CDC Recommends Routine HIV Screening

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (11) ◽  
pp. 56
Author(s):  
ROBERT FINN
2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-95
Author(s):  
Terry W Rice ◽  
◽  
Patricia A. Brock ◽  
Carmen Gonzalez ◽  
Kelly W Merriman ◽  
...  

Treatment of human immunodeficiency virus(HIV) in cancer patients improves outcomes and reduces transmission of this oncogenic virus. HIV testing rates of cancer patients are similar to the general population (15-40%), despite the association with cancer. Our aim was to increase HIV screening in the Emergency Department(ED) of a comprehensive cancer center through a quality initiative. Testing increased significantly during the intervention (p<0.001; 0.15/day to 2.69/day). Seropositive HIV rate was 1.4% (12/852), with incidence of 0.3%. All patients were linked to care. Incident cases were between 36 and 55 years of age. Barriers encountered included confusion regarding the need for written consent for HIV testing, failure to consider ordering the test, and concerns regarding linkage to care.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S513-S513
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A Aguilera ◽  
Gilhen Rodriguez ◽  
Gabriela P Del Bianco ◽  
Gloria Heresi ◽  
James Murphy ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The Emergency Department (ED) at Memorial Hermann Hospital (MHH) - Texas Medical Center (TMC), Houston, Texas has a long established screening program targeted at detection of HIV infections. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on this screening program is unknown. Methods The Routine HIV screening program includes opt-out testing of all adults 18 years and older with Glasgow score &gt; 9. HIV 4th generation Ag/Ab screening, with reflex to Gennius confirmatory tests are used. Pre-pandemic (March 2019 to February 2020) to Pandemic period (March 2020 to February 2021) intervals were compared. Results 72,929 patients visited MHH_ED during the pre-pandemic period and 57,128 in the pandemic period, a 22% decline. The number of patients tested for HIV pre-pandemic was 9433 and 6718 pandemic, a 29% decline. When the pandemic year was parsed into first and last 6 months interval and compared to similar intervals in the year pre pandemic, 39% followed by 16% declines in HIV testing were found. In total, 354 patients were HIV positives, 209, (59%) in the pre-pandemic and 145 (41%) in the pandemic period.The reduction in new HIV infections found was directly proportional to the decline in patients visiting the MHH-ED where the percent of patients HIV positive was constant across intervals (2.21% vs 2.26%). Demographic and outcome characteristics were constant across the compared intervals. Conclusion The COVID -19 pandemic reduced detection of new HIV infections by screening in direct proportion to the reduction in MHH-ED patient visits. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic decreased with duration of the pandemic. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


2016 ◽  
Vol 131 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 30-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Nunn ◽  
Caitlin Towey ◽  
Philip A. Chan ◽  
Sharon Parker ◽  
Emily Nichols ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 131 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa Rodriguez ◽  
Deborah Lester ◽  
Alison Connelly-Flores ◽  
Franco A. Barsanti ◽  
Paloma Hernandez

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare M. Hack ◽  
Catherine A. Scarfi ◽  
Adam B. Sivitz ◽  
Michael D. Rosen

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erni Juwita Nelwan ◽  
Ahmad Isa ◽  
Bachti Alisjahbana ◽  
Nurlita Triani ◽  
Iqbal Djamaris ◽  
...  

Purpose – Routine HIV screening of prisoners is generally recommended, but rarely implemented in low-resource settings. Targeted screening can be used as an alternative. Both strategies may provide an opportunity to start HIV treatment but no formal comparisons have been done of these two strategies. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – The authors compared yield and costs of routine and targeted screening in a narcotic prison in Indonesia. Routine HIV screening was done for all incoming prisoners from August 2007-February 2009, after it was switched for budgetary reasons to targeted (“opt-out”) HIV screening of inmates classified as people who inject drugs (PWIDs), and “opt-in” HIV testing for all non-PWIDs. Findings – During routine screening 662 inmates were included. All 115 PWIDs and 93.2 percent of non-PWIDs agreed to be tested, 37.4 percent and 0.4 percent respectively were HIV-positive. During targeted screening (March 2009-October 2010), of 888 inmates who entered prison, 107 reported injecting drug use and were offered HIV testing, of whom 31 (29 percent) chose not to be tested and 25.0 percent of those tested were HIV-positive. Of 781 non-PWIDs, 187 (24 percent) came for testing (opt-in), and 2.1 percent were infected. During targeted screening fewer people admitted drug use (12.0 vs 17.4 percent). Routine screening yielded twice as many HIV-infected subjects (45 vs 23). The estimated cost per detected HIV infection was 338 USD for routine and 263 USD for targeted screening. Originality/value – In a resource limited setting like Indonesia, routine HIV screening in prison is feasible and more effective than targeted screening, which may be stigmatizing. HIV infections that remain unrecognized can fuel ongoing transmission in prison and lead to unnecessary disease progression and deaths.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document