Consistency of State Statutes and Regulations With Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2006 Perinatal HIV Testing Recommendations

Updates in the Management of HIV During Pregnancy

Human immunodeficiency virus in pregnant people remains a significant public health issue worldwide. The rate of perinatal transmission is 15% to 40% but can be decreased to less than 1% with appropriate antenatal management. Previous recommendations included a protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy, infant prophylaxis, performance of cesarean section for uncontrolled viremia, and the use of formula for infant feeding. However, recent updates include first line of integrase inhibitor-based regimens and supporting parental choices for safe lactation. In this review, we summarize and provide updated recommendations for the care of people living with human immunodeficiency virus during pregnancy.

Universal Repeat Screening for Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the Third Trimester of Pregnancy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of universal repeat screening for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in the third trimester of pregnancy.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare two strategies: screening for HIV infection in the first trimester alone compared with the addition of repeat screening in the third trimester. Probabilities, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature and varied in sensitivity analyses. The assumed incidence of HIV infection in pregnancy was 0.0145% or 14.5 per 100,000. Outcomes included costs (in 2022 U.S. dollars), maternal and neonatal quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cases of neonatal HIV infection. Our theoretical cohort contained 3.8 million pregnant individuals, the approximate number of births per year in the United States. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000/QALY. We performed univariable and multivariable sensitivity analyses to determine inputs that most influenced the model.

RESULTS

Universal third-trimester screening prevented 133 cases of neonatal HIV infection in this theoretical cohort. Universal third-trimester screening led to an increased cost of $17.54 million and 2,732 increased QALYs, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $6,418.56 per QALY, less than the willingness-to-pay threshold. In a univariate sensitivity analysis, third-trimester screening remained cost effective with variation of HIV incidence in pregnancy to as low as 0.0052%.

CONCLUSION

In a theoretical U.S.-based cohort of pregnant individuals, universal repeat screening for HIV infection in the third trimester was found to be cost effective and to reduce vertical transmission of HIV. These results merit consideration of a broader HIV-screening program in the third trimester.

Utility of CD4 Cell Count and Viral Load Assay in Hospitalized Patients with Known HIV Infection: High Value Care Exercise

PURPOSE

Healthcare spending as a percentage of Gross domestic product (GDP) is at all-time high and continues to rise in the United States. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that 33% of resources spent on healthcare goes to waste. As part of a 'high value care' exercise, we studied if estimating CD4 cell counts and HIV viral load in hospitalized patients with a known diagnosis of HIV led to any meaningful change in HAART regimen and discharge diagnosis.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review for all patients admitted with a known diagnosis of HIV from January 1, through December 31, 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patient encounters were reviewed during the period. The mean age was 54.1 ± 16.4 years, 64.1 % of patients were males. 75 patients (90.3%) were already on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). The median hospital length of stay (LOS) was 3 days (IQR 2.0 - 5.0). The mean turnaround time for CD4 counts and HIV viral load assay was 2.9 days (95% CI 2.1 - 3.7) and 3.9 days (95% CI, 3.2 - 4.6), respectively. A CD4 count estimation led to no change in HAART regimen. HIV viral load assay testing had no impact on a change in treatment or a change in diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, testing CD4 counts and HIV viral load for inpatients did not confer any benefit in altering the diagnosis or HAART regimen. We believe that our study identifies a systems level opportunity to add to the concept of 'Choosing Wisely.'

HIV testing among pregnant women with prenatal care in the United States: An analysis of the 2011-2017 National Survey of Family Growth

Although there has been significant progress in reducing perinatal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission, the United States is yet to meet the proposed elimination goal of less than one infection per 100,000 live births. Failure to screen all pregnant women for HIV as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can result in missed opportunities for preventing vertical transmission of HIV with antiretroviral drugs. Using the 2011-2017 National Survey of Family Growth, this study examined HIV testing among pregnant women during prenatal care. We estimated the weighted proportion of self-reported HIV testing among women whose last pregnancy ended within 12 months prior to the interview. Logistic regression models were used to determine the factors associated with HIV testing. Of the 1566 women included in the study, 76.4% (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 72.8-80.0) reported receiving an HIV test during prenatal care. In the multivariable regression model, high school diploma (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.1-3.1), two completed pregnancies (aOR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.1-2.7), health insurance coverage in the last 12 months (aOR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.0-2.6), Hispanic race/ethnicity (aOR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.8-4.4), and non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity (aOR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.3-3.8) were associated with higher odds of reporting being tested for HIV. However, household income of 300% or more of the federal poverty level (aOR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.3-0.9) and urban residence (aOR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.9) were associated with lower odds of reporting HIV testing. These findings suggest that HIV testing among pregnant women during prenatal care is not universal and may affect achieving the goal of elimination of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in the United States.

Effect of CDC 2006 Revised HIV Testing Recommendations for Adults, Adolescents, Pregnant Women, and Newborns on State Laws, 2018

In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its recommendations for HIV testing of 4 population groups in health care settings: adults, adolescents, pregnant women, and newborns. Important components of the revised recommendations included opt-out routine HIV screening; eliminating prevention counseling for opt-out routine HIV screening; repeat HIV testing in the third trimester for all women at high risk for acquiring HIV and for women receiving health care in facilities and/or jurisdictions with high HIV burden; testing during labor and delivery for women with undocumented HIV status; and testing the newborn when the mother's HIV status is unknown. To assess the integration of these testing recommendations into state laws and to inform future recommendations, we researched and assessed statutes and regulations that addressed HIV testing in the 4 population groups in all 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2018. We then classified the laws, based on their consistency with the recommendations for each of the 4 population groups. Of 31 states and the District of Columbia that had relevant laws, all addressed at least 1 component of the recommendations. Although no state had laws that incorporated all the recommendations for all the population groups, 5 states (Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and New Hampshire) had incorporated all the recommendations for adults and adolescents, and 4 states (Connecticut, Nevada, North Carolina, and West Virginia) had incorporated all the recommendations for pregnant women and newborns.