Improving the evidence for indicator condition guided HIV testing in Europe: Results from the HIDES II Study - 2012 - 2015.

BACKGROUND: It is cost-effective to perform an HIV test in people with specific indicator conditions (IC) with an undiagnosed HIV prevalence of at least 0.1%. Our aim was to determine the HIV prevalence for 14 different conditions across 20 European countries. METHODS: Individuals aged 18-65 years presenting for care with one of 14 ICs between January 2012 and June 2014 were included and routinely offered an HIV test. Logistic regression assessed factors associated with testing HIV positive. Patients presenting with infectious mononucleosis-like syndrome (IMS) were recruited up until September 2015. RESULTS: Of 10,877 patients presenting with an IC and included in the analysis, 303 tested positive (2.8%; 95% CI 2.5-3.1%). People presenting with an IC in Southern and Eastern Europe were more likely to test HIV positive as were people presenting with IMS, lymphadenopathy and leukocytopenia/ thrombocytopenia. One third of people diagnosed with HIV after presenting with IMS reported a negative HIV test in the preceding 12 months. Of patients newly diagnosed with HIV where data was available, 92.6% were promptly linked to care; of these 10.4% were reported lost to follow up or dead 12 months after diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The study showed that 10 conditions had HIV prevalences > 0.1%. These 10 ICs should be adopted into HIV testing and IC specialty guidelines. As IMS presentation can mimic acute HIV sero-conversion and has the highest positivity rate, this IC in particular affords opportunities for earlier diagnosis and public health benefit.

Non-disclosure of HIV status in UK sexual health clinics--a pilot study to identify non-disclosure within a national unlinked anonymous seroprevalence survey.

OBJECTIVES: To identify if HIV-infected individuals attending genitourinary clinics in the UK are not disclosing their HIV status, and to examine the potential utility of drug detection as a method to indicate non-disclosure. METHODS: HIV-positive samples from the unlinked anonymous seroprevalence survey from one London centre in 2009 had viral load (VL) assays performed to identify samples with VL below the level of detection (50 copies/ml, VLBLD) or <1000 copies/ml. After data matching, known HIV positives were excluded and the remaining samples analysed for the presence of a panel of antiretroviral drugs. RESULTS: Of 130 HIV-positive samples with sufficient clinical information and not undergoing an HIV test, 18 were classified as remaining undiagnosed after the clinic visit. Thirteen (72%, 95% CI: 47% to 90%) had a VLBLD (n=11) or VL <1000 copies/ml (n=2). Eight had sufficient volume to undergo ARV testing, and all were positive for the presence of drug; all with therapeutic levels of clinically appropriate combinations. CONCLUSIONS: Non-disclosure of HIV status occurs among individuals attending sexual health services in the UK. This study demonstrates the feasibility and utility of using both VL and ARV assays in serum samples. Furthermore, the close correlation of detection of ARV with VLBLD suggests drug detection would be a useful tool to monitor non-disclosure prospectively, thus enabling the use of stored serum samples in future studies. The extent to which these findings can be extrapolated to other settings, and the potential impact of non-disclosure on undiagnosed estimates warrants urgent prospective study.

Audit of HIV testing frequency and behavioural interventions for men who have sex with men: policy and practice in sexual health clinics in England.

BACKGROUND: National guidance recommends targeted behavioural interventions and frequent HIV testing for men who have sex with men (MSM). We reviewed current policy and practice for HIV testing and behavioural interventions (BI) in England to determine adherence to guidance. METHODS: 25 sexual health clinics were surveyed using a semistructured audit asking about risk ascertainment for MSM, HIV testing and behavioural intervention policies. Practice was assessed by reviewing the notes of the first 40 HIV-negative MSM aged over 16 who attended from 1 June 2010, in a subset of 15 clinics. RESULTS: 24 clinics completed the survey: 18 (75%) defined risk for MSM and 17 used unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) as an indication of high risk. 21 (88%) offered one or more structured BI. Of 598 notes reviewed, 199 (33%) MSM reported any UAI. BI, including safer sex advice, was offered to and accepted by 251/598 (42%) men. A low proportion of all MSM (52/251: 21%) accepted a structured one-to-one BI as recommended by national guidance and uptake was still low among higher risk MSM (29/107: 27%). 92% (552/598) of men had one or more HIV test over a 1-year period. CONCLUSIONS: In 2010, the number of HIV tests performed met the national minimum standard but structured behavioural interventions were being offered to and accepted by only a small proportion of MSM, including those at a higher risk of infection. Reasons for not offering behavioural interventions to higher risk MSM, whether due to patient choice, a lack of staff training or resource shortage, need to be investigated and addressed.

Exploring staff attitudes to routine HIV testing in non-traditional settings: a qualitative study in four healthcare facilities.

OBJECTIVES: To explore staff attitudes towards and experiences of the implementation of routine HIV testing in four healthcare settings in areas of high diagnosed HIV prevalence. METHODS: As part of the HINTS (HIV Testing in Non-traditional Settings) Study, routine offer of an HIV test to all 16-65-year-old patients was conducted for 3 months in an emergency department, an acute admissions unit, a dermatology outpatients department and a primary care practice. The authors conducted focus groups with staff at these sites before and after the implementation of testing. Transcriptions of focus groups were subject to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four major themes were identified: the stigma of HIV and exceptionalisation of HIV testing as a condition; the use of routine testing compared with a targeted strategy as a means of improving the acceptability of testing; the need for an additional skill set to conduct HIV testing; and the existence within these particular settings of operational barriers to the implementation of HIV testing. Specifically, the time taken to conduct testing and management of results were seen by staff as barriers. There was a clear change in staff perception before and after implementation of testing as staff became aware of the high level of patient acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: The routine offer of HIV testing in general medical services is feasible, but implementation requires training and support for staff, which may be best provided by the local sexual health service.