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

Expanding expedited partner therapy and HIV prophylaxis in the emergency department

PURPOSE

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) continue to have a disproportionate impact on individuals belonging to sexual, gender, and racial minorities. Across the nation, many emergency medicine pharmacists (EMPs) possess the skills and knowledge to expand the provision of expedited partner therapy (EPT) for STIs and provide HIV prophylaxis within existing practice frameworks. This report serves as a call to action for expanded provision of EPT and HIV prophylaxis by EMPs and highlights current barriers and solutions to increase pharmacist involvement in these practice areas.

SUMMARY

Emergency medicine pharmacy practice continues to expand to allow for limited prescribing authority through collaborative practice agreements (CPAs). In recent years, CPA restrictions have been changed to facilitate treatment of more patients with less bureaucracy. This report addresses the unique challenges and opportunities for expanding EPT and HIV pre- and postexposure prophylaxis provision by pharmacists in emergency departments (EDs). Furthermore, current strategies and treatments for EPT, such as patient-delivered partner therapy and HIV prophylaxis, are discussed. Pharmacist involvement in STI treatment and HIV prevention is a key strategy to increase access to high-risk populations with high ED utilization and help close current gaps in care.

CONCLUSION

Expanding EMP provision of EPT and HIV prophylaxis may be beneficial to reducing the incidence of STIs and HIV infection in the community. CPAs offer a feasible solution to increase pharmacist involvement in the provision of these treatments. Legislative efforts to expand pharmacist scope of practice can also contribute to increasing access to EPT and HIV prophylaxis. With these efforts, EMPs can play an essential role in the fight against STIs and HIV.

Effectiveness of Linkage to Care and Prevention Interventions Following HIV Self-Testing: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Over 38.4 million people were living with HIV globally in 2021. The HIV continuum includes HIV testing, diagnosis, linkage to combined antiretroviral therapy (cART), and retention in care. An important innovation in the HIV care continuum is HIV self-testing. There is a paucity of evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions aimed at linking self-testers to care and prevention, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). To bridge this gap, we carried out a global systematic review and meta-analysis to ascertain the effectiveness of interventions post-HIV self-testing regarding: (1) linkage to care or ART, (2) linkage to PrEP, and (3) the impact of HIV self-test (HIVST) interventions on sexual behaviors. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), Google Scholar, and ResearchGate. We included only published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experiment that compared HIVST to the standard of care (SoC). Studies with sufficient data were aggregated using meta-analysis on RevMan 5.4 at a 95% confidence interval. Cochrane's Q test was used to assess heterogeneity between the studies, while Higgins and Thompson's I2 was used to quantify heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify the source of heterogeneity. Of the 2669 articles obtained from the databases, only 15 studies were eligible for this review, and eight were included in the final meta-analysis. Overall, linkage to care was similar between the HIVST arm and SoC (effect size: 0.92 [0.45-1.86]; I2: 51%; p: 0.04). In the population subgroup analysis, female sex workers (FSWs) in the HIVST arm were significantly linked to care compared to the SoC arm (effect size: 0.53 [0.30-0.94]; I2: 0%; p: 0.41). HIVST interventions did not significantly improve ART initiation in the HIVST arm compared to the SoC arm (effect size: 0.90 [0.45-1.79]; I2: 74%; p: < 0.001). We found that more male partners of women living with HIV in the SoC arm initiated PrEP compared to partners in the HIVST arm. The meta-analysis showed no difference between the HIVST and SoC arm regarding the number of clients (effect size: - 0.66 [1.35-0.02]; I2: 64%; p: 0.09) and non-clients FSWs see per night (effect size: - 1.45 [- 1.45 to 1.38]; I2: 93%; p: < 0.001). HIVST did not reduce the use of condoms during insertive or receptive condomless anal intercourse among MSM. HIVST does not improve linkage to care in the general population but does among FSWs. HIVST intervention does not improve linkage to ART nor significantly stimulate healthy sexual behaviors among priority groups. The only RCT that linked HIVST to PrEP found that PrEP uptake was higher among partners of women living with HIV in the SoC arm than in the HIVST arm. More RCTs among priority groups are needed, and the influence of HIVST on PrEP uptake should be further investigated.

The Testing Imperative: Why the US Ending the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Epidemic Program Needs to Renew Efforts to Expand HIV Testing in Clinical and Community-Based Settings

Data from several modeling studies demonstrate that large-scale increases in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing across settings with a high burden of HIV may produce the largest incidence reductions to support the US Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative's goal of reducing new HIV infections 90% by 2030. Despite US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommendations for routine HIV screening within clinical settings and at least yearly screening for individuals most at risk of acquiring HIV, fewer than half of US adults report ever receiving an HIV test. Furthermore, total domestic funding for HIV prevention has remained unchanged between 2013 and 2019. The authors describe the evidence supporting the value of expanded HIV testing, identify challenges in implementation, and present recommendations to address these barriers through approaches at local and federal levels to reach EHE targets.

