Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Introduction HIV testing guidelines are poorly implemented in most clinical settings. The best screening strategy and healthcare scenario are still unknown. The aim of our study is to evaluate the impact of a structured HIV testing intervention (DRIVE), compared to HIV testing as routinely performed in clinical practice, in two different clinical settings: a primary care center and an emergency department. Methods Prospective evaluation of an HIV testing strategy in two clinical settings from the same healthcare area. The DRIVE program included trained nurse practitioners to perform the screening, a questionnaire to assess the risk of exposure and HIV indicator conditions (RE&IC), and rapid HIV tests. The main variables between the DRIVE program and clinical practice were the absolute number of newly diagnosed HIV infections and testing coverage. Results The DRIVE program included 5,329 participants, of which 51.2% reported at least one positive answer in the questionnaire. The estimated HIV testing coverage was significantly higher in the DRIVE program than in the routine clinical practice (7.17% vs. 0.96%, p < 0.001), and was better in the primary care center than in the emergency department with the two strategies. Twenty-two HIV-positive people were identified, with a rate of 8.6‰ in the emergency department vs. 2.2‰ in the primary care center (p = 0.001). A higher rate of new HIV diagnoses was found in the DRIVE program compared to routine clinical practice (29.6 vs. 3.1 per 100,000 patients attended; p < 0.001). Conclusions An easy-to-implement, structured intervention increased the absolute number of new HIV diagnoses and HIV tests, compared to routine clinical practice.

IntroductionDifferent HIV Testing Strategies (TS) and clinical care settings had not been face to face evaluated [1]. We compared coverage, Newly Diagnosed HIV Infection (NDHI) and Estimated Missing HIV Infections (MHI) in Hospital Emergency Room (HER) and Primary Care Center (PCC), in DRIVE study (Spanish acronym of HIV infection Rapid Diagnosis) and in clinical practice the year before DRIVE.Materials and MethodsIn DRIVE study, 18–60 years old, non-HIV-infected population visiting an HER or a PCC were proposed both a structured risk practices and clinical conditions questionnaire (RP&CC-Q) and a rapid HIV test. This arm is the HIV Routine TS. We analyze a hypothetical arm, where risk practices were universally assessed with an RP&CC-Q, subsequently risk-positive patients where HIV tested, Targeted-TS. Coverage was assessed as the ratio of tested population (TP)/attended population (AP) in HER and PCC. TP/AP ratios were also calculated in the year before, the Clinical Practice-TS. NDHI was expressed per ‰ tests performed. MHI was estimated assuming in the non-tested population, overall DRIVE rate of NDHI ‰ and NDHI ‰ in negative RP&CC-Q.ResultsA total of 5329 RP&CC-Q and rapid HIV tests were performed to 49.64% women, median age 37 (28–47) years old, mainly 74.9% Spaniards. Confirmed NDHI was 4.1‰, and in 48, 8% of RP&CC-Q negative NDH was 0‰. HIV screening coverage was always better in PCC than in HER, and higher in DRIVE study than in clinical practice. Estimated MHI was higher in HER and in the clinical practice-TS. Targeted-TS coverage was lower, but resulted in similar NDHI and MHI than routine-TS, testing half the population, see Table 1.ConclusionsBest HIV Testing Strategy is routine-TS in Primary Care Center. Targeted-TS resulted in same newly HIV diagnoses and missed HIV infections than routine-TS with half the resources employed.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HIV are major causes of worldwide disease. We aimed to evaluate the effect of a combined screening programme, which included a risk-assessment questionnaire and rapid tests for point-of-care diagnosis, on screening and new diagnosis rates. This prospective, cluster randomized study was carried out in primary care. The intervention arm included a 4-hour educational programme, the use of a risk-assessment questionnaire and rapid tests. In the control centres, only the educational intervention was provided. The main variables compared were the screening

Background Late HIV diagnosis remains one of the challenges in combating the epidemic. Primary care providers play an important role in screening for HIV infection. Our study aims to evaluate the relationship between knowledge and barriers to HIV testing and screening outcomes. The impact of an education program for primary care providers, towards improving HIV testing and late diagnosis rates, is also assessed. Methods A self-administered questionnaire that was developed within the framework of the European project OptTEST was used to examine HIV knowledge and barriers to HIV testing scores before and after being involved in an HIV education program. A quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-intervention measures was performed to investigate its impact. We performed multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess the relationship between variables for the HIV testing offer. Results A total of 20 primary care centers and 454 primary care staff were included. Baseline OptTEST results showed that more knowledgeable staff offered an HIV test more frequently (OR 1.07; CI 95% 1.01–1.13; p = 0.027) and had lower barrier scores (OR 0.89; CI 95% 0.77–0.95; p = 0.005). Nurses had lower scores in knowledge-related items (OR 0.28; CI 95% 0.17–0.46; p<0.001), but higher scores in barrier-related items than physicians (OR 3.28; CI 95% 2.01–5.46; p<0.001). Specific centers with more knowledgeable staff members had a significant association with a greater level of new HIV diagnosis rates (OR 1.61; CI 95% 1.04–2.49; p = 0.032). After the intervention, we found that 12 out of 14 individual questions showed improved scores. In the 6 months after the training program, we similarly found a higher HIV testing rate (OR 1.19; CI 1.02–1.42; p = 0.036). Conclusions This study highlights the association between knowledge and barriers to HIV testing, including HIV testing rates. It shows that it is possible to modify knowledge and reduce perceived barriers through educational programs, subsequently improving HIV screening outcomes.

IntroductionAlthough RTS as HIV Diagnosis was considered cost effectiveness [1], overall budget may be unaffordable for some countries. We explore Incremental cost per NDHI associated with different TS.Materials and MethodsFrom a health care perspective, using direct costs and Euros currency, we calculated budget and cost per NDHI of RTS (all patients were tested), TTS (Universal risk practices and clinical conditions-RP&CC - only positive were tested), and CPTS (Only patients physicians considered were tested). We considered DRIVE (Spanish acronym of HIV infection Rapid Diagnosis) study and clinical Practice outcomes. Population between 18–60 years, attending to a Hospital Emergency Room or to a Primary Care Center performed an HIV RP&CC questionnaire (Q) and an HIV rapid test (HIV RT). Unitary costs considered were: HIV RT, nurse, registry, transport and HIV confirmation when necessary, imputed to all population in RTS and CPTS and only in HIV RP&CC-Q positive in TTS analysis, while HIV RP&CC-Q costs were added to all population in TTS. Sensitivity analyses were performed with varying rates of NDHI and of positive HIV RP&CC-Q population, and different RP&CC Q sensitivity (SE) to predict HIV infection.Results5,329 HIV RP&CC-Q and HIV RT were performed to 49.64% women, median age 37 years old, 74.9% Spaniards. In DRIVE and CP, NDHI were 4.1‰, and 1.6‰, while HIV RP&CC-Q was positive in 51.2%. HIV RP&CC-Q SE was 100%. Overall budget employed in HIV testing was in RTS 43,503€, in TTS 24,472€ and in CPTS 5,032€. Cost per 1 NDHI was 1,977€, 1,112€ and 5,032€, respectively. A reduction in cost of 865€, favouring TTS vs. RTS, while an increased cost of 824€ in CPTS vs. RTS was obtained. Considering NDHI rate of 2.6‰ saving costs increased to 1379€ in TTS, while were reduced to 576€ if NDHI rate increases 6.2‰. Effect of RP&CC-Q positivity rate was similar, if 25% saving costs were 1368€, while if 75% were reduced to 399€. Varying SE of RP&CC-Q to 95%, 91% and 50% cost saving was 810€, 754€, and 208€, and number of MHI one, two and 11.ConclusionsIn DRIVE study Targeted TS with universal screening of RP&CC before an HIV rapid test is cost saving, without missing NDHI, with respect to Routine TS. Lower rates of HIV infection and RP&CC in the population, increase costs savings.