Level of impact on the public health of universal human immunodeficiency virus screening in an Emergency Department

Analysis of the reasons for requesting HIV serology in the emergency department other than those defined in the targeted screening strategy of the "Urgències VIHgila" program and its potential inclusion in a future consensus document

OBJECTIVE

To describe other reasons for requesting HIV serology in emergency departments (ED) other than the 6 defined in the SEMES-GESIDA consensus document (DC-SEMES-GESIDA) and to analyze whether it would be efficient to include any of them in the future.

METHODS

Review of all HIV serologies performed during 2 years in 20 Catalan EDs. Serologies requested for reasons not defined by the DC-SEMES-GESIDA were grouped by common conditions, the prevalence (IC95%) of seropositivity for each condition was calculated, and those whose 95% confidence lower limit was >0.1% were considered efficient. Sensitivity analysis considered that serology would have been performed on 20% of cases attended and the remaining 80% would have been seronegative.

RESULTS

There were 8044 serologies performed for 248 conditions not recommended by DC-SEMES-GESIDA, in 17 there were seropositive, and in 12 the performance of HIV serology would be efficient. The highest prevalence of detection corresponded to patients from endemic countries (7.41%, 0.91-24.3), lymphopenia (4.76%, 0.12-23.8), plateletopenia (4.37%, 1.20-10.9), adenopathy (3.45%, 0.42-11.9), meningoencephalitis (3.12%, 0.38-10.8) and drug use (2.50%, 0.68-6.28). Sensitivity analysis confirmed efficiency in 6 of them: endemic country origin, plateletopenia, drug abuse, toxic syndrome, behavioral-confusional disorder-agitation and fever of unknown origin.

CONCLUSION

The DC-SEMES-GESIDA targeted HIV screening strategy in the ED could efficiently include other circumstances not previously considered; the most cost-effective would be origin from an endemic country, plateletopenia, drug abuse, toxic syndrome, behavioral-confusional-agitation disorder and fever of unknown origin.

Evaluation of emergency department visits prior to an HIV diagnosis: Missed opportunities

OBJECTIVE

There is a high rate of occult infection and late diagnosis in HIV. Hospital emergency departments (ED) are an important point of health care. The present work aims to know the number of missed opportunities for HIV diagnosis occurring in the ED.

METHOD

Retrospective multicenter cohort study that included all patients diagnosed with HIV infection in 2019 in 27 Spanish hospitals in 7 different autonomous communities. All ED consultation episodes in the 5 years prior to diagnosis were reviewed to find out the reason for consultation and whether this represented a missed opportunity for HIV diagnosis.

RESULT

Seven hundred twenty-three patients were included, and 352 (48.7%, 95%CI: 45.1%-52.3%) had at least one ED visit during the 5 years prior to diagnosis (median 2, p25-p75: 1-4). One hundred and eighteen patients (16.3%, 95%CI: 13.8%-19.2%) had a missed diagnostic opportunity. The main consultations were drug use [145 (15%)], sexually transmitted infections [91 (9.4%)] and request for post-exposure HIV prophylaxis [39 (4%)]. One hundred and fifty-five (42.9%) of the 352 had less than 350 CD4/mm³ when the HIV diagnosis was established. In patients with previous ED visits, the mean time to diagnosis from this visit was 580 (SD 647) days.

CONCLUSIONS

Sixteen percent of patients diagnosed with HIV missed the opportunity to be diagnosed in the 5 years prior to diagnosis, highlighting the need to implement ED screening measures different from current ones to improve these outcomes.

HIV testing strategies employed in health care settings in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA): evidence from a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Despite the availability of HIV testing guidelines to facilitate prompt diagnosis, late HIV diagnosis remains high across Europe. The study synthesizes recent evidence on HIV testing strategies adopted in health care settings in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA).

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and systematic searches were run in five databases (2010-2017) to identify studies describing HIV testing interventions in health care settings in the EU/EEA. The grey literature was searched for unpublished studies (2014-2017). Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction and critical appraisal.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty intervention and/or feasibility studies on HIV testing in health care settings were identified. Interventions included testing provision (n = 94), campaigns (n = 14) and education and training for staff and patients (n = 20). HIV test coverage achieved through testing provision varied: 2.9-94% in primary care compared to 3.9-66% in emergency departments. HIV test positivity was lower in emergency departments (0-1.3%) and antenatal services (0-0.05%) than in other hospital departments (e.g. inpatients: 0-5.3%). Indicator condition testing programmes increased HIV test coverage from 3.9-72% before to 12-85% after their implementation, with most studies reporting a 10-20% increase. There were 51 feasibility and/or acceptability studies that demonstrated that HIV testing interventions were generally acceptable to patients and providers in health care settings (e.g. general practitioner testing acceptable: 77-93%).

CONCLUSIONS

This review has identified several strategies that could be adopted to achieve high HIV testing coverage across a variety of health care settings and populations in the EU/EEA. Very few studies compared the intervention under investigation to a baseline, but, where this was assessed, data suggested increases in testing.