Search

Background: HIV infection remains a major US public health concern. While HIV-infected individuals now benefit from earlier diagnosis and improved treatment options, progress is tempered by large numbers of newly diagnosed patients who are lost to follow-up prior to disease confirmation and linkage to care., Methodology: In the randomized, controlled USHER trial, we offered rapid HIV tests to patients presenting to a Boston, MA emergency department. Separate written informed consent was required for confirmatory testing. In a secondary analysis, we compared participants with reactive results who did and did not complete confirmatory testing to identify factors associated with refusal to complete the confirmation protocol., Principal Findings: Thirteen of 62 (21.0%, 95% CI (11.7%, 33.2%)) participants with reactive rapid HIV tests refused confirmation; women, younger participants, African Americans, and those with fewer HIV risks, with lower income, and without primary care doctors were more likely to refuse. We projected that up to four true HIV cases were lost at the confirmation stage., Conclusions: These findings underscore the need to better understand the factors associated with refusal to confirm reactive HIV testing and to identify interventions that will facilitate confirmatory testing and linkage to care among these populations., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00502944; NCT01258582.

Background: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published recommendations for routine, voluntary human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing of adults in all health care settings, including the emergency department (ED)., Study Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the willingness of ED providers to offer HIV testing, as well as their perceived barriers to implementation of these guidelines., Methods: Before the establishment of a routine HIV testing program in the ED, a 21-item survey was used to assess ED providers' knowledge, attitudes, and perceived challenges to HIV testing. Six months after program initiation, the identical survey was re-administered to determine whether HIV testing program experience altered providers' perceptions., Results: There were 108 of 146 (74%) providers who completed both the pre- and post-implementation surveys. Although the majority of emergency providers at 6 months were supportive of an ED-based HIV testing program (59/108 [55%]), only 38% (41/108) were willing to offer the HIV test most or all of the time. At 6 months, the most frequently cited barriers to offering a test were: inadequate time (67/108 [62%]), inadequate resources (65/108 [60%]), and concerns regarding provision of follow-up care (64/108 [59%])., Conclusions: After the implementation of a large-scale HIV testing program in an ED, the majority of emergency providers were supportive of routine HIV testing. Nevertheless, 6 months after program initiation, providers were still reluctant to offer the test due to persistent barriers. Further studies are needed to identify feasible implementation strategies that minimize barriers to routine HIV testing in the ED., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We compare rates of rapid HIV testing, test offer, and acceptance in an urban emergency department (ED) when conducted by dedicated HIV counselors versus current members of the ED staff., Methods: The Universal Screening for HIV Infection in the Emergency Room [USHER] trial is a prospective randomized controlled trial that implemented an HIV screening program in the ED of an urban tertiary medical center. ED patients were screened and consented for trial enrollment by an USHER research assistant. Eligible subjects were randomized to rapid HIV testing (oral OraQuick) offered by a dedicated counselor (counselor arm) or by an ED provider (provider arm). In the counselor arm, counselors-without other clinical responsibilities-assumed nearly all testing-related activities (consent, counseling, delivery of test results). In the provider arm, trained ED emergency service assistants (nursing assistants) consented and tested the participant in the context of other ED-related responsibilities. In this arm, ED house officers, physician assistants, or attending physicians provided HIV test results to trial participants. Outcome measures were rates of HIV testing and test offer among individuals consenting for study participation. Among individuals offered the test, test acceptance was also measured., Results: From February 2007 through July 2008, 8,187 eligible patients were approached in the ED, and 4,855 (59%) consented and were randomized to trial participation. The mean age was 37 years, 65% were women, and 42% were white. The overall testing rate favored the counselor arm (57% versus 27%; P<.001); 80% (1,959/2,446) of subjects in the counselor arm were offered an HIV test compared with 36% (861/2,409) in the provider arm (P<.001). HIV test acceptance was slightly higher in the provider arm (counselor arm 71% versus provider arm 75%; P = .025)., Conclusion: Routine rapid HIV testing in the ED was accomplished more frequently by dedicated HIV counselors than by ED staff in the course of routine clinical work. Without dedicated staff, HIV testing in this setting may not be truly routine., (Copyright © 2011. Published by Mosby, Inc.)

HIV screening studies in the emergency department (ED) have demonstrated rates of HIV test refusal ranging from 40-67%. This study aimed to determine the factors associated with refusal to undergo routine rapid HIV testing in an academic ED in Boston. HIV counselors offered routine testing to 1,959 patients; almost one-third of patients (29%) refused. Data from a self-administered survey were used to determine independent correlates of HIV testing refusal. In multivariate analysis, women and patients with annual household incomes of $50,000 or more were more likely to refuse testing, as were those who reported not engaging in HIV risk behaviors, those previously HIV tested and those who did not perceive a need for testing. Enrollment during morning hours was also associated with an increased risk of refusal. Increased educational efforts to convey the rationale and benefits of universal screening may improve testing uptake among these groups.

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV, the prevalence of diagnosed HIV, and proportion of HIV that is undiagnosed in populations with similar demographics as the Universal Screening for HIV in the Emergency Room (USHER) Trial and the Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) Emergency Department (ED) in Boston, MA. We also sought to estimate these quantities within demographic and risk behavior subgroups., Method: We used data from the USHER Trial, which was a randomized clinical trial of HIV screening conducted in the BWH ED. Since eligible participants were HIV-free at time of enrollment, we were able to calculate the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV. We used data from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MA/DPH) to estimate the prevalence of diagnosed HIV since the MA/DPH records the number of persons within MA who are HIV-positive. We calculated the proportion of HIV that is undiagnosed using these estimates of the prevalence of undiagnosed and diagnosed HIV. Estimates were stratified by age, sex, race/ethnicity, history of testing, and risk behaviors., Results: The overall expected prevalence of diagnosed HIV in a population similar to those presenting to the BWH ED was 0.71% (95% CI: 0.63%, 0.78%). The prevalence of undiagnosed HIV was estimated at 0.22% (95% CI: 0.10%, 0.42%) and resultant overall prevalence was 0.93%. The proportion of HIV-infection that is undiagnosed in this ED-based setting was estimated to be 23.7% (95% CI: 11.6%, 34.9%) of total HIV-infections., Conclusions: Despite different methodology, our estimate of the proportion of HIV that is undiagnosed in an ED-setting was similar to previous estimates based on national surveillance data. Universal routine testing programs in EDs should use these data to help plan their yield of HIV detection.

Background: Routine HIV screening in emergency department (ED) settings may require dedicated personnel. We evaluated the outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness of HIV screening when offered by either a member of the ED staff or by an HIV counselor., Methods: We employed a mathematical model to extend data obtained from a randomized clinical trial of provider- vs. counselor-based HIV screening in the ED. We compared the downstream survival, costs, and cost-effectiveness of three HIV screening modalities: 1) no screening program; 2) an ED provider-based program; and 3) an HIV counselor-based program. Trial arm-specific data were used for test offer and acceptance rates (provider offer 36%, acceptance 75%; counselor offer 80%, acceptance 71%). Undiagnosed HIV prevalence (0.4%) and linkage to care rates (80%) were assumed to be equal between the screening modalities. Personnel costs were derived from trial-based resource utilization data. We examined the generalizability of results by conducting sensitivity analyses on offer and acceptance rates, undetected HIV prevalence, and costs., Results: Estimated HIV screening costs in the provider and counselor arms averaged $8.10 and $31.00 per result received. The Provider strategy (compared to no screening) had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $58,700/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and the Counselor strategy (compared to the Provider strategy) had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $64,500/QALY. Results were sensitive to the relative offer and acceptance rates by strategy and the capacity of providers to target-screen, but were robust to changes in undiagnosed HIV prevalence and programmatic costs., Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of provider-based HIV screening in an emergency department setting compares favorably to other US screening programs. Despite its additional cost, counselor-based screening delivers just as much return on investment as provider based-screening. Investment in dedicated HIV screening personnel is justified in situations where ED staff resources may be insufficient to provide comprehensive, sustainable screening services.

Background: Expanded HIV screening efforts in the United States have increased the use of rapid HIV tests in emergency departments. The reported sensitivity and specificity of rapid HIV tests exceed 99%., Objective: To assess whether a reactive rapid oral HIV test result correctly identifies adults with HIV infection in the emergency department., Design: Diagnostic test performance assessment within the framework of a randomized, clinical trial., Setting: Brigham and Women's Hospital emergency department (Boston, Massachusetts) from 7 February to 1 October 2007., Patients: 849 adults with valid rapid oral HIV test results., Intervention: Rapid HIV testing with the OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV-1/2 Antibody Test (OraSure Technologies, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania). Patients with reactive rapid test results were offered enzyme-linked immunoassay, Western blot, and plasma HIV-1 RNA testing for confirmation., Measurements: Specificity and positive likelihood ratio., Results: 39 patients had reactive results (4.6% [95% CI, 3.2% to 6.0%]). On confirmation, 5 patients were HIV-infected (prevalence, 0.6% [CI, 0.1% to 1.1%]) and 26 were non-HIV-infected (8 patients declined confirmation). The estimated rapid test specificity was 96.9% (CI, 95.7% to 98.1%). Sensitivity analyses of the true HIV status of unconfirmed cases and test sensitivity resulted in a positive likelihood ratio of 8 to 32. Western blot alone as a confirmation test provided conclusive HIV status in only 50.0% (CI, 30.8% to 69.2%) of patients at first follow-up. The addition of HIV-1 RNA testing to the confirmation protocol improved this rate to 96.2% (CI, 88.8% to 100.0%)., Limitation: Test sensitivity cannot be assessed because nonreactive OraQuick test results were not confirmed., Conclusion: Although patients with a reactive oral OraQuick HIV screening test in the emergency department had an 8- to 32-fold increased odds of HIV infection compared with the pretest odds, the specificity of the test was lower than anticipated.