analysis [odds ratio (OR) 0.90; 95% CI 0.84-0.97, per additional 10 years], and no factor was associated with acceptance. Of the five, three and eight individuals testing positive for HIV, HBV and HCV, four, two and one patient, respectively, reported prior knowledge of seropositivity. The new diagnosis rate was 0.13% (95% CI 0-0.7%) for HIV and HBV, and 0.89% (95% CI 0.36-1.82%) for HCV [three positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests]. All individuals newly diagnosed with HIV or HCV infection received specific antiviral treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of screening offer and acceptance were high. Substantial screening resources are required to decrease the impact of the hidden epidemics of HIV, HBV and HCV infections.

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.

Patient and doctor perspectives on HIV screening in the emergency department: A prospective cross-sectional study

Background

The emergency department (ED) is mentioned specifically in the Swiss HIV testing recommendations as a site at which patients can benefit from expanded HIV testing to optimise early HIV diagnosis. At our centre, where local HIV seroprevalence is 0.2–0.4%, 1% of all patients presenting to the ED are tested for HIV. Barriers to HIV testing, from the patient and doctor perspective, and patient acceptability of rapid HIV testing were examined in this study.

Methods

Between October 2014 and May 2015, 100 discrete patient-doctor encounter pairs undertook a survey in the ED of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. Patients completed a questionnaire on HIV risk factors and were offered free rapid HIV testing (INSTI^™). For every patient included, the treating doctor was asked if HIV testing had 1) been indicated according to the national testing recommendations, 2) mentioned, and 3) offered during the consultation.

Results

Of 100 patients, 30 had indications for HIV testing through risk factors or a suggestive presenting complaint (PC). Fifty patients accepted rapid testing; no test was reactive. Of 50 patients declining testing, 82% considered themselves not at risk or had recently tested negative and 16% wished to focus on their PC. ED doctors identified 20 patients with testing indications, mentioned testing to nine and offered testing to six. The main reason for doctors not mentioning or not offering testing was the wish to focus on the PC.

Discussion

Patients and doctors at our ED share the testing barrier of wishing to focus on the PC. Rapid HIV testing offered in parallel to the patient-doctor consultation increased the testing rate from 6% (offered by doctors) to 50%. Introducing this service would enable testing of patients not offered tests by their doctors and reduce missed opportunities for early HIV diagnosis.

Investigating Barriers in HIV-Testing Oncology Patients: The IBITOP Study, Phase I

BACKGROUND

Although the prevalence of non-AIDS-defining cancers (non-ADCs) among people living with HIV is rising, we observed HIV testing rates below 5% at our oncology center, against a regional HIV prevalence of 0.2%-0.4%. We performed the Investigating Barriers in HIV-Testing Oncology Patients (IBITOP) study among oncology physicians and patients.

METHODS

Between July 1 and October 31, 2013, patients of unknown HIV status newly diagnosed with solid-organ non-ADCs referred to Lausanne University Hospital Oncology Service, Switzerland, were offered free HIV testing as part of their oncology work-up. The primary endpoints were (a) physician willingness to offer and patient acceptance of HIV testing and (b) physicians' reasons for not offering testing.

RESULTS

Of 239 patients of unknown HIV status with a new non-ADC diagnosis, 43 (18%) were offered HIV testing, of whom 4 declined (acceptance rate: 39 of 43; 91%). Except for 21 patients tested prior to oncology consultation, 175 patients (of 239; 73%) were not offered testing. Testing rate declined among patients who were >70 years old (12% versus 30%; p = .04); no non-European patients were tested. Physicians gave reasons for not testing in 16% of cases, the main reason being patient follow-up elsewhere (10 patients; 5.7%). HIV testing during the IBITOP study increased the HIV testing rate to 18%.

CONCLUSION

Although the IBITOP study increased HIV testing rates, most patients were not tested. Testing was low or nonexistent among individuals at risk of late HIV presentation (older patients and migrants). Barriers to testing appear to be physician-led, because patient acceptance of testing offered was very high (91%). In November 2013, the Swiss HIV testing recommendations were updated to propose testing in cancer patients. Phase II of the IBITOP study is examining the effect of these recommendations on HIV testing rates and focusing on physician-led testing barriers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Patients of unknown HIV status newly diagnosed with solid-organ non-AIDS-defining cancers were offered free HIV testing. Physician and patient barriers to HIV testing were examined. Most patients (82%) were not offered testing, and testing of individuals at risk of late HIV presentation (older patients and migrants) was low or nonexistent. Conversely, patient acceptance of testing offered was very high (91%), suggesting that testing barriers in this setting are physician-led. Since this study, the Swiss HIV testing recommendations now advise testing cancer patients before chemotherapy. Phase II of the Investigating Barriers in HIV-Testing Oncology Patients study is examining the effect of these recommendations on testing rates and physician barriers.

