Prevalence of HIV infection among inpatients and outpatients in Department of Veterans Affairs health care systems: implications for screening programs for HIV.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the prevalence of HIV in both inpatient and outpatient settings in 6 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care sites. METHODS: We collected demographic data and data on comorbid conditions and then conducted blinded, anonymous HIV testing. We conducted a multivariate analysis to determine predictors of HIV infection. RESULTS: We tested 4500 outpatient blood specimens and 4205 inpatient blood specimens; 326 (3.7%) patients tested positive for HIV. Inpatient HIV prevalence ranged from 1.2% to 6.9%; outpatient HIV prevalence ranged from 0.9% to 8.9%. Having a history of hepatitis B or C infection, a sexually transmitted disease, or pneumonia also predicted HIV infection. The prevalence of previously undocumented HIV infection varied from 0.1% to 2.8% among outpatients and from 0.0% to 1.7% among inpatients. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of undocumented HIV infection was sufficiently high for routine voluntary screening to be cost effective in each of the 6 sites we evaluated. Many VA health care systems should consider expanded routine voluntary HIV screening.

HIV testing of at risk patients in a large integrated health care system.

OBJECTIVE: Early identification of HIV infection is critical for patients to receive life-prolonging treatment and risk-reduction counseling. Understanding HIV screening practices and barriers to HIV testing is an important prelude to designing successful HIV screening programs. Our objective was to evaluate current practice patterns for identification of HIV. METHODS: We used a retrospective cohort analysis of 13,991 at-risk patients seen at 4 large Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health-care systems. We also reviewed 1,100 medical records of tested patients. We assessed HIV testing rates among at-risk patients, the rationale for HIV testing, and predictors of HIV testing and of HIV infection. RESULTS: Of the 13,991 patients at risk for HIV, only 36% had been HIV-tested. The prevalence of HIV ranged from 1% to 20% among tested patients at the 4 sites. Approximately 90% of patients who were tested had a documented reason for testing. CONCLUSION: One-half to two-thirds of patients at risk for HIV had not been tested within our selected VA sites. Among tested patients, the rationale for HIV testing was well documented. Further testing of at-risk patients could clearly benefit patients who have unidentified HIV infection by providing earlier access to life-prolonging therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy.

BACKGROUND: The costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of screening for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in health care settings during the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) have not been determined. METHODS: We developed a Markov model of costs, quality of life, and survival associated with an HIV-screening program as compared with current practice. In both strategies, symptomatic patients were identified through symptom-based case finding. Identified patients started treatment when their CD4 count dropped to 350 cells per cubic millimeter. Disease progression was defined on the basis of CD4 levels and viral load. The likelihood of sexual transmission was based on viral load, knowledge of HIV status, and efficacy of counseling. RESULTS: Given a 1 percent prevalence of unidentified HIV infection, screening increased life expectancy by 5.48 days, or 4.70 quality-adjusted days, at an estimated cost of 194 dollars per screened patient, for a cost-effectiveness ratio of 15,078 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year. Screening cost less than 50,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year if the prevalence of unidentified HIV infection exceeded 0.05 percent. Excluding HIV transmission, the cost-effectiveness of screening was 41,736 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year. Screening every five years, as compared with a one-time screening program, cost 57,138 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year, but was more attractive in settings with a high incidence of infection. Our results were sensitive to the efficacy of behavior modification, the benefit of early identification and therapy, and the prevalence and incidence of HIV infection. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of routine HIV screening in health care settings, even in relatively low-prevalence populations, is similar to that of commonly accepted interventions, and such programs should be expanded.