Outcome of an HIV education program for primary care providers: Screening and late diagnosis rates.

BACKGROUND: Late HIV diagnosis remains one of the challenges in combating the epidemic. Primary care providers play an important role in screening for HIV infection. Our study aims to evaluate the relationship between knowledge and barriers to HIV testing and screening outcomes. The impact of an education program for primary care providers, towards improving HIV testing and late diagnosis rates, is also assessed. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire that was developed within the framework of the European project OptTEST was used to examine HIV knowledge and barriers to HIV testing scores before and after being involved in an HIV education program. A quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-intervention measures was performed to investigate its impact. We performed multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess the relationship between variables for the HIV testing offer. RESULTS: A total of 20 primary care centers and 454 primary care staff were included. Baseline OptTEST results showed that more knowledgeable staff offered an HIV test more frequently (OR 1.07; CI 95% 1.01-1.13; p = 0.027) and had lower barrier scores (OR 0.89; CI 95% 0.77-0.95; p = 0.005). Nurses had lower scores in knowledge-related items (OR 0.28; CI 95% 0.17-0.46; p<0.001), but higher scores in barrier-related items than physicians (OR 3.28; CI 95% 2.01-5.46; p<0.001). Specific centers with more knowledgeable staff members had a significant association with a greater level of new HIV diagnosis rates (OR 1.61; CI 95% 1.04-2.49; p = 0.032). After the intervention, we found that 12 out of 14 individual questions showed improved scores. In the 6 months after the training program, we similarly found a higher HIV testing rate (OR 1.19; CI 1.02-1.42; p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the association between knowledge and barriers to HIV testing, including HIV testing rates. It shows that it is possible to modify knowledge and reduce perceived barriers through educational programs, subsequently improving HIV screening outcomes.

BASHH 2016 UK national audit and survey of HIV testing, risk assessment and follow-up: case note audit.

This national audit demonstrated discrepancies between actual practice and that indicated by clinic policies following enquiry about alcohol, recreational drugs and chemsex use. Clinics were more likely to enquire about risk behaviour if this was clinic policy or routine practice. Previous testing was the most common reason for refusing HIV testing, although 33% of men who have sex with men had a prior test of more than three months ago. Of the group declining due to recent exposure in the window period, 21/119 cases had an exposure within the four weeks prior to presentation, but had a previous risk not covered by previous testing. Recommendations include provision of risk assessments for alcohol, recreational drug use and chemsex, documenting reasons for HIV test refusal, provision of HIV point-of-care testing, follow-up for cases at higher risk of HIV and advice about community testing or self-sampling/testing.

HIV testing in Europe: Evaluating the impact, added value, relevance and usability of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)'s 2010 HIV testing guidance.

BACKGROUND: An evaluation of the 2010 ECDC guidance on HIV testing, conducted in October 2015-January 2016, assessed its impact, added value, relevance and usability and the need for updated guidance. METHODS: Data sources were two surveys: one for the primary target audience (health policymakers and decision makers, national programme managers and ECDC official contact points in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) countries and one for a broader target audience (clinicians, civil society organisations and international public health agencies); two moderated focus group discussions (17 participants each); webpage access data; a literature citation review; and an expert consultation (18 participants) to discuss the evaluation findings. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 28 primary target audience and 31 of 51 broader target audience respondents indicated the guidance was the most relevant when compared with other international guidance. Primary target audience respondents in 11 of 23 countries reported that they had used the guidance in development, monitoring and/or evaluation of their national HIV testing policy, guidelines, programme and/or strategy, and 29 of 51 of the broader target audience respondents reported having used the guidance in their work. Both the primary and broader target audience considered it important or very important to have an EU/EEA-level HIV testing guidance (23/28 and 46/51, respectively). CONCLUSION: The guidance has been widely used to develop policies, guidelines, programmes and strategies in the EU/EEA and should be regularly updated due to continuous developments in the field in order to continue to serve as an important reference guidance in the region.

Feasibility and effectiveness of indicator condition-guided testing for HIV: results from HIDES I (HIV indicator diseases across Europe study).

