HIV seroconversion among Baltimore City residents tested at a mobile van programme.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals with HIV in the USA are unaware of their diagnosis, and therefore cannot be engaged in treatment services, have worse clinical outcomes and are more likely to transmit HIV to others. Mobile van testing may increase HIV testing and diagnosis. Our objective was to characterise risk factors for HIV seroconversion among individuals using mobile van testing. METHODS: A case cohort study (n=543) was conducted within an HIV surveillance dataset of mobile van testing users with at least two HIV tests between September 2004 and August 2009 in Baltimore, Maryland. A subcohort (n=423) was randomly selected; all additional cases were added from the parent cohort. Cases (n=122 total, two from random subcohort) had documented seroconversion at the follow-up visit. A unique aspect of the analysis was use of Department of Corrections data to document incarceration between the times of initial and subsequent testing. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare HIV transmission risk factors between individuals who seroconverted and those who did not. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-two HIV seroconversions occurred among 8756 individuals (1.4%), a rate higher than that in Baltimore City Health Department's STD Clinic clients (1%). Increased HIV seroconversion risk was associated with men who have sex with men (MSM) (HR 32.76, 95% CI 5.62 to 191.12), sex with an HIV positive partner (HR 70.2, 95% CI 9.58 to 514.89), and intravenous drug use (IDU) (HR 5.65, 95% CI 2.41 to 13.23). CONCLUSIONS: HIV testing is a crucial first step in the HIV care continuum and an important HIV prevention tool. This study confirmed the need to reach high-risk populations (MSM, sex with HIV-positive individuals, individuals with IDU) and to increase comprehensive prevention services so that high-risk individuals stay HIV uninfected. HIV testing in mobile vans may be an effective outreach strategy for identifying infection in certain populations at high risk for HIV.

Interventions to Improve Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening in Clinic-Based Settings.

BACKGROUND: The asymptomatic nature and suboptimal screening rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) call for implementation of successful interventions to improve screening in community-based clinic settings with attention to cost and resources. METHODS: We used MEDLINE to systematically review comparative analyses of interventions to improve STD (chlamydia, gonorrhea, or syphilis) screening or rescreening in clinic-based settings that were published between January 2000 and January 2014. Absolute differences in the percent of the target population screened between comparison groups or relative percent increase in the number of tests or patients tested were used to score the interventions as highly effective (>20% increase) or moderately effective (5%-19% increase) in improving screening. Published cost of the interventions was described where available and, when not available, was estimated. RESULTS: Of the 4566 citations reviewed, 38 articles describing 42 interventions met the inclusion criteria. Of the 42 interventions, 16 (38.1%) were categorized as highly effective and 14 (33.3%) as moderately effective. Effective low-cost interventions (<$1000) included the strategic placement of specimen collection materials or automatic collection of STD specimens as part of a routine visit (7 highly effective and 1 moderately effective) and the use of electronic health records (EHRs; 3 highly effective and 4 moderately effective). Patient reminders for screening or rescreening (via text, telephone, and postcards) were highly effective (3) or moderately effective (2) and low or moderate cost (<$1001-10,000). Interventions with dedicated clinic staff to improve STD screening were highly effective (2) or moderately effective in improving STD screening (1) but high-cost ($10,001-$100,000). CONCLUSIONS: Successful interventions include changing clinic flow to routinely collect specimens for testing, using EHR screening reminders, and reminding patients to get screened or rescreened. These strategies can be tailored to different clinic settings to improve screening at a low cost.