Search

Background: The proportion of people who are diagnosed late is a key metric to measure the public health response to HIV. But this percentage remains stubbornly high in nearly every country. Delays in accessing antiretroviral therapy affects both (i) individual health, due to a higher risk of mortality, and (ii) population‐based health, due to continued risk of transmission. Despite huge efforts to increase testing, late diagnosis continues to be an indication of a public health failure. Outline: This short review includes community perspectives on why late diagnosis continues and how it may be reduced. We discuss both structural barriers that prevent people from testing earlier and personal reasons why some people still refuse testing when offered. We note that late diagnosis is reported in all countries and in all demographic groups and that sex, gender, age, and sexuality all affect these rates. However, even in groups with high HIV awareness, such as in gay and bisexual men in the UK, more than one in three people with HIV continue to be diagnosed late. Fears and prejudice about HIV based on outdated information are still common among both health workers and people using health services. For example, testing is still not offered in primary or emergency care settings, and even free testing might not be accepted if someone fears the outcome might jeopardize their resident status, employment, relationship, or health. Summary: In addition to developing targeted projects to reach the highest‐risk groups, a positive mainstream public campaign could make testing more acceptable at a broad population level across all demographics. This could challenge and repair the media campaigns from the 1980s that still contribute to the stigma that frightens people away from testing now. We hope that an effective approach in one country might also help others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we demonstrated the pervasiveness of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) among a selection of Japanese patients as well as evaluated and compared the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the International HIV Dementia Scale (IHDS) for use as a screening tool among combination anti-retroviral therapy (cART)-naïve and cART experienced patients. The MMSE and the IHDS have both been used as HAND screening tests around the world with variable success. It has been reported the increased usage of cART the utility of these screening tests may have been diminished due to the decreased severity of impairment and the altered pattern of neurocognitive impairments in cART era HAND patients. It is therefore possible the MMSE and the IHDS may still be useful among cART-naïve patients even in the cART era. However, only one study has investigated and compared the screening results of the IHDS among cART-naïve and cART experienced patients. All HIV positive patients who visited, or were admitted, to the Ryukyu University Hospital between January 2009 and March 2014 were evaluated for inclusion. Selected patients (n = 49) had data without omission for all tests. The overall prevalence of HAND in our cohort was 44%. The area under the curve (AUC), for all subjects using the MMSE and the IHDS, were 0.60 and 0.69, respectively. However, the AUC among cART-naïve patients were 0.58 and 0.76 for the MMSE and the IHDS, respectively. Whereas, cART experienced patients had an AUC of 0.60 and 0.61, respectively. Overall, the MMSE demonstrated a poor screening ability for HAND, regardless of cART usage (the cut-off value of 27 had a Youden's J-Index of 0.1, in all groups). Alternatively, the IHDS was moderately useful for HAND screening among cART-naïve patients (the cut-off value of 11 had a Youden's J-Index of 0.4), but performed poorly as a screening test among cART experienced patients (the cut-off value of 11 had a Youden's J-Index of 0.1). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]