Missed Opportunities in HIV Testing in Turkiye: Implications for Late Diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Late diagnosis of HIV infection is a major global problem. In Turkiye, only 41%-50% of people living with HIV are diagnosed, suggesting that many opportunities for HIV testing might be missed. SETTING: The aim of this study was to determine the missed testing opportunities for HIV in healthcare settings in Turkiye and the predictors for missed opportunities (MOs). METHODS: The study included patients with a new HIV diagnosis, presenting to care between January 2018 and December 2020. They were given a verbal questionnaire face to face, by a telephone call or an online meeting for visits to a health care setting within the year before their diagnosis. Electronic medical records were also examined. RESULTS: The sample included 198 patients with at least 1 visit to any health care setting, with a total of 1677 visits. Patients had an indication for HIV testing in 51.3% (861/1677) of the visits; an HIV test was not offered in 77.9% (671/861) and was considered a MO. The highest number of MOs was in emergency departments (59.8%) (180/301). The most common reason for visiting was constitutional symptoms and indicator conditions (55.4%) (929/1677). University graduates and those with a CD4+ T-cell count <200/mm 3 were more likely to have a MO. CONCLUSIONS: Many opportunities to diagnose HIV at an early stage are missed in health care settings in Turkiye. Considering the rapidly increasing number of new diagnoses in the last decade, urgent action needs to be taken.

The diagnostic utility of the "Thwaites' system" and "lancet consensus scoring system" in tuberculous vs. non-tuberculous subacute and chronic meningitis: multicenter analysis of 395 adult patients.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculous meningitis (TBM) represents a diagnostic and management challenge to clinicians. The "Thwaites' system" and "Lancet consensus scoring system" are utilized to differentiate TBM from bacterial meningitis but their utility in subacute and chronic meningitis where TBM is an important consideration is unknown. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study of adults with subacute and chronic meningitis, defined by symptoms greater than 5 days and less than 30 days for subacute meningitis (SAM) and greater than 30 days for chronic meningitis (CM). The "Thwaites' system" and "Lancet consensus scoring system" scores and the diagnostic accuracy by sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of receiver operating curve (AUC-ROC) were calculated. The "Thwaites' system" and "Lancet consensus scoring system" suggest a high probability of TBM with scores ≤4, and with scores of ≥12, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 395 patients were identified; 313 (79.2%) had subacute and 82 (20.8%) with chronic meningitis. Patients with chronic meningitis were more likely caused by tuberculosis and had higher rates of HIV infection (P < 0.001). A total of 162 patients with TBM and 233 patients with non-TBM had unknown (140, 60.1%), fungal (41, 17.6%), viral (29, 12.4%), miscellaneous (16, 6.7%), and bacterial (7, 3.0%) etiologies. TMB patients were older and presented with lower Glasgow coma scores, lower CSF glucose and higher CSF protein (P < 0.001). Both criteria were able to distinguish TBM from bacterial meningitis; only the Lancet score was able to differentiate TBM from fungal, viral, and unknown etiologies even though significant overlap occurred between the etiologies (P < .001). Both criteria showed poor diagnostic accuracy to distinguish TBM from non-TBM etiologies (AUC-ROC was <. 5), but Lancet consensus scoring system was fair in diagnosing TBM (AUC-ROC was .738), sensitivity of 50%, and specificity of 89.3%. CONCLUSION: Both criteria can be helpful in distinguishing TBM from bacterial meningitis, but only the Lancet consensus scoring system can help differentiate TBM from meningitis caused by fungal, viral and unknown etiologies even though significant overlap occurs and the overall diagnostic accuracy of both criteria were either poor or fair.

Portraying infective endocarditis: results of multinational ID-IRI study.

Infective endocarditis is a growing problem with many shifts due to ever-increasing comorbid illnesses, invasive procedures, and increase in the elderly. We performed this multinational study to depict definite infective endocarditis. Adult patients with definite endocarditis hospitalized between January 1, 2015, and October 1, 2018, were included from 41 hospitals in 13 countries. We included microbiological features, types and severity of the disease, complications, but excluded therapeutic parameters. A total of 867 patients were included. A total of 631 (72.8%) patients had native valve endocarditis (NVE), 214 (24.7%) patients had prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), 21 (2.4%) patients had pacemaker lead endocarditis, and 1 patient had catheter port endocarditis. Eighteen percent of NVE patients were hospital-acquired. PVE patients were classified as early-onset in 24.9%. A total of 385 (44.4%) patients had major embolic events, most frequently to the brain (n = 227, 26.3%). Blood cultures yielded pathogens in 766 (88.4%). In 101 (11.6%) patients, blood cultures were negative. Molecular testing of vegetations disclosed pathogens in 65 cases. Overall, 795 (91.7%) endocarditis patients had any identified pathogen. Leading pathogens (Staphylococcus aureus (n = 267, 33.6%), Streptococcus viridans (n = 149, 18.7%), enterococci (n = 128, 16.1%), coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 92, 11.6%)) displayed substantial resistance profiles. A total of 132 (15.2%) patients had cardiac abscesses; 693 (79.9%) patients had left-sided endocarditis. Aortic (n = 394, 45.4%) and mitral valves (n = 369, 42.5%) were most frequently involved. Mortality was more common in PVE than NVE (NVE (n = 101, 16%), PVE (n = 49, 22.9%), p = 0.042).

Evaluation of infectious diseases and clinical microbiology specialists' preferences for hand hygiene: analysis using the multi-attribute utility theory and the analytic hierarchy process methods.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is one of the most effective attempts to control nosocomial infections, and it is an important measure to avoid the transmission of pathogens. However, the compliance of healthcare workers (HCWs) with hand washing is still poor worldwide. Herein, we aimed to determine the best hand hygiene preference of the infectious diseases and clinical microbiology (IDCM) specialists to prevent transmission of microorganisms from one patient to another. METHODS: Expert opinions regarding the criteria that influence the best hand hygiene preference were collected through a questionnaire via face-to-face interviews. Afterwards, these opinions were examined with two widely used multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods, the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). RESULTS: A total of 15 IDCM specialist opinions were collected from diverse private and public hospitals located in Izmir, Turkey. The mean age of the participants was 49.73 ± 8.46, and the mean experience year of the participants in their fields was 17.67 ± 11.98. The findings that we obtained through two distinct decision making methods, the MAUT and the AHP, suggest that alcohol-based antiseptic solution (ABAS) has the highest utility (0.86) and priority (0.69) among the experts' choices. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the MAUT and the AHP, decision models developed here indicate that rubbing the hands with ABAS is the most favorable choice for IDCM specialists to prevent nosocomial infection.