The Prevalence of Undiagnosed HIV Infection in Those Who Decline HIV Screening in an Urban Emergency Department

Objective. To determine the prevalence of occult HIV infection in patients who decline routine HIV testing in an urban emergency department. Design, Setting, and Patients. Discarded blood samples were obtained from patients who had declined routine ED HIV testing. After insuring that the samples came from patients not known to be HIV positive, they were deidentified, and rapid HIV testing was preformed using 5 μL of whole blood. Main Outcome Measures. The prevalence of occult HIV infection in those who declined testing compared with prevalence in those who accepted testing. Results. 600 consecutive samples of patients who declined routine HIV screening were screened for HIV. Twelve (2%) were reactive. Over the same period of time, 4845 patients accepted routine HIV testing. Of these, 35 (0.7%) were reactive. The difference in the prevalence of HIV infection between those who declined and those who accepted testing was significant (P = .001). The relative risk of undetected HIV infection in the group that declined testing was 2.74 times higher (95% CI 1.44–5.18) compared with those accepted testing. Conclusion. The rate of occult HIV infection is nearly three-times higher in those who decline routine ED HIV testing compared with those who accept such testing. Interventions are urgently needed to decrease the opt-out rate in routine ED HIV testing settings

Multi-Level Considerations for Optimal Implementation of Long-Acting Injectable Antiretroviral Therapy to Treat People Living with HIV: Perspectives of Health Care Providers Participating in Phase 3 Trials

BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable antiretroviral therapy (LA ART) has been shown to be non-inferior to daily oral ART, with high patient satisfaction and preference to oral standard of care in research to date, and has recently been approved for use in the United States and Europe. This study examined the perspectives of health care providers participating in LA ART clinical trials on potential barriers and solutions to LA ART roll-out into real world settings. METHODS: This analysis draws on two data sources: (1) open-ended questions embedded in a structured online survey of 329 health care providers participating in the ATLAS-2 M trial across 13 countries; and (2) in-depth interviews with 14 providers participating in FLAIR/ ATLAS/ATLAS-2 M trials in the United States and Spain. Both assessments explored provider views and clinic dynamics related to the introduction of LA ART and were analyzed using thematic content analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was drawn on as the conceptual framework underpinning development of a model depicting study findings. RESULTS: