Review of medical encounters in the 5 years before a diagnosis of HIV-1 infection: implications for early detection.

Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Hayward, California, USA.
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (Impact Factor: 4.39). 02/2003; 32(2):143-52. DOI: 10.1097/00126334-200302010-00005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Early detection of HIV infection improves prognosis and reduces transmission, but 30%-40% of cases are diagnosed late. A comprehensive and systematic review of medical encounters before diagnosis has not been done. This study reviews 5 years of medical encounters before the diagnosis of HIV infection in members of a large managed care organization where access to care is reasonably good. Patient characteristics, HIV risk factors, and clinical events preceding diagnosis were examined and tested for association with late diagnosis (CD4 cell count of <200/microL at diagnosis). Of 440 HIV-infected patients, 62% had CD4 cell counts of <350/microL, 43% had CD4 cell counts of <200/microL, and 18% had CD4 cell counts of <50/microL at diagnosis. Twenty-six percent of all patients had risks documented >1 year before diagnosis. Only 22% of patients had one of eight clinical indicators suggested in the literature as reasons to test for HIV >1 year before diagnosis. In multiple logistic regression, older age, male sex, race, risk group, no prior HIV testing, physician-initiated testing, and having any of eight clinical indicators before diagnosis were each associated with late diagnosis (p <or=.05). Late diagnosis remains a challenge despite good access to care. In our setting, effective risk assessment before symptoms arise offers greater potential for raising the mean CD4 cell count at diagnosis than does increased awareness of selected HIV-associated clinical prompts.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of our work was to evaluate the potential impact of the European policy of testing for HIV all individuals presenting with an indicator disease, to prevent late diagnosis of HIV. We report on a retrospective analysis among individuals diagnosed with HIV to assess whether a history of certain diseases prior to HIV diagnosis was associated with the chance of presenting late for care, and to estimate the proportion of individuals presenting late who could have been diagnosed earlier if tested when the indicator disease was diagnosed. We studied a large cohort of individuals newly diagnosed with HIV infection in 10 counselling and testing sites in the Lazio Region, Italy (01/01/2004-30/04/2009). Considered indicator diseases were: viral hepatitis infection (HBV/HCV), sexually transmitted infections, seborrhoeic dermatitis and tuberculosis. Logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate association of occurrence of at least one indicator disease with late HIV diagnosis. In our analysis, the prevalence of late HIV diagnosis was 51.3% (890/1735). Individuals reporting at least one indicator disease before HIV diagnosis (29% of the study population) had a lower risk of late diagnosis (OR = 0.7; 95%CI: 0.5-0.8) compared to those who did not report a previous indicator disease. 52/890 (5.8%) late presenters were probably already infected at the time the indicator disease was diagnosed, a median of 22.6 months before HIV diagnosis. Our data suggest that testing for HIV following diagnosis of an indicator disease significantly decreases the probability of late HIV diagnosis. Moreover, for 5.5% of late HIV presenters, diagnosis could have been anticipated if they had been tested when an HIV indicator disease was diagnosed.However, this strategy for enhancing early HIV diagnosis needs to be complemented by client-centred interventions that aim to increase awareness in people who do not perceive themselves as being at risk for HIV.
    BMC Infectious Diseases 10/2013; 13(1):473. DOI:10.1186/1471-2334-13-473 · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Opt-out HIV screening is recommended by the CDC for patients in all healthcare settings. We examined correlates of HIV testing refusal among urban emergency department (ED) patients. Confidential free HIV screening was offered to 32,633 ED patients in an urban tertiary care facility in Washington, DC, during May 2007-December 2011. Demographic differences in testing refusals were examined using χ(2) tests and generalized linear models. HIV testing refusal rates were 47.7 % 95 % CI (46.7-48.7), 11.7 % (11.0-12.4), 10.7 % (10.0-11.4), 16.9 % (15.9-17.9) and 26.9 % (25.6-28.2) in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 respectively. Persons 33-54 years of age [adjusted prevalence ratio (APR) 1.42, (1.36-1.48)] and those ≥55 years [APR 1.39 (1.31-1.47)], versus 33-54 years; and females versus males [APR 1.07 (1.02-1.11)] were more likely to refuse testing. Opt-out HIV testing is feasible and sustainable in urban ED settings. Efforts are needed to encourage testing among older patients and women.
    AIDS and Behavior 11/2013; 18(5). DOI:10.1007/s10461-013-0654-2 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Routine testing is the cornerstone to identifying HIV, but not all substance abuse treatment patients have been tested. This study is a real-world evaluation of predictors of having never been HIV tested among patients initiating substance abuse treatment. Participants (N = 614) from six New England clinics were asked whether they had ever been HIV tested. Eighty-five patients (13.8%) reported having never been tested and were compared to those who had undergone testing. Clinic, male gender (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.07-3.41), and having fewer employment (AOR = 0.31; 95% CI = 0.11-0.88) and medical problems (AOR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.17-0.99) were independently correlated with having never been HIV tested. Thus, there is still considerable room for improved testing strategies as a clinically significant minority of substance abuse patients have never undergone HIV testing when they initiate treatment.
    Journal of psychoactive drugs 07/2014; 46(3):208-214. DOI:10.1080/02791072.2014.915363 · 1.10 Impact Factor