Acute HIV Discovered During Routine HIV Screening With HIV Antigen-Antibody Combination Tests in 9 US Emergency Departments

White, Douglas A.E.; Giordano, Thomas P.; Pasalar, Siavash; Jacobson, Kathleen; Glick, Nancy; Sha, Beverly E.; Mammen, P; Hunt, Bijou R.; Todorović, Tamara R.; Moreno‐Walton, Lisa; Adomolga, Vincent; Feaster, Daniel J.; Branson, Bernard M.

doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.11.027

Cited by 37 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The two patients with AHI presented with ILI and would likely have been misdiagnosed without the inclusion of HIV testing in the new ED space. AHI is a priority for care programs due to their high viral loads and high risk of transmission to others, increasing the importance of the identification of these cases [8].…”

Section: Lessons Learnedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Routine Screening for HIV in an Urban Emergency Department During the COVID-19 Pandemic

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Lessons Learnedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Routine Screening for HIV in an Urban Emergency Department During the COVID-19 Pandemic

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These programs have varied greatly in design and include testing based on risk‐assessment versus non‐targeted screening, rapid versus conventional assay testing, and HIV antibody testing versus nucleic acid amplification (NAAT) testing. The latter approach offers the advantage of facilitating early diagnosis, as was demonstrated in a review of NAAT HIV testing across 9 EDs in which 15% of all HIV diagnoses were in persons with acute HIV infection 6 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing for HIV infection in the emergency departments of 2 hospitals in the Southeastern United States

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended non‐targeted, opt‐out HIV screening in all healthcare settings, including emergency departments (EDs). Multiple HIV testing programs have been implemented in EDs across the United States with varying designs and testing platforms. We report findings from a free, non‐targeted, rapid HIV testing program in 2 EDs in the Southeastern United States. Methods From 2008 to 2012, adults ≥18 years of age were offered free rapid HIV testing using an oral swab test (OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV‐1/2 antibody test) in the EDs of a large academic medical center and an affiliated community hospital in Durham, North Carolina. Results In total, 5443 ED patients were offered HIV testing. The overall acceptance rate was 66.9% (3639/5443). Younger persons were significantly more likely to accept testing (78.2% for 18–29 years old vs 67.1% for ≥30 years old; P < 0.001) as were Black participants (72.6% Black vs 66.5% White; P < 0.001). Acceptance rates improved significantly after opt‐out oral consent replaced written consent (71.3% vs 63.1%; P < 0.001). Seven new HIV diagnoses were confirmed during the testing program, resulting in a seropositivity rate of 0.19% (7/3639). There were 8 false–positive rapid oral HIV tests (positive predictive value = 46.7%). Conclusions Although the number of new HIV diagnoses was low, implementation of this rapid, non‐targeted ED screening program was feasible with high acceptance rates, particularly after introducing the opt‐out oral consent approach.

show abstract

“…This has led to increased screening for populations that may otherwise have poor access to the primary care settings in which screening is traditionally performed. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20] These efforts are not widely extended to adolescents. Adolescents experience fragmented health care with frequent ED utilization [21][22][23] and often have high-risk sexual behaviors 24,25 and low HIV screening rates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Unique Needs for the Implementation of Emergency Department Human Immunodeficiency Virus Screening in Adolescents

Gutman

Duda

Newton

et al. 2020

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend universal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening starting at 13 years, which has been implemented in many general U.S. emergency departments (EDs) but infrequently in pediatric EDs. We aimed to 1) implement a pilot of routine adolescent HIV screening in a pediatric ED and 2) determine the unique barriers to CDC-recommended screening in this region of high HIV prevalence. Methods: This was a prospective 4-month implementation of a routine HIV screening pilot in a convenience sample of adolescents 13 to 18 years at a single pediatric ED, based on study personnel availability. Serumbased fourth-generation HIV testing was run through a central laboratory. Parents were allowed to remain in the room for HIV counseling and testing. Data were collected regarding patient characteristics and HIV testing quality metrics. Comparisons were made using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Regression analysis was performed to assess for an association between parent presence at the time of enrollment and adolescent decision to participate in HIV screening.

show abstract

Acute HIV Discovered During Routine HIV Screening With HIV Antigen-Antibody Combination Tests in 9 US Emergency Departments

Cited by 37 publications

References 34 publications

Routine Screening for HIV in an Urban Emergency Department During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Routine Screening for HIV in an Urban Emergency Department During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Testing for HIV infection in the emergency departments of 2 hospitals in the Southeastern United States

Unique Needs for the Implementation of Emergency Department Human Immunodeficiency Virus Screening in Adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About