Unknown HIV Status in the Emergency Department: Implications for Expanded Testing Strategies

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to determine the prevalence of unknown HIV status among emergency department (ED) patients, how it has changed over time, and whether it differs according to patient characteristics.

METHODS

The authors used electronic medical record data to identify whether HIV status was known or unknown among patients aged ≥13 seen in the ED of a large, urban medical center between 2006 and 2011. The authors used multivariate logistic regression to identify the characteristics associated with unknown HIV status.

RESULTS

The prevalence of unknown HIV status decreased each year, from 87.7% in 2006 to 74.9% in 2011 (P < .001). Characteristics associated with unknown HIV status included being nonblack, in the youngest and oldest age-groups, and nonpublically insured. Compared to men, women without prior pregnancy were equally likely to have unknown HIV status, but women with prior pregnancy were significantly less likely to have unknown HIV status.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of unknown HIV status is decreasing, but in 2011 75% of ED patients aged ≥13 still had unknown status, and it was associated with specific patient characteristics. Understanding the trends in the prevalence of unknown HIV status and how it is associated with patient characteristics should inform the design and implementation of expanded HIV-testing strategies.

Patients with AIDS-defining cancers are not universally screened for HIV: a 10-year retrospective analysis of HIV-testing practices in a Swiss university hospital

OBJECTIVES

Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), invasive cervical carcinoma (ICC) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have been listed as AIDS-defining cancers (ADCs) by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 1993. Despite this, HIV screening is not universally mentioned in ADC treatment guidelines. We examined screening practices at a tertiary centre serving a population where HIV seroprevalence is 0.4%.

METHODS

Patients with KS, ICC, NHL and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), treated at Lausanne University Hospital between January 2002 and July 2012, were studied retrospectively. HIV testing was considered part of the oncology work-up if performed between 90 days before and 90 days after the cancer diagnosis date.

RESULTS

A total of 880 patients were examined: 10 with KS, 58 with ICC, 672 with NHL and 140 with HL. HIV testing rates were 100, 11, 60 and 59%, and HIV seroprevalence was 60, 1.7, 3.4 and 5%, respectively. Thirty-seven patients (4.2%) were HIV-positive, of whom eight (22%) were diagnosed at oncology work-up. All newly diagnosed patients had CD4 counts < 200 cells/μL and six (75%) had presented to a physician 12-236 weeks previously with conditions warranting HIV testing.

CONCLUSIONS

In our institution, only patients with KS were universally screened. Screening rates for other cancers ranged from 11 to 60%. HIV seroprevalence was at least fourfold higher than the population average. As HIV-positive status impacts on cancer patient medical management, HIV screening should be included in oncology guidelines. Further, we recommend that opt-out screening should be adopted in all patients with ADCs and HL.

Development of an electronic medical record-based algorithm to identify patients with unknown HIV status

Individuals with unknown HIV status are at risk for undiagnosed HIV, but practical and reliable methods for identifying these individuals have not been described. We developed an algorithm to identify patients with unknown HIV status using data from the electronic medical record (EMR) of a large health care system. We developed EMR-based criteria to classify patients as having known status (HIV-positive or HIV-negative) or unknown status and applied these criteria to all patients seen in the affiliated health care system from 2008 to 2012. Performance characteristics of the algorithm for identifying patients with unknown HIV status were calculated by comparing a random sample of the algorithm's results to a reference standard medical record review. The algorithm classifies all patients as having either known or unknown HIV status. Its sensitivity and specificity for identifying patients with unknown status are 99.4% (95% CI: 96.5-100%) and 95.2% (95% CI: 83.8-99.4%), respectively, with positive and negative predictive values of 98.7% (95% CI: 95.5-99.8%) and 97.6% (95% CI: 87.1-99.1%), respectively. Using commonly available data from an EMR, our algorithm has high sensitivity and specificity for identifying patients with unknown HIV status. This algorithm may inform expanded HIV testing strategies aiming to test the untested.

Universal screening versus universal precautions in the context of preoperative screening for HIV, HBV, HCV in India

In the Indian context, there is a convention of doing pre-operative screening for HIV, hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C viruses for all patients as a routine pre-intervention investigation. This approach is justified in some instances in the best interest of the patient. However, as routine screening is not the standard care internationally and as there is a significant divergence of views about the merits and demerits of this practice, this issue needs to be debated in a rational manner with an evidence-based approach. The present article is authored by a surgeon and a microbiologist from a new cancer care centre in eastern India, who has attempted to address this contentious issue. The various available options have been explored, and advantages and disadvantages of the different approach have been discussed. An algorithm for infection prevention and control has been presented so that surgeons and medical microbiologists could manage infection control challenges satisfactorily.