Improving indicator-condition guided testing for HIV in the hospital setting (PROTEST 2·0): A multicenter, interrupted time-series analysis.

Background: Indicator-condition (IC) guided HIV testing is a feasible and cost-effective strategy to identify undiagnosed people living with HIV (PLHIV), but remains insufficiently implemented. We aimed to promote IC-guided HIV testing in seven ICs. Methods: Relevant departments in five hospitals of the Amsterdam region participated. HIV testing among adult patients without known HIV infection but with an IC was assessed using electronic health records during pre-intervention (January 2015-June 2020) and intervention (July 2020-June 2021) periods. The multifaceted intervention included audit and feedback. The primary endpoint was HIV testing ≤3 months before or after IC diagnosis and the effect of the intervention was evaluated using segmented Poisson regression. Findings: Data from 7986 patients were included, of whom 6730 (84·3%) were diagnosed with an IC in the pre-intervention period and 1256 (15·7%) in the intervention period. The proportion HIV tested ≤3 months before or after IC diagnosis increased from 36.8% to 47.0% (adjusted risk ratio [RR]= 1.16, 95% CI=1.03-1.30, p=0.02). For individual ICs, we observed significant increases in HIV testing among patients with cervical cancer or intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (adjusted RR=3.62, 95% CI=1.93-6.79) and peripheral neuropathy (adjusted RR=2.27 95% CI=1.48-3.49), but not the other ICs. Eighteen of 3068 tested patients were HIV positive (0.6%). Interpretation: Overall IC-guided testing improved after the intervention, but not for all ICs. Variations in effect by IC may have been due to variations in implemented developments, but the effect of separate elements could not be assessed. Funding: HIV Transmission Elimination Amsterdam (H-TEAM) initiative, Aidsfonds (grant number: P-42702).

Who is providing HIV diagnostic testing? Comparing HIV testing by general practitioners and sexual health centres in five regions in the Netherlands, 2011-2018.

OBJECTIVES: General practitioners (GPs) and sexual health centres (SHCs) are the main providers of HIV testing and diagnose two-thirds of HIV infections in the Netherlands. We compared regional HIV testing and positivity by GPs versus SHCs to gain insight into strategies to improve HIV testing, to enable timely detection of HIV infections. METHODS: Laboratory data (2011-2018) on HIV testing by GPs and SHCs in five Dutch regions with varying levels of urbanisation were evaluated. Regional HIV testing rates per 10 000 residents ≥15 years (mean over period and annual) were compared between providers using negative binomial generalised additive models and additionally stratified by sex and age (15-29 years, 30-44 years, 45-59 years, ≥60 years). χ2 tests were used to compare positivity percentage between the two groups of providers. RESULTS: In the study period, 505 167 HIV tests (GP 36%, SHC 64%) were performed. The highest HIV testing rates were observed in highly urbanised regions, with large regional variations. The HIV testing rates ranged from 28 to 178 per 10 000 residents by GPs and from 30 to 378 per 10 000 by SHCs. Testing rates by GPs were lower than by SHCs in three regions and comparable in two. In all regions, men were tested less by GPs than by SHCs; for women, this varied by region. Among those aged 15-29 years old, GPs' testing rates were lower than SHCs', while this was reversed in older age categories in four out of five regions. The overall mean HIV positivity was 0.4%. In contrast to other regions, positivity in Amsterdam was significantly higher among individuals tested by GPs than by SHCs. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective observational study shows that besides SHCs, who perform opt-out testing for key groups, GPs play a prominent role in HIV testing, especially in non-key populations, such as women and older individuals. Large regional variation exists, requiring region-specific interventions to improve GPs' HIV testing practices.

Promoting HIV indicator condition-guided testing in hospital settings (PROTEST 2.0): study protocol for a multicentre interventional study.

BACKGROUND: Late presentation remains a key barrier towards controlling the HIV epidemic. Indicator conditions (ICs) are those that are AIDS-defining, associated with a prevalence of undiagnosed HIV > 0.1%, or whose clinical management would be impeded if an HIV infection were undiagnosed. IC-guided HIV testing is an effective strategy in identifying undiagnosed HIV, but opportunities for earlier HIV diagnosis through IC-guided testing are being missed. We present a protocol for an interventional study to improve awareness of IC-guided testing and increase HIV testing in patients presenting with ICs in a hospital setting. METHODS: We designed a multicentre interventional study to be implemented at five hospitals in the region of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Seven ICs were selected for which HIV test ratios (proportion of patients with an IC tested for HIV) will be measured: tuberculosis, cervical/vulvar cancer or high-grade cervical/vulvar dysplasia, malignant lymphoma, hepatitis B and C, and peripheral neuropathy. Prior to the intervention, a baseline assessment of HIV test ratios across ICs will be performed in eligible patients (IC diagnosed January 2015 through May 2020, ≥18 years, not known HIV positive) and an assessment of barriers and facilitators for HIV testing amongst relevant specialties will be conducted using qualitative (interviews) and quantitative methods (questionnaires). The intervention phase will consist of an educational intervention, including presentation of baseline results as competitive graphical audit and feedback combined with discussion on implementation and opportunities for improvement. The effect of the intervention will be assessed by comparing HIV test ratios of the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods. The primary endpoint is the HIV test ratio within ±3 months of IC diagnosis. Secondary endpoints are the HIV test ratio within ±6 months of diagnosis, ratio ever tested for HIV, HIV positivity percentage, proportion of late presenters and proportion with known HIV status prior to initiating treatment for their IC. DISCUSSION: This protocol presents a strategy aimed at increasing awareness of the benefits of IC-guided testing and increasing HIV testing in patients presenting with ICs in hospital settings to identify undiagnosed HIV in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial registry: NL7521 . Registered 14 February 2019.

Rationale, design and initial results of an educational intervention to improve provider-initiated HIV testing in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: In the Netherlands, general practitioners (GPs) perform two-thirds of sexually transmitted infection (STI) consultations and diagnose one-third of HIV infections. GPs are, therefore, a key group to target to improve provider-initiated HIV testing. We describe the design and implementation of an educational intervention to improve HIV testing by Amsterdam GPs and explore trends in GPs' testing behaviour. METHODS: Interactive sessions on HIV and STI using graphical audit and feedback started in 2015. Participating GPs developed improvement plans that were evaluated in follow-up sessions. Laboratory data on STI testing by Amsterdam GPs from 2011 to 2017 were collected for graphical audit and feedback and effect evaluation. The primary outcome was the HIV testing rate: number of HIV tests per 10 000 person-years (PY). Secondary endpoints were chlamydia and gonorrhoea testing rates and HIV positivity ratios. RESULTS: Since 2015, 41% of GPs participated. HIV testing rate declined from 2011 to 2014 (from 175 to 116 per 10 000 PY), more in women than men (176 to 101 versus 173 to 132), and stabilized from 2015 to 2017. The HIV positivity ratio declined from 0.8% in 2011 to 0.5% in 2017. From 2011 to 2017, chlamydia and gonorrhoea testing rates declined in women (from 618 to 477 per 10 000 PY) but remained stable in men (from 270 to 278). CONCLUSIONS: The stabilization of the downward trend in HIV testing coincided with this educational intervention. Follow-up data are needed to formally assess the intervention's impact on GP testing behaviour whilst considering contextual factors and secular trends.

[Towards zero new HIV infections in the Netherlands: proactive testing in case of indicator conditions]. / Nederland naar nul nieuwe hiv-infecties.

To reach the UNAIDS target of zero new HIV infections in the Netherlands, timely diagnosis of HIV is essential to enable starting antiretroviral treatment which prevents AIDS and onward transmission. To attain this, optimal HIV testing strategies in both primary care and the hospital setting are needed. Testing for HIV in the presence of indicator conditions associated with HIV is part of an evidence-based strategy towards ending the HIV epidemic and is recommended in (inter)national guidelines. Currently, physician initiated indicator condition-guided testing for HIV in Dutch healthcare settings can be improved. Several barriers for implementation exist including unfamiliarity with indicator condition-guided testing among healthcare providers despite that general practitioners and medical specialists commonly encounter patients with indicator conditions. Proactive testing for HIV in patients presenting with indicator conditions is destigmatizing and cost-effective, decreases morbidity and contributes to the elimination of HIV in the Netherlands.

Barriers and facilitators and the need for a clinical guideline for microbiological diagnostic testing in the hospital: a qualitative and quantitative study.

The appropriate use of microbiological investigations is an important cornerstone of antibiotic stewardship programmes, but receives relatively limited attention. This study aimed to identify influencing factors in performing microbiological diagnostic tests and to assess the need for a clinical guideline. We performed a qualitative (focus group) and quantitative (online questionnaire survey) study among medical specialists and residents to identify physicians' considerations in performing microbiological diagnostic tests and to assess the need for a diagnostic guideline. The questionnaire consisted of 14 statements, divided into three categories: knowledge, influencing factors and presence of guidelines. The questionnaire was sent to physicians of the departments of internal medicine, intensive care, paediatrics and pulmonology in five hospitals in the Netherlands. Sub-analyses for medical specialists versus residents and for paediatric versus non-paediatric departments were performed. We included 187 completed questionnaires in our analyses. The physicians reported having adequate knowledge on methods, time-to-result and accuracy, but inadequate knowledge on costs of the tests. Patients' clinical condition, comorbidity, local guidelines and accuracy of tests were appraised as the four most important influencing factors to perform tests. Over 70% (132/187) of physicians reported being interested in a guideline for microbiological diagnostic testing. Fifteen physicians (8.0%) provided additional comments. This study identifies the influencing factors to microbiological testing and shows the demand for a clinical guideline among physicians. IMPORTANCE: Microbiological diagnostic tests are an important cornerstone within antibiotic stewardship programmes [1-5]. These programmes aim to ameliorate the appropriate use of antibiotics and thus improve clinical outcomes of infectious diseases, whilst reducing the emergence of antimicrobial resistance [6]. However, inappropriate microbiological testing is a widely recognised problem [7-12], and influencing factors to testing have not been studied in the past. Our research shows the demand for a clinical guideline among physicians, and it identifies their influencing factors to testing. These results can be used to create a clinical guideline for microbiological diagnostic testing, thus supporting antibiotic stewardship programmes and reducing antimicrobial resistance.