Acute infections, cost and time to reporting of HIV test results in three U.S. State Public Health Laboratories.

OBJECTIVE: In three U.S. State Public Health Laboratories (PHLs) using a fourth-generation immunoassay (IA), an HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation antibody IA and a nucleic acid test (NAT), we characterized the yield and time to reporting of acute infections, and cost per positive specimen. METHODS: Routine HIV testing data were collected from July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013 for Massachusetts and Maryland PHLs, and from November 27, 2012-June 30, 2013 for Michigan PHL. Massachusetts and Michigan used fourth-generation and differentiation IAs with NAT conducted by a referral laboratory. In Maryland, fourth-generation IA repeatedly reactive specimens were followed by a Western blot (WB), and those with negative or indeterminate results were tested with a differentiation IA and HIV-1 NAT, and if positive by NAT, confirmed by a different HIV-1 NAT. Specimens from WB-positive persons at risk for HIV-2 were tested with a differentiation IA and, if positive, with an HIV-2 WB and/or differential HIV-1/HIV-2 proviral DNA polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Among 7914 specimens from Massachusetts PHL, 6069 from Michigan PHL, and 36,266 from Maryland PHL, 0.10%, 0.02% and 0.05% acute infections were identified, respectively. Massachusetts and Maryland PHLs each had 1 HIV-2 positive specimen. The median time from specimen receipt to laboratory reporting of results for acute infections at Massachusetts, Michigan and Maryland PHLs was 8, 11, and 7 days respectively. The laboratory cost per HIV positive specimen was $336 (Massachusetts), $263 (Michigan) and $210 (Maryland). CONCLUSIONS: Acute and established infections were found by PHLs using fourth-generation IA in conjunction with antibody tests and NAT. Time to reporting of acute HIV test results to clients was suboptimal, and needs to be streamlined to expedite treatment and interrupt transmission.

Acute Infections, Cost per Infection and Turnaround Time in Three United States Hospital Laboratories Using Fourth-Generation Antigen-Antibody Human Immunodeficiency Virus Immunoassays.

Background. To improve clinical and public health outcomes through early human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) detection, fourth-generation antigen/antibody immunoassay (4IA) and supplemental testing results must be returned rapidly. Methods. We examined HIV testing data at Harborview Medical Center (HMC), Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), and the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), which used 4IA and supplemental antibody and nucleic acid tests (NATs). At MGH and MUSC, HIV-1 Western blot (WB) and HIV-2 testing were conducted at a reference laboratory. We compared time from specimen collection to laboratory result for established (positive WB) and acute infections (reactive 4IA, negative/indeterminate WB, detectable NAT), and we calculated testing cost per positive-test result. Results. From 3731 (MUSC) to 19 774 (MGH) tests were conducted; 0.01% (MGH) to 0.05% (HMC) were acute infections. Each laboratory had reactive 4IA, WB-negative, or indeterminate specimens without NAT (ie, potential acute infections). Time to result was 1.5 (HMC) to 5.2 days (MGH) for acute and 1.0 (HMC) to 5.2 days (MGH) for established infections. Costs were $1054 (MGH) to $1521 (MUSC). Conclusions. Conducting supplemental testing in-house lowered turnaround times, which may be further reduced with rapid HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation tests. Hospitals may benefit from quantitative NATs not requiring physician orders, so all potential acute infections receive NAT.

Costs and outcomes of laboratory diagnostic algorithms for the detection of HIV.

BACKGROUND: An alternative HIV testing algorithm, designed to improve the detection of acute and early infections and differentiate between HIV-1 and HIV-2 antibodies, has been developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Association of Public Health Laboratories. While it promises greater sensitivity, it also raises concerns about costs. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the most commonly used algorithm which was developed in 1989, a third-generation (3G) immunoassay (IA) and Western blot confirmatory test, to a newer algorithm. The new algorithm includes either a 3G or a fourth-generation (4G) initial IA, followed by confirmatory testing with a HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation IA and, if needed, a nucleic acid amplification test (NAT). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an analysis of HIV testing costs from the perspective of the laboratory, and classified costs according to IA testing volume. We developed a decision analytic model, populated with cost data from 17 laboratories and published assay performance data, to compare the cost-effectiveness of the testing algorithms for a cohort of 30,000 specimens with a 1% HIV prevalence and 0.1% acute HIV infection prevalence. RESULTS: Costs were lower in high-volume laboratories regardless of testing algorithm. For specimens confirmed positive for HIV antibody, the alternative algorithm (IA, Multispot) was less costly than the current algorithm (IA, WB); however, there was wide variation in reported testing costs. For our cohort, the alternative algorithm initiated with a 3G IA and 4G IA identified 15 and 25 more HIV infections, respectively, than the 1989 algorithm. In medium-volume laboratories, the 1989 algorithm was more costly and less effective than the alternative algorithm with a 3G IA; in high-volume laboratories, the alternative algorithm with 3G IA costs $162 more per infection detected. The alternative algorithm with 4G instead of 3G incurred an additional cost of $14,400 and $4865 in medium- and high-volume labs, respectively. DISCUSSION: HIV testing costs varied with IA testing volumes. The additional cost of 4G over 3G IA might be justified by the additional cases of HIV detected and transmissions averted due to earlier detection. CONCLUSION: The alternative HIV testing algorithm compares favorably to the 1989 algorithm in terms of cost and effectiveness.

HIV screening practices and hospital characteristics in the US, 2009-2010.

OBJECTIVES: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends HIV screening in U.S. health-care settings unless providers document a yield of undiagnosed HIV infections of <1 per 1,000 population. However, implementation of this guidance has not been widespread and little is known of the characteristics of hospitals with screening practices in place. We assessed how screening practices vary with hospital characteristics. METHODS: We used a national hospital survey of HIV testing practices, linked to HIV prevalence for the county, parish, borough, or city where the hospital was located, to assess HIV screening of some or all patients by hospitals. We used multivariate logistic regression analysis to assess the association between screening practices and hospital characteristics that were significantly associated with screening in bivariate analyses. RESULTS: Of 376 hospitals in areas of prevalence ≥0.1%, only 25 (6.6%) reported screening all patients for HIV and 131 (34.8%) reported screening some or all patients. Among 638 hospitals included, screening some or all patients was significantly (p<0.05) more common at teaching hospitals, hospitals with higher numbers of annual admissions, and hospitals with a high proportion of Medicaid admissions. In multivariable analysis, screening some or all patients was independently associated with admitting more than 15% of Medicaid patients and receiving resources or reimbursement for screening tests. CONCLUSION: We found that few hospitals surveyed reported screening some or all patients, and failure to screen is common across all types of hospitals in all regions of the country. Expanded reimbursement for screening may increase compliance with the recommendations.