The Influence of Health Care Provider-Initiated HIV Screening on the Rate of HIV Testing among Black and Latinx People in the Midwest

HIV continues to impact people of color disproportionately. In 2015, Black Americans accounted for 42% of those living with HIV, and Latinx individuals accounted for 30% of new diagnoses. Using a sample of 364 people of color, demographic data, HIV testing history, and interactions with health care providers were collected. Over half of the participants (59.3%) had never been offered an HIV test, and only 19% reported a provider had offered an HIV test once, followed by 14% who have had a provider offer an HIV test more than once. Participants who were offered an HIV test once were 13.23 times more likely to report a history of HIV screening, and those offered an HIV test more than once were 18.02 times more likely to report a history of HIV testing. Participants who reported feeling a "little" judged were 6.85 times less likely to report being screened for HIV.

HIV Testing Preferences and Characteristics of Those Who Have Never Tested for HIV in the United States

BACKGROUND

The initial phase of the federal Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. (EHE) initiative prioritized efforts in 57 geographic areas. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends persons aged 13 to 64 years be tested for HIV at least once as part of routine health care; however, it is unclear how effectively these testing recommendations have been implemented in EHE priority areas.

METHODS

In 2021 to 2022, we analyzed data from a Web-based, nationally representative survey of adults fielded in 2021. HIV testing preferences were compared by testing history, demographic characteristics, behaviors, and geography.

RESULTS

An estimated 72.5% of US adults had never tested for HIV. Never testing was most prevalent among those aged 18 to 29 or those 50 years or older, non-Hispanic White persons, and those living in the Midwest. Among persons living in EHE priority areas and persons reporting at least one behavior that increases risk of HIV transmission, 69.1% and 48.0%, respectively, had never tested for HIV. The top 3 HIV testing preferences among never testers were as follows: testing for HIV during a routine health care visit (41.2%), testing at an urgent care or walk-in clinic (9.6%), and self-testing (8.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most adults had not been tested for HIV, confirming that US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations are not being fully implemented, even in EHE priority areas. Moreover, most adults who never tested preferred testing in clinical settings, highlighting missed opportunities. As the EHE initiative continues to advance, it is critical to leverage preferred HIV testing modalities, such as routine testing in clinical settings or HIV self-testing.

Financing Benefits and Barriers to Routine HIV Screening in Clinical Settings in the United States: A Scoping Review

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends everyone between 13-64 years be tested for HIV at least once as a routine procedure. Routine HIV screening is reimbursable by Medicare, Medicaid, expanded Medicaid, and most commercial insurance plans. Yet, scaling-up HIV routine screening remains a challenge. We conducted a scoping review for studies on financial benefits and barriers associated with HIV screening in clinical settings in the U.S. to inform an evidence-based strategy to scale-up routine HIV screening. We searched Ovid MEDLINE^®, Cochrane, and Scopus for studies published between 2006-2020 in English. The search identified 383 Citations; we screened 220 and excluded 163 (outside the time limit, irrelevant, or outside the U.S.). Of the 220 screened articles, we included 35 and disqualified 155 (did not meet the eligibility criteria). We organized eligible articles under two themes: financial benefits/barriers of routine HIV screening in healthcare settings (9 articles); and Cost-effectiveness of routine screening in healthcare settings (26 articles). The review concluded drawing recommendations in three areas: (1) Finance: Incentivize healthcare providers/systems for implementing HIV routine screening and/or separate its reimbursement from bundle payments; (2) Personnel: Encourage nurse-initiated HIV screening programs in primary care settings and educate providers on CDC recommendations; and (3) Approach: Use opt-out approach.

Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Health Screening: an Umbrella Review Across Conditions

Screening is an essential prevention practice for a number of health conditions. However, screening coverage remains generally low. Studies that investigate determinants of screening participation are becoming more common, but oftentimes investigate screening for health conditions in an individualized rather than integrated fashion. In routine clinical practice, however, healthcare professionals are often confronted with situations in which several screening procedures are recommended for the same patient. The consideration of their common determinants may support a more integrated screening approach. The objectives of this umbrella review were therefore to examine: 1) the determinants (barriers and facilitators) that have been identified in relation to recommended health screening procedures; and 2) the modifiable determinants (in primary care) common across health conditions or specific to individual procedures. Results were presented through a narrative synthesis. PubMed, PsycInfo and Cochrane were searched up to January 2022. Systematic reviews reporting determinants of participation in health screening procedures with grade A or B recommendation according to the US Preventive Services Task Force were included. A total of 85 systematic reviews were included, most which contained both qualitative and quantitative studies on determinants that describe individual factors (961 occurrences), social factors (113 occurrences, healthcare professional factors (149 occurrences), health system factors (105 occurrences) and screening procedure factors (99 occurrences). The most studied screening procedures concerned cervical cancer/human papillomavirus (n = 33), breast cancer (n = 28), colorectal cancer (n = 25) and the human immunodeficiency virus (n = 12). Other conditions have been under-studied (e.g. cardiovascular problems, lung cancer, syphilis). The individual domain, including determinants such as knowledge, beliefs and emotions, was the most covered across health conditions. Healthcare professional's recommendations and the quality of patient-provider communication were identified to have a strong influence on screening participation in most conditions. The other three domains included determinants which were more specific to a condition or a population. Various determinants modifiable in primary care were found in the individual domain and in the health system, healthcare professional and screening procedure domains. Quality was assessed as low for most systematic reviews included. The identification of various modifiable determinants common across conditions highlights the potential of an integrated screening participation approach. Interventions may address common determinants in a broader person-centred framework within which tailoring to specific procedures or populations can be considered. This approach needs to be explored in intervention studies. The systematic review registration is PROSPERO CRD42019126709.

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.

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.

Screening for infections in pregnancy - An overview of where we are today

Although most infections in pregnancy have very little impact, some affect either the mother or fetus or both. Screening must target those infections with consequences and furthermore, must be cost-beneficial. The introduction of any screening test for infections should take into consideration the prevalence of the condition, its consequences (health impact), the accuracy of the test and whether there are remedial steps including primary and secondary prevention to take with a positive or negative test. For some of these infections (for example syphilis and rubella) universal screening of all pregnant women has been the norm world-wide but as the epidemiology of these infections continue to change, a review of this practice must evolve. Furthermore, emerging infections line severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 pose greater public health challenges. This article provides an overview of screening for infections in pregnancy, critically appraising screening for the common infections and arguing for abandoning of universal screening for rubella but advocating for universal screening for GBS and selective screening for CMV and toxoplasmosis.

Maternal infections: revisiting the need for screening in pregnancy

The decision to implement screening for infections during pregnancy depends upon epidemiological, economic, therapeutic and test performance criteria. It therefore varies with public health priorities from country to country. When screening is implemented, the first trimester has become the best time slot to build individual care pathways in this field. This is most relevant for evaluating the risk of embryonic consequences, planning diagnostic testing, initiating primary or secondary prevention and optimising the accuracy of ultrasound follow-up. This article is a critical appraisal of epidemiological data and current international screening recommendations for infections in pregnancy. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Screening for infections in pregnancy: a critical review of current epidemiological evidence and international guidelines.

HIV Screening Among Gonorrhea-Diagnosed Individuals; Baltimore, Maryland; April 2015 to April 2019

BACKGROUND

Individuals diagnosed with gonorrhea are at elevated risk for HIV. Per US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline, individuals being evaluated for gonorrhea should be screened for HIV concurrently. There is limited information on HIV screening among gonorrhea-diagnosed individuals across different health care settings. Our objective was to identify potential gaps in HIV screening among gonorrhea-diagnosed individuals in Baltimore City, Maryland.

METHODS

We used Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance Network project data collected on a random sample of all gonorrhea diagnoses reported to the health department between April 2015 and April 2019. Individuals with known HIV diagnoses were excluded. HIV screening was confirmed through surveys administered to the gonorrhea-diagnosing provider. HIV screening across groups was assessed using Poisson regression models with robust SEs. We examined those with and without recent (≤12 months) sexually transmitted infection (STI) history separately.

RESULTS

Among 2830 gonorrhea-diagnosed individuals with completed Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance Network provider surveys, less than half (35.2% with and 44.8% without recent STI history) received concurrent HIV screening. HIV screening was 73% less prevalent among those diagnosed in emergency departments/urgent care centers/hospitals versus sexual health clinics (with and without recent STI history: adjusted prevalence ratio, 0.27 [95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.39]; adjusted prevalence ratio, 0.27 [0.23-0.33]), controlling for diagnosis year, sex, race/ethnicity, age, infection site, and insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest a considerable gap in HIV screening among individuals at elevated risk for HIV acquisition in Baltimore City, particularly among those diagnosed in emergency departments/urgent care centers/hospital settings. Future work should focus on identifying provider-level barriers to concurrent HIV/STI screening to inform provider education programs.

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.

Current Resources for Evidence-Based Practice, May 2020

An extensive review of new resources to support the provision of evidence-based care for women and infants. The current column includes a discussion of a new National Academy of Medicine report on planned place of birth and implications during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and commentaries on reviews focused on anorectal sexually transmitted infections and feeding methods following cleft lip repair in infants.