RESUMO
Lessons learnt from the first 'pop-up' HIV testing site in Australia suggest that highly visible testing activity was acceptable in the context of inner Sydney and that pop-up sites may be a useful adjunct to clinic-based models. Further evaluation of alternative testing models is needed to inform the scale up of HIV testing in Australia.
RESUMO
UNLABELLED: Background HIV diagnoses have been increasing steadily in Australia and are concentrated among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM). HIV testing is a key control strategy, and in 2013, a novel time-limited pop-up community HIV testing service (Pop-up) was introduced to raise awareness and increase testing options for GBM. The Pop-up service offered rapid HIV tests only. We compared uptake and outcomes of the Pop-up service to an established clinical model [a fast-track screening service in a sexual health clinic offering rapid and/or conventional HIV tests and sexually transmissible infection (STI) tests]. METHODS: Service delivery data was collated and analysed from the HIV Pop-up (25 November to 1 December 2013) and the fast-track HIV/STI screening service (Xpress) in a sexual health clinic immediately before the Pop-up (1 August to 22 November 2013). A comparison of all the HIV tests and results, tests per hour and characteristics of new clients (demographics, risk behaviour, testing history) was conducted using χ(2), Poisson distribution and Ranksum tests. RESULTS: At the Pop-up service, 182 GBM had a rapid HIV test conducted over the 5-day period (average: seven HIV tests per hour) and no HIV tests were reactive (0%, 95% confidence interval: 0-1.8%). At the Xpress service, 1075 asymptomatic GBM had at least one STI test and 957 GMB had a HIV test (rapid or conventional) conducted over the 3-month period (average: four HIV tests per hour), with two positive HIV tests (0.2%, 95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.7) and 151 positive STI tests (14%, 95% confidence interval: 12-16.2). Compared with new patients at the Xpress service, GBM attending the Pop-up service were older (median of 39 vs 29 years, P<0.01); more likely to report ≥5 sexual partners in the past 3 months (P=0.02); more likely to reside in 'Gay Sydney' (P<0.01); and more likely to be tested for HIV (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Time-limited Pop-up community HIV testing is feasible and reached high-risk GBM, but compared with a clinic-based model, it only reached a smaller proportion of GBM who test infrequently or who have never been tested and are unaware of their HIV status. No STI testing was conducted through the Pop-up service, which allowed a higher throughput of HIV tests; however, a significant number of STIs may have been missed.
RESUMO
A strategy to reduce the burden of active TB is isoniazid preventive therapy for latent TB infection (LTBI). However, current assays used to diagnose LTBI all have limitations. In these proof of concept studies, we compared the agreement of a novel flow cytometry assay detecting CD25/CD134 co-expression with QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFN-GIT) and Tuberculin skin test (TST) in the detection of recall immune response to TB. The CD25/CD134 assay, QFN-GIT and TST were performed on 74 participants referred for TB screening in Sydney and on 50 participants with advanced HIV infection (CD4 ≤ 350 × 10(6) cells/L) in Bangkok. The agreement between CD25/CD134 assay and QFN-GIT was 93.2% (Kappa 0.631 95% CI 0.336-0.926) in Sydney and 90% (Kappa 0.747 95% CI 0.541-0.954) in Bangkok. Discordant results occurred around the cut off of both tests. The agreement between CD25/CD134 assay and TST was 73.6% (Kappa 0.206 95% CI 0.004-0.409) in Sydney and 84% (Kappa 0.551 95% CI 0.296-0.806) in Bangkok. The CD25/CD134 assay showed good agreement with QFN-GIT in detecting recall response to TB both in well and less resourced setting as well as in persons with advanced HIV infection. Further study into the performance of this assay is thus warranted.