Article

Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settingsCDCMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep200655RR-1411716410759

Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (proposed), Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.
MMWR. Recommendations and reports: Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports / Centers for Disease Control 10/2006; 55(RR-14):1-17; quiz CE1-4.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT These recommendations for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing are intended for all health-care providers in the public and private sectors, including those working in hospital emergency departments, urgent care clinics, inpatient services, substance abuse treatment clinics, public health clinics, community clinics, correctional health-care facilities, and primary care settings. The recommendations address HIV testing in health-care settings only. They do not modify existing guidelines concerning HIV counseling, testing, and referral for persons at high risk for HIV who seek or receive HIV testing in nonclinical settings (e.g., community-based organizations, outreach settings, or mobile vans). The objectives of these recommendations are to increase HIV screening of patients, including pregnant women, in health-care settings; foster earlier detection of HIV infection; identify and counsel persons with unrecognized HIV infection and link them to clinical and prevention services; and further reduce perinatal transmission of HIV in the United States. These revised recommendations update previous recommendations for HIV testing in health-care settings and for screening of pregnant women (CDC. Recommendations for HIV testing services for inpatients and outpatients in acute-care hospital settings. MMWR 1993;42[No. RR-2]:1-10; CDC. Revised guidelines for HIV counseling, testing, and referral. MMWR 2001;50[No. RR-19]:1-62; and CDC. Revised recommendations for HIV screening of pregnant women. MMWR 2001;50[No. RR-19]:63-85). Major revisions from previously published guidelines are as follows: For patients in all health-care settings HIV screening is recommended for patients in all health-care settings after the patient is notified that testing will be performed unless the patient declines (opt-out screening). Persons at high risk for HIV infection should be screened for HIV at least annually. Separate written consent for HIV testing should not be required; general consent for medical care should be considered sufficient to encompass consent for HIV testing. Prevention counseling should not be required with HIV diagnostic testing or as part of HIV screening programs in health-care settings. For pregnant women HIV screening should be included in the routine panel of prenatal screening tests for all pregnant women. HIV screening is recommended after the patient is notified that testing will be performed unless the patient declines (opt-out screening). Separate written consent for HIV testing should not be required; general consent for medical care should be considered sufficient to encompass consent for HIV testing. Repeat screening in the third trimester is recommended in certain jurisdictions with elevated rates of HIV infection among pregnant women.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Bernard Branson, Apr 17, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
219 Views
  • Source
    • "In addition to the need for interventions to increase prevention efforts, there are immediate policy and practice implications. For instance, as the CDC currently recommends HIV screening only for individuals between 13 and 64 years (Branson et al., 2006), individuals older than 65 years should be included in the recommendation to increase screening among older adults. The state of Kentucky should include information specifically about HIV prevention among older adults in the required HIV/AIDS continuing education credits to increase awareness of the importance of HIV prevention among older adults. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To explore primary care providers' HIV prevention practices for older adults. Primary care providers' perceptions and awareness were explored to understand factors that affect their provision of HIV prevention materials and HIV screening for older adults. Data were collected through 24 semistructured interviews with primary care providers (i.e., physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) who see patients older than 50 years. Results reveal facilitators and barriers of HIV prevention for older adults among primary care providers and understanding of providers' HIV prevention practices and behaviors. Individual, patient, institutional, and societal factors influenced HIV prevention practices among participants, for example, provider training and work experience, lack of time, discomfort in discussing HIV/AIDS with older adults, stigma, and ageism were contributing factors. Furthermore, factors specific to primary and secondary HIV prevention were identified, for instance, the presence of sexually transmitted infections influenced providers' secondary prevention practices. HIV disease, while preventable, is increasing among older adults. These findings inform future research and interventions aimed at increasing HIV prevention practices in primary care settings for patients older than 50. © The Author(s) 2015.
    Journal of Applied Gerontology 03/2015; DOI:10.1177/0733464815574093 · 0.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "inform their regular doctor about their participation in a vaccine study. However, according to recommendations for HIV testing by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, individuals can be tested for HIV under a general consent for all medical care and that pre-test counseling is not required as part of screening programs in healthcare settings [14]. While individuals can " opt-out " of HIV testing, the process may be confusing for some, especially if they are not aware of this practice beforehand and/or present at a hospital for an emergency. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Antibody-inducing vaccines are a major focus in the preventive HIV vaccine field. Because the most common tests for HIV infection rely on detecting antibodies to HIV, they may also detect antibodies induced by a candidate HIV vaccine. The detection of vaccine-induced antibodies to HIV by serological tests is most commonly referred to as vaccine-induced sero-reactivity (VISR). VISR can be misinterpreted as a sign of HIV infection in a healthy study participant. In a participant who has developed vaccine-induced antibodies, accurate diagnosis of HIV infection (or lack thereof) may require specialized tests and algorithms (differential testing) that are usually not available in community settings. Organizations sponsoring clinical testing of preventive HIV vaccine candidates have an ethical obligation not only to inform healthy volunteers about the potential problems associated with participating in a clinical trial but also to help manage any resulting issues. This article explores the scope of VISR-related issues that become increasingly prevalent as the search for an effective HIV vaccine continues and will be paramount once a preventive vaccine is deployed. We also describe ways in which organizations conducting HIV vaccine trials have addressed these issues and outline areas where more work is needed. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    Vaccine 03/2015; 33(10):1243-1249. DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.10.040 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Further, a recent meta-analysis found that brief HIV prevention interventions were as effective as multi-session interventions for drug users (Meader et al. 2010). CDC guidelines recommend recurrent HIV counseling and testing at least annually for persons in high-risk categories (Branson et al. 2006), and the intervention therefore has the potential for repeated delivery and sustained risk reduction over time. Although the intervention was not tailored to any specific cultural, racial, or ethnic group, the content and delivery of the intervention was community-focused (i.e., included community-relevant information and exemplars) and counselors were experienced and sensitive to racial/ethnic diversity among the clients. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To help reduce the elevated risk of acquiring HIV for African-American and Latina women drug users in primary heterosexual relationships, we developed a brief couple-based HIV counseling and testing prevention intervention. The intervention was based on an integrated HIV risk behavior theory that incorporated elements of social exchange theory, the theory of gender and power, the stages-of-change model, and the information-motivation-behavior skills model. In this article, we describe the development, content, and format of the couple-based HIV testing and counseling intervention, and its delivery to 110 couples (220 individuals) in a randomized effectiveness trial, the Harlem River Couples Project, conducted in New York City from 2005 to 2007. Components of the couple-based intervention included a personalized dyadic action plan based on the couple's risk profile and interactive exercises designed to help build interpersonal communication skills, and facilitated discussion of social norms regarding gender roles. The couple-based HIV testing and counseling intervention significantly reduced women's overall HIV risk compared to a standard-of-care individual HIV testing and counseling intervention. Experiences and perceptions of the intervention were positive among both clients and interventionists. The study was the first to demonstrate the effectiveness and feasibility of delivering a brief couple-based HIV counseling and testing intervention to reduce risk among drug-using heterosexual couples in high HIV prevalent urban communities in the USA. The intervention can be expanded to include new HIV prevention strategies, such as pre-exposure prophylaxis. Further research is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness and implementation of the intervention in clinical settings.
    Prevention Science 12/2014; 16(2). DOI:10.1007/s11121-014-0540-9 · 2.63 Impact Factor
Show more