Evaluation of the Impact of Routine HIV Screening in Primary Care

Annual HIV screening rates for HIV-negative men who have sex with men in primary care

Background

Men who have sex with men (MSM) account for most new HIV diagnoses in the US. Annual HIV testing is recommended for sexually active MSM if HIV status is negative or unknown. Our primary study aim was to determine annual HIV screening rates in primary care across multiple years for HIV-negative MSM to estimate compliance with guidelines. A secondary exploratory endpoint was to document rates for non-MSM in primary care.

Methods

We conducted a three-year retrospective cohort study, analyzing data from electronic medical records of HIV-negative men aged 18 to 45 years in primary care at a large academic health system using inferential and logistic regression modeling.

Results

Of 17,841 men, 730 (4.1%) indicated that they had a male partner during the study period. MSM were screened at higher rates annually than non-MSM (about 38% vs. 9%, p<0.001). Younger patients (p-value<0.001) and patients with an internal medicine primary care provider (p-value<0.001) were more likely to have an HIV test ordered in both groups. For all categories of race and self-reported illegal drug use, MSM patients had higher odds of HIV test orders than non-MSM patients. Race and drug use did not have a significant effect on HIV orders in the MSM group. Among non-MSM, Black patients had higher odds of being tested than both White and Asian patients regardless of drug use.

Conclusions

While MSM are screened for HIV at higher rates than non-MSM, overall screening rates remain lower than desired, particularly for older patients and patients with a family medicine or pediatric PCP. Targeted interventions to improve HIV screening rates for MSM in primary care are discussed.

Risk-Based Screening Tools to Optimise HIV Testing Services: a Systematic Review

Purpose of review

Effective ways to diagnose the remaining people living with HIV who do not know their status are a global priority. We reviewed the use of risk-based tools, a set of criteria to identify individuals who would not otherwise be tested (screen in) or excluded people from testing (screen out).

Recent findings

Recent studies suggest that there may be value in risk-based tools to improve testing efficiency (i.e. identifying those who need to be tested). However, there has not been any systematic reviews to synthesize these studies.

Summary

We identified 18,238 citations, and 71 were included. The risk-based tools identified were most commonly from high-income (51%) and low HIV (<5%) prevalence countries (73%). The majority were for “screening in” (70%), with the highest performance tools related to identifying MSM with acute HIV. Screening in tools may be helpful in settings where it is not feasible or recommended to offer testing routinely. Caution is needed for screening out tools, where there is a trade-off between reducing costs of testing with missing cases of people living with HIV.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11904-022-00601-5.

Towards ending the human immunodeficiency virus epidemic in the US: State of human immunodeficiency virus screening during physician and emergency department visits, 2009 to 2014

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing is important for prevention and treatment. Ending the HIV epidemic is unattainable if significant proportions of people living with HIV remain undiagnosed, making HIV testing critical for prevention and treatment. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends routine HIV testing for persons aged 13 to 64 years in all health care settings. This study builds on prior research by estimating the extent to which HIV testing occurs during physician office and emergency department (ED) post 2006 CDC recommendations.We performed an unweighted and weighted cross-sectional analysis using pooled data from 2 nationally representative surveys namely National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2009 to 2014. We assessed routine HIV testing trends and predictive factors in physician offices and ED using multi-stage statistical survey procedures in SAS 9.4.HIV testing rates in physician offices increased by 105% (5.6-11.5 per 1000) over the study period. A steeper increase was observed in ED with a 191% (2.3-6.7 per 1000) increase. Odds ratio (OR) for HIV testing in physician offices were highest among ages 20 to 29 ([OR] 7.20, 99% confidence interval [CI: 4.37-11.85]), males (OR 1.34, [CI: 0.91-0.93]), African-Americans (OR 2.97, [CI: 2.05-4.31]), Hispanics (OR 1.80, [CI: 1.17-2.78]), and among visits occurring in the South (OR 2.06, [CI: 1.23-3.44]). In the ED, similar trends of higher testing odds persisted for African Americans (OR 3.44, 99% CI 2.50-4.73), Hispanics (OR 2.23, 99% CI 1.65-3.01), and Northeast (OR 2.24, 99% CI 1.10-4.54).While progress has been made in screening, HIV testing rates remains sub-optimal for ED visits. Populations visiting the ED for routine care may suffer missed opportunities for HIV testing, which delays their entry into HIV medical care. To end the epidemic, new approaches for increasing targeted routine HIV testing for populations attending health care settings is recommended.

Prevalence of HIV indicator conditions in late presenting patients with HIV: a missed opportunity for diagnosis?

AIM

To evaluate prior prevalence of HIV indicator conditions in late-presenters with HIV infection.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study between 2000 and 2014 in a healthcare network in Melbourne, Australia comparing patients presenting with late diagnosis of HIV infection (CD4 < 350 cells/ml) to those patients who had a CD greater than or equal to 350 cells/ml at presentation.

METHOD

The European AIDS Clinical Society guidelines on HIV indicator guided testing were used to assess for any indicator conditions in their prior medical history which may have represented a missed opportunity for earlier diagnosis. Main outcome measures: Descriptive statistics and prevalence of HIV indicator conditions.

RESULTS

Of 436 patients with HIV infection, 82 were late presenters. Late presenters were more commonly male (83% vs. 75%, P = 0.11), older (mean age 45 vs. 39 years), born overseas (61% vs. 58%, P = 0.68) and report heterosexual transmission as their exposure risk (51% vs. 31%, P < 0.001). Of 80 patients with late presentation of HIV infection, 54 (55%) had at least one, 29 (36%) at least 2, 12 (15%) at least 3 and 5 (6%) had 4 or more previous HIV indicator conditions which would have triggered HIV testing according to guidelines. The most common indicator conditions were: unexplained loss of weight (31%), herpes zoster (10%), thrombocytopenia or leukopenia (10%), oral or oesophageal candidiasis (10%) and community acquired pneumonia (9%). Twenty patients (25%) had HIV indicator conditions diagnosed at least 12 months before the eventual diagnosis of HIV infection.

DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION

Patients diagnosed with late-presenting HIV often had an HIV indicator condition prior to presentation, presenting a missed opportunity for earlier diagnosis.