21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Auditing HIV Testing Rates across Europe: Results from the HIDES 2 Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          European guidelines recommend the routine offer of an HIV test in patients with a number of AIDS-defining and non-AIDS conditions believed to share an association with HIV; so called indicator conditions (IC). Adherence with this guidance across Europe is not known. We audited HIV testing behaviour in patients accessing care for a number of ICs. Participating centres reviewed the case notes of either 100 patients or of all consecutive patients in one year, presenting for each of the following ICs: tuberculosis, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, anal and cervical cancer, hepatitis B and C and oesophageal candidiasis. Observed HIV-positive rates were applied by region and IC to estimate the number of HIV diagnoses potentially missed. Outcomes examined were: HIV test rate (% of total patients with IC), HIV test accepted (% of tests performed/% of tests offered) and new HIV diagnosis rate (%). There were 49 audits from 23 centres, representing 7037 patients. The median test rate across audits was 72% (IQR 32–97), lowest in Northern Europe (median 44%, IQR 22–68%) and highest in Eastern Europe (median 99%, IQR 86–100). Uptake of testing was close to 100% in all regions. The median HIV+ rate was 0.9% (IQR 0.0–4.9), with 29 audits (60.4%) having an HIV+ rate >0.1%. After adjustment, there were no differences between regions of Europe in the proportion with >0.1% testing positive (global p = 0.14). A total of 113 patients tested HIV+. Applying the observed rates of testing HIV+ within individual ICs and regions to all persons presenting with an IC suggested that 105 diagnoses were potentially missed. Testing rates in well-established HIV ICs remained low across Europe, despite high prevalence rates, reflecting missed opportunities for earlier HIV diagnosis and care. Significant numbers may have had an opportunity for HIV diagnosis if all persons included in IC audits had been tested.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

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

          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. 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. 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. 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. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Expanded screening for HIV in the United States--an analysis of cost-effectiveness.

            Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend routine HIV counseling, testing, and referral (HIVCTR) in settings with at least a 1 percent prevalence of HIV, roughly 280,000 Americans are unaware of their human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. The effect of expanded screening for HIV is unknown in the era of effective antiretroviral therapy. We developed a computer simulation model of HIV screening and treatment to compare routine, voluntary HIVCTR with current practice in three target populations: "high-risk" (3.0 percent prevalence of undiagnosed HIV infection; 1.2 percent annual incidence); "CDC threshold" (1.0 percent and 0.12 percent, respectively); and "U.S. general" (0.1 percent and 0.01 percent). Input data were derived from clinical trials and observational cohorts. Outcomes included quality-adjusted survival, cost, and cost-effectiveness. In the high-risk population, the addition of one-time screening for HIV antibodies with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to current practice was associated with earlier diagnosis of HIV (mean CD4 cell count at diagnosis, 210 vs. 154 per cubic millimeter). One-time screening also improved average survival time among HIV-infected patients (quality-adjusted survival, 220.7 months vs. 219.8 months). The incremental cost-effectiveness was 36,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Testing every five years cost 50,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and testing every three years cost 63,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In the CDC threshold population, the cost-effectiveness ratio for one-time screening with ELISA was 38,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained, whereas testing every five years cost 71,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and testing every three years cost 85,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In the U.S. general population, one-time screening cost 113,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In all but the lowest-risk populations, routine, voluntary screening for HIV once every three to five years is justified on both clinical and cost-effectiveness grounds. One-time screening in the general population may also be cost-effective. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Projected life expectancy of people with HIV according to timing of diagnosis

              Effective antiretroviral therapy (ART) has contributed greatly toward survival for people with HIV, yet many remain undiagnosed until very late. Our aims were to estimate the life expectancy of an HIV-infected MSM living in a developed country with extensive access to ART and healthcare, and to assess the effect of late diagnosis on life expectancy. A stochastic computer simulation model of HIV infection and the effect of ART was used to estimate life expectancy and determine the distribution of potential lifetime outcomes of an MSM, aged 30 years, who becomes HIV positive in 2010. The effect of altering the diagnosis rate was investigated. Assuming a high rate of HIV diagnosis (median CD4 cell count at diagnosis, 432  cells/μl), projected median age at death (life expectancy) was 75.0 years. This implies 7.0 years of life were lost on average due to HIV. Cumulative risks of death by 5 and 10 years after infection were 2.3 and 5.2%, respectively. The 95% uncertainty bound for life expectancy was (68.0,77.3) years. When a low diagnosis rate was assumed (diagnosis only when symptomatic, median CD4 cell count 140  cells/μl), life expectancy was 71.5 years, implying an average 10.5 years of life lost due to HIV. If low rates of virologic failure observed in treated patients continue, predicted life expectancy is relatively high in people with HIV who can access a wide range of antiretrovirals. The greatest risk of excess mortality is due to delays in HIV diagnosis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                11 November 2015
                2015
                : 10
                : 11
                : e0140845
                Affiliations
                [1 ]CHIP, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [2 ]University College London, London, United Kingdom
                [3 ]Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
                [4 ]Gomel State Medical University, Gomel, Belarus
                [5 ]Clinical Center University of Sarajevo, Infectious Diseases Clinic, Sarajevo, Bosnia
                [6 ]Ben Ari Institute of Clinical Immunology, Rehovot, Israel
                [7 ]University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
                [8 ]Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
                [9 ]Luhansk AIDS Center, Luhansk, Ukraine
                [10 ]Belarusian State Medical University, Minsk, Belarus
                [11 ]St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
                [12 ]Saint-Pierre University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium
                [13 ]Hospital Universitario San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
                [14 ]Medical University of Bialystok, Department of Infectious Diseases and Hepatology, Bialystok, Poland
                [15 ]Department of Infectious Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
                [16 ]University Hospital of Infectious Diseases, Zagreb, Croatia
                [17 ]The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospital, Newcastle, United Kingdom
                [18 ]Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Fort de France, Fort de France, Martinique
                [19 ]Centre Hospitalier de Tourcoing, Tourcoing, France
                [20 ]Unit of Infectious Diseases University of Catania, ARNAS Garibaldi, Catania, Italy
                [21 ]Hospital Curry Cabral, Lisbon, Portugal
                [22 ]Medical University of Innsbruck Innsbruck, Austria
                [23 ]Unit of Infectious Diseases, San Paolo Hospital, Milan, Italy
                [24 ]Roskilde Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark
                [25 ]Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
                [26 ]University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
                [27 ]IAME, UMR 1137, Univ Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
                [28 ]IAME, UMR 1137, INSERM, Paris, France
                [29 ]AP-HP, Hôpital Bichat, Service de Biostatistique, Paris, France
                Alberta Provincial Laboratory for Public Health/ University of Alberta, CANADA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: DR NC JG BG AAM JR YY AS JDL. Performed the experiments: MR VMM VH ZMS AP SM GK AV JM CN VPE AG VSJ JB ELCO AC FA BMC FM MK LC UBD KC MLJ. Analyzed the data: DR AM AS JDL. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: AM JDL. Wrote the paper: DR AM MR VMM MLJ AS JDL. Provided comments to drafts of manuscript: VH ZMS AP SM GK AV JM CN VPE AG VSJ JB ELCO AC FA BMC FM MK LC UBD NC JG BG AAM JR YY KC.

                ¶ Membership of the HIDES Audit Study Group is listed in the Acknowledgments.

                Article
                PONE-D-15-20528
                10.1371/journal.pone.0140845
                4641587
                26560105
                b77e2c7a-2330-439e-9860-9d38c739ccf2
                Copyright @ 2015

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

                History
                : 12 May 2015
                : 1 October 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, Pages: 10
                Funding
                The HIDES study was funded by the HIV in Europe initiative which has received funding from Gilead Sciences, Merck, Tibotec, Pfizer, Schering-Plough,Abbott, BoehringerIngelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, ViiVHealthcare. The operational procedures within the initiative include the following in order to maintain the autonomy of the initiative. The Steering Committee is the governing body and sponsors do not have representation on the Steering Committee. Furthermore, data, records, reports, Intellectual Property Rights and Know How generated as result of the initiative shall be deemed vested in and the property of the Steering Committee, represented by AIDS Fonds Netherlands and CHIP, Rigshospitalet. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article