Improved methods for targeting HIV testing among patients most likely to be infected are required; HIDES I aimed to define the methodology of a European wide study of HIV prevalence in individuals presenting with one of eight indicator conditions/diseases (ID); sexually transmitted infection, lymphoma, cervical or anal cancer/dysplasia, herpes zoster, hepatitis B/C, mononucleosis-like illness, unexplained leukocytopenia/thrombocytopenia and seborrheic dermatitis/exanthema, and to identify those with an HIV prevalence of >0.1%, a level determined to be cost effective. A staff questionnaire was performed. From October 2009- February 2011, individuals, not known to be HIV positive, presenting with one of the ID were offered an HIV test; additional information was collected on previous HIV testing behaviour and recent medical history. A total of 3588 individuals from 16 centres were included. Sixty-six tested positive for HIV, giving an HIV prevalence of 1.8% [95% CI: 1.42-2.34]; all eight ID exceeded 0.1% prevalence. Of those testing HIV positive, 83% were male, 58% identified as MSM and 9% were injecting drug users. Twenty percent reported previously having potentially HIV-related symptoms and 52% had previously tested HIV negative (median time since last test: 1.58 years); which together with the median CD4 count at diagnosis (400 cell/uL) adds weight to this strategy being effective in diagnosing HIV at an earlier stage. A positive test was more likely for non-white individuals, MSM, injecting drug users and those testing in non-Northern regions. HIDES I describes an effective strategy to detect undiagnosed HIV infection. All eight ID fulfilled the >0.1% criterion for cost effectiveness. All individuals presenting to any health care setting with one of these ID should be strongly recommended an HIV test. A strategy is being developed in collaboration with ECDC and WHO Europe to guide the implementation of this novel public health initiative across Europe.

HIV testing in non-traditional settings--the HINTS study: a multi-centre observational study of feasibility and acceptability.

BACKGROUND: UK guidelines recommend routine HIV testing in healthcare settings if the local diagnosed HIV prevalence >2/1000 persons. This prospective study assessed the feasibility and acceptability, to patients and staff, of routinely offering HIV tests in four settings: Emergency Department, Acute Care Unit, Dermatology Outpatients and Primary Care. Modelling suggested the estimated prevalence of undiagnosed HIV infection in attendees would exceed 1/1000 persons. The prevalence identified prospectively was not a primary outcome. METHODS: Permanent staff completed questionnaires assessing attitudes towards routine HIV testing in their workplace before testing began. Subsequently, over a three-month period, patients aged 16-65 were offered an HIV test by study staff. Demographics, uptake, results, and departmental activity were collected. Subsets of patients completed questionnaires. Analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with test uptake. FINDINGS: Questionnaires were received from 144 staff. 96% supported the expansion of HIV testing, but only 54% stated that they would feel comfortable delivering testing themselves, with 72% identifying a need for training. Of 6194 patients offered a test, 4105 (66·8%) accepted (61·8-75·4% across sites). Eight individuals were diagnosed with HIV (0-10/1000 across sites) and all transferred to care. Younger people, and males, were more likely to accept an HIV test. No significant associations were found between uptake and ethnicity, or clinical site. Questionnaires were returned from 1003 patients. The offer of an HIV test was acceptable to 92%. Of respondents, individuals who had never tested for HIV before were more likely to accept a test, but no association was found between test uptake and sexual orientation. CONCLUSIONS: HIV testing in these settings is acceptable, and operationally feasible. The strategy successfully identified, and transferred to care, HIV-positive individuals. However, if HIV testing is to be included as a routine part of patients' care, additional staff training and infrastructural resources will be required.

Interleukin-2-associated viral breakthroughs induce HIV-1-specific CD4 T cell responses in patients on fully suppressive highly active antiretroviral therapy.

The combination of intermittent subcutaneous IL-2 and highly active antiretroviral therapy in individuals infected with HIV-1 has been shown to have a beneficial quantitative effect on the CD4 T cell count. We observed IL-2-associated viral load 'blips' inducing HIV-1-specific lymphoproliferative responses at 24 weeks in such individuals. This immunotherapeutic approach, utilizing autologous virus as autovaccination, may be a viable, safer alternative to structured treatment interruption and potentially more efficacious than therapeutic vaccines.