Routine, Opt-Out, Emergency Department Syphilis Testing Increases HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Uptake.

BACKGROUND: Many people vulnerable to HIV do not perceive themselves at risk or consider preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). This study hypothesizes that syphilis diagnosis through universal, emergency department (ED) screening would increase PrEP uptake. METHODS: This prospective cohort study enrolled patients tested for syphilis through ED screening between July 2019 and July 2021. Participants completed a survey about behaviors, HIV and PrEP knowledge, and opinions at the time of enrollment. All were offered PrEP if they met Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for PrEP use. Information about PrEP use and HIV status was collected 6 months later. Bivariate analysis was used to compare outcomes between groups testing positive versus negative for syphilis. RESULTS: The study enrolled 97 participants, 49 with syphilis and 48 testing negative. Overall, 11 (11.3%) started PrEP, all in the syphilis group, despite 28 (58.3%) in the negative group having indications for PrEP. Participants with syphilis less frequently reported low perceived HIV risk than syphilis-negative participants who reported HIV transmission behaviors (83.7% vs. 92.9%). Participants reporting moderate to high HIV risk perception were significantly more likely to start PrEP (odds ratio, 10.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-78.1; P = 0.02). At 6 months, 3 participants remained on PrEP (follow-up data available for 63.5% of PrEP-eligible participants). CONCLUSIONS: Syphilis diagnosis was associated with increased perception of HIV risk and increased PrEP initiation. Individuals who otherwise might not seek testing for syphilis because of perceived low risk may be identified through routine screening, thus providing an important opportunity to link more people to HIV prevention and PrEP services.

High Rate of HIV Among Trauma Patients Participating in Routine Emergency Department Screening.

Limited published data suggest rates of HIV may be high among trauma patients. This study compares rates of HIV screening and diagnosis among trauma and medical patients at a Level 1 trauma center emergency department (ED) with a universal HIV screening program. This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of all ED encounters from May 1, 2018, through May 1, 2021. Duplicate encounters, encounters with repeat testing within one year, and patients younger than 18 or older than 65 were excluded. Chi-squared analysis was used to compare demographics, rates of HIV testing, new and known HIV infections, and linkage to care between trauma and medical patients. After exclusion criteria were applied, 147,430 encounters from 91,468 unique patients were analyzed. Trauma comprised 7,497 (5.4%) encounters. Trauma patients were less likely to be screened for HIV than medical patients (18.1% vs 25.6%; OR 0.64; 95%CI, 0.61-0.68, p < .01). Trauma patients had higher rates of HIV (2.2% vs 1.3%; OR 1.78; 95% CI, 1.22-2.58, p < .01). Both trauma and medical patients would benefit from strategies to increase screening. Including trauma patients in routine ED HIV screening should be a priority to increase diagnosis rate and linkage to care in key populations.

Reflex Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Type 1 RNA Testing Enables Timely Differentiation of False-Positive Results From Acute HIV Infection.

Accurate, timely human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnosis is critical. Routine HIV screening program data were examined before and after reflex HIV type 1 RNA testing. Reflex testing facilitated confirmation of reactive HIV screening assays (as true or false positives) (odds ratio, 23.7 [95% confidence interval, 6.7-83.4]; P < .0001), improving detection of acute HIV and reducing unconfirmed discordant results.

Concurrent Testing for COVID-19 and HIV Infection at 6 High-Volume Emergency Departments in a Priority Jurisdiction for Ending the HIV Epidemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruptions in access to routine HIV screening. SETTING: We assess HIV and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing across 6 emergency departments (EDs) in Cook County, Illinois. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the number of SARS-CoV-2 tests, HIV screens, and the proportion of concurrent tests (encounters with both SARS-CoV-2 and HIV testing), correlating with diagnoses of new and acute HIV infection. RESULTS: Five sites reported data from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, and 1 site from September 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021. A total of 1,13,645 SARS-CoV-2 and 36,094 HIV tests were performed; 17,469 of these were concurrent tests. There were 102 new HIV diagnoses, including 25 acute infections. Concurrent testing proportions ranged from 6.7% to 37% across sites (P < 0.001). HIV testing volume correlated with the number of new diagnoses (r = 0.66, P < 0.01). HIV testing with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing was strongly correlated with diagnosis of acute infections (r = 0.87, P < 0.001); this was not statistically significant when controlling for HIV testing volumes (r = 0.59, P = 0.056). Acute patients were more likely to undergo concurrent testing (21/25) versus other new diagnoses (29/77; odds ratio = 8.69, 95% CI: 2.7 to 27.8, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating HIV screening into SARS-CoV-2 testing in the ED can help maintain HIV screening volumes. Although all patients presenting to the ED should be offered opt-out HIV screening, testing individuals with symptoms of COVID-19 or other viral illness affords the opportunity to diagnose symptomatic acute and early HIV infection, rapidly link to care, and initiate treatment.

HIV testing in a high prevalence urban area in the US: Identifying missed opportunities two ways.

BACKGROUND: Routine opt-out HIV testing in healthcare settings is often not implemented to its fullest extent. We assessed factors contributing to missed HIV testing opportunities at an academic medical center in Chicago, Illinois, with a routine HIV screening program. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of HIV testing in clinical encounters was performed using multivariate regession models. Missed opportunities were defined as 1) an encounter during which an HIV test was not conducted on a patient later diagnosed with HIV, or 2) an encounter in which a bacterial STI test was performed without HIV testing. RESULTS: Of 122 people newly diagnosed with HIV from 2011-2018, 98 patients had 1215 prior encounters, of which 82.8% were missed opportunities. Female gender, persons not known to be men who have sex with men, and encounter location other than inpatient had higher odds of a missed opportunity. Nearly half (48.4%) of 104,678 bacterial STI testing encounters were missed opportunities. Female gender, older age, lack of syphilis testing, and location outside the emergency department had higher odds of a missed opportunity. CONCLUSIONS: We found a high number of missed HIV testing opportunities, which could be reduced by strengthening routine screening and increasing targeted testing concurrent with STI screening.