Clinical outcomes of routine opt-out antenatal human immunodeficiency virus screening: a systematic review.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical outcome of routine screening of human immunodeficiency virus in antenatal clinic settings. BACKGROUND: Despite the growing advances in human immunodeficiency virus management, nearly 30% of the estimated 1·5 million seropositive pregnant women are undiagnosed. Routine opt-out testing is a strategy endorsed by the World Health Organization in to increase testing rates in clinical settings. DESIGN: A systematic review of relevant published literature. METHODS: A comprehensive electronic search for relevant studies in Science Direct, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL and PubMed was conducted with search terms (Box 2). Hand searches were also conducted for additional resources. There were no geographical restrictions. Searches were restricted to English language and studies conducted between 1998-2015; totaling 1097 were retrieved and carefully appraised for review. Eighteen studies were eligible for review: eight from Africa, five from the United States, three from Europe, one from Australia and one from Asia. RESULTS: Fourteen studies reported increases in human immunodeficiency virus testing rate. Following the introduction of routine testing, human immunodeficiency virus testing rates increased from values ranging from 68-99·9% with median value of 88%. The comparison studies reported testing uptake of 22-93·5% with median value of 59%. Maternal human immunodeficiency virus case detection rates nearly doubled following adoption of routine testing at values of 99 and 45% during opt-in. Linkage to treatment and care for prevention of vertical transmission was reported on six studies, and results ranged between 12·9-77·2%. CONCLUSION: The findings show that irrespective of human immunodeficiency virus epidemiological scenarios, routine testing gave more women opportunity to learn their human immunodeficiency virus status and take measures for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus. Future studies should focus on identifying strategies to improving linkages to treatment and care for prevention of vertical transmission. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Understanding the contributions of Routine opt-out testing in antenatal clinic would help practitioners adopt the novel testing model for more mothers to learn their human immunodeficiency virus status for prevention of mother-to-child transmission.

Economic impact of routine opt-out antenatal human immune deficiency virus screening: A systematic review.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the economic impact of routine testing of human immune deficiency virus in antenatal settings. BACKGROUND: Many children are being infected with human immune deficiency virus through mother-to-child transmission of the virus. Most of these infections are preventable if the mothers' human immune deficiency virus status is identified in a timely manner and appropriate interventions put in place. Routine human immune deficiency virus testing is widely acclaimed as a strategy for universal access to human immune deficiency virus testing and is being adopted by developed and developing poor income countries without recourse to the economic impact. DESIGN: A systematic review of published articles. METHODS: Extensive electronic searches for relevant journal articles published from 1998-2015 when countries began to implement routine antenatal HIV testing on their own were conducted in the following databases: Science Direct, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, JSTOR, CINAHL and PubMed with search terms as listed in Box 2. Manual searches were also performed to complement the electronic identification of high-quality materials. There were no geographical restrictions, but language was limited to English. RESULTS: Fifty-five articles were retrieved; however, ten were eligible and included in the review. The findings showed that many programmes involving routine human immune deficiency virus testing for pregnant women compared to the alternatives were cost-effective and cost saving. Data from the reviewed studies showed cost savings between $5,761.20-$3.69 million per case of previously undiagnosed maternal human immune deficiency virus-positive infection prevented. Overall, cost-effectiveness was strongly associated with the prevalence rate of human immune deficiency virus in the various settings. CONCLUSIONS: Routine human immune deficiency virus testing is both cost-effective and cost saving compared to the alternatives. However, there are wide variations in the methodological approaches to the studies. Adopting standard reporting format would facilitate comparison between studies and generalisability of economic evaluations. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: (i) Healthcare decision-makers should understand that routine antenatal screening for human immune deficiency virus is both cost-effective and cost saving. (ii) Addressing late identification of prenatal human immune deficiency virus is crucial to reducing mother-to-child transmission at minimal healthcare spending.

HIV treatment and monitoring patterns in routine practice: a multi-country retrospective chart review of patient care.

Background: A study of patient records in four HIV clinics in three sub-Saharan African countries examined routine clinical care patterns and variations. Methods: Clinic characteristics were described, and patient data extracted from a sample of medical records. Data on treatment, CD4 count and viral load (VL) were obtained for the last visit in the records, dates mainly between 2015 and 2017, patient demographic data were obtained from the first clinic visit. Results: Four clinics, two in Nigeria, one in Zambia and one in Uganda, all public facilities, using national HIV treatment guidelines were included. Numbers of patients and health professionals varied, with some variation in stated frequency of testing for CD4 count and VL. Clinical guidelines were available in each clinic, and most drugs were available free to patients. The proportion of patients with a CD4 count in the records varied from 84 to 100 percent, the latest median count varied from 269 to 593 between clinics. 35% had a record of a VL test, varying from 1% to 63% of patients. Lamivudine (3TC) was recorded for more than 90% of patients in each clinic, and although there was variation between clinics in the choice of antiretroviral therapy (ART), the majority were on first line drugs consistent with guidelines.  Only about 2% of the patients were on second-line ARTs. In two clinics, 100% and 99% of patients were prescribed co-trimoxazole, compared with 7% and no patients in the two other clinics. Conclusions: The wide variation in available clinic health work force, levels and frequency of CD4 counts, and VL assessment and treatment indicate sub-optimal adherence to current guidelines in routine clinical care. There is room for further work to understand the reasons for this variation, and to standardise record keeping and routine care of HIV positive patients.