Search

BackgroundHIV testing guidelines provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are continually changing to reflect advancements in new testing technology. Evaluation of existing and new point-of-care (POC) HIV tests is crucial to inform testing guidelines and provide information to clinicians and other HIV test providers. Characterizing the performance of POC HIV tests using unprocessed specimens can provide estimates for the window period of detection, or the time from HIV acquisition to test positivity, which allows clinicians and other HIV providers to select the appropriate POC HIV tests for persons who may be recently infected with HIV. ObjectiveThis paper describes the protocols and procedures used to evaluate the performance of the newest POC tests and determine their sensitivity during early HIV infection. MethodsProject DETECT is a CDC-funded study that is evaluating POC HIV test performance. Part 1 is a cross-sectional, retrospective study comparing behavioral characteristics and HIV prevalence of the overall population of the Public Health–Seattle & King County (PHSKC) Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Clinic to Project DETECT participants enrolled in part 2. Part 2 is a cross-sectional, prospective study evaluating POC HIV tests in real time using unprocessed whole blood and oral fluid specimens. A POC nucleic acid test (NAT) was added to the panel of HIV tests in June 2018. Part 3 is a longitudinal, prospective study evaluating seroconversion sensitivity of POC HIV tests through serial follow-up testing. For comparison, HIV-1 RNA and HIV-1/HIV-2 antigen/antibody tests are also performed for participants enrolled in part 2 or 3. A behavioral survey that collects information about demographics, history of HIV testing, STD history, symptoms of acute HIV infection, substance use, sexual behaviors in the aggregate and with recent partners, and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis and antiretroviral therapy is completed at each part 2 or 3 visit. ResultsBetween September 2015 and March 2019, there were 14,990 Project DETECT–eligible visits (part 1) to the PHSKC STD Clinic resulting in 1819 part 2 Project DETECT study visits. The longitudinal study within Project DETECT (part 3) enrolled 27 participants with discordant POC test results from their part 2 visit, and 10 (37%) were followed until they had fully seroconverted with concordant positive POC test results. Behavioral survey data and HIV test results, sensitivity, and specificity will be presented elsewhere. ConclusionsStudies such as Project DETECT are critical for evaluating POC HIV test devices as well as describing characteristics of persons at risk for HIV acquisition in the United States. HIV tests in development, including POC NATs, will provide new opportunities for HIV testing programs. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR1-10.2196/16332

BackgroundGroup sex events (GSEs) are common among cisgender men who have sex with men (MSM), pose a unique risk profile for HIV and sexually transmitted disease (STD) transmission, and may be on the rise, in part because of Web-based networking platforms. However, collecting data on GSEs can be challenging, and many gaps exist in our knowledge about GSE participation among MSM. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to develop survey questions addressing aggregate and partner-specific group sex behaviors to measure prevalence of GSEs and associated risks in persons participating in Project Diagnostic Evaluation To Expand Critical Testing Technologies (DETECT), including MSM seeking HIV and STD testing at a public clinic in Seattle, Washington. MethodsWe developed a computer self-assisted survey that included questions about participant demographics, sexual history, and risk behaviors, including group sex, as a part of Project DETECT, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–funded study evaluating point-of-care HIV tests. Aggregate and partner-specific questions asked about participation in all GSEs, threesomes, and four-or-more-somes including questions about number and HIV status of sex partners and condom use during the events. To evaluate question performance, we assessed the discrepancies in reporting between the aggregate and partner-specific questions, quantified question refusal rates, and calculated the additional time required to answer the GSE questions. Information about network density (number of partnerships of overlapping duration) was estimated and compared for MSM who did and did not report GSEs. ResultsAmong 841 visits by 690 MSM who were asked any group sex survey question, participation in a GSE of any type in the past 3 months was reported at 293 visits (293/841, 34.8%). We found that 9.0% (76/841) of MSM in the sample reported ≥1 four-or-more-some in the partner-specific questions but did not report in the aggregate. The proportion of refusals on any given aggregate GSE-related question ranged from 0% (0/273) to 10.6% (15/141) (median 2.6%) and partner-specific questions ranged from 0% (0/143) to 22% (5/23) (median 3.0%), with questions about four-or-more-somes having the highest proportions of refusals. Completing the aggregate group sex questions added 1 to 2 minutes and the partner-specific questions added an additional 2 to 4 minutes per partner to the total survey length. As expected, the partner-specific GSE questions documented higher density of sexual networks that was not captured by asking about total partner counts and overlap of specific partnerships. ConclusionsWe found that the Project DETECT survey was able to obtain nuanced information about GSEs. The question skip patterns and consistency checks were effective, and survey fatigue was minimal. More research is needed on GSEs, and our survey represents a promising data collection tool to help fill gaps in knowledge about the subject.

Introduction: HIV testing is an essential prerequisite for accessing treatment with antiretroviral therapy or prevention using pre-exposure prophylaxis. Internet distribution of HIV self-tests is a novel approach, and data on the programmatic cost of this approach are limited. We analyse the costs and cost-effectiveness of a self-testing programme. Methods: Men who have sex with men (MSM) reporting unknown or negative HIV status were enrolled from March to August 2015 into a 12-month trial of HIV self-testing in the United States. Participants were randomly assigned either to the self-testing arm or the control arm. All participants received information on HIV testing services and locations in their community. Self-testing participants received up to four self-tests each quarter, which they could use themselves or distribute to their social network associates. Quarterly follow-up surveys collected testing outcomes, including number of tests used and new HIV diagnoses. Using trial expenditure data, we estimated the cost of implementing a self-testing programme. Primary outcomes of this analysis included total programme implementation costs, cost per self-test completed, cost per person tested, cost per new HIV diagnosis among those self-tested and cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) saved. Results: A total of 2665 men were assigned either to the self-testing arm (n = 1325) or the control arm (n = 1340). HIV testing was reported by 971 self-testing participants who completed a total of 5368 tests. In the control arm, 619 participants completed 1463 HIV tests. The self-testing participants additionally distributed 2864 self-tests to 2152 social network associates. Testing during the trial identified 59 participants and social network associates with newly diagnosed HIV infection in the self-testing arm; 11 control participants were newly diagnosed with HIV. The implementation cost of the HIV self-testing programme was $449,510. The cost per self-test completed, cost per person tested at least once, and incremental cost per new HIV diagnosis was $61, $145 and $9365 respectively. We estimated that self-testing programme potentially averted 3.34 transmissions, saved 14.86 QALYs and nearly $1.6 million lifetime HIV treatment costs. Conclusions: The HIV self-testing programme identified persons with newly diagnosed HIV infection at low cost, and the programme is cost saving. Keywords: HIV self-testing; social networks; costs and cost-effectiveness; costing methods; clinical trial expenditures; United States, 1 | INTRODUCTION An estimated 1.1 million people in the United States are living with HIV, and 14% are unaware of their HIV-positive status [1]. Gay, bisexual and other men [...]

More than one-quarter of the adults living with diagnosed HIV infection in the US are women. Binge drinking (i.e., ≥4 alcoholic drinks per occasion for women) is associated with poor HIV treatment compliance, HIV incidence, and unplanned pregnancy. However, little is known about the prevalence of binge drinking among women of childbearing age who are living with HIV (WLWH) and health risk behaviours among those who binge drink. Using the 2013–2014 data cycles of Medical Monitoring Project, we assessed the weighted prevalence of drinking patterns by socio-demographic, clinical and reproductive characteristics of 946 WLWH. Logistic regression was used to calculate unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Overall, 39% of WLWH reported current drinking and 10% reported binge drinking. Compared to non-drinkers, binge drinkers were less likely to adhere to antiretroviral therapy (ART) or be virally suppressed. In multivariate analyses, binge drinking among WLWH was associated with smoking, drug use, and reduced ART adherence compared to non-drinkers, increasing the likelihood of negative clinical outcomes. WLWH may benefit from a comprehensive approach to reducing binge drinking including alcohol screening and brief interventions and evidence-based policy strategies that could potentially improve adherence to HIV treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing is critical for both HIV treatment and prevention. Expanding testing in hospital settings can identify undiagnosed HIV infections. Methods. To evaluate the feasibility of universally offering HIV testing during emergency department (ED) visits and inpatient admissions, 9 hospitals in the Bronx, New York and 7 in Washington, District of Columbia (DC) undertook efforts to offer HIV testing routinely. Outcomes included the percentage of encounters with an HIV test, the change from year 1 to year 3, and the percentages of tests that were HIV-positive and new diagnoses. Results. From 1 February 2011 to 31 January 2014, HIV tests were conducted during 6.5% of 1 621 016 ED visits and 13.0% of 361 745 inpatient admissions in Bronx hospitals and 13.8% of 729 172 ED visits and 22.0% of 150 655 inpatient admissions in DC. From year 1 to year 3, testing was stable in the Bronx (ED visits: 6.6% to 6.9%; inpatient admissions: 13.0% to 13.6%), but increased in DC (ED visits: 11.9% to 15.8%; inpatient admissions: 19.0% to 23.9%). In the Bronx, 0.4% (408) of ED HIV tests were positive and 0.3% (277) were new diagnoses; 1.8% (828) of inpatient tests were positive and 0.5% (244) were new diagnoses. In DC, 0.6% (618) of ED tests were positive and 0.4% (404) were new diagnoses; 4.9% (1349) of inpatient tests were positive and 0.7% (189) were new diagnoses. Conclusions. Hospitals consistently identified previously undiagnosed HIV infections, but universal offer of HIV testing proved elusive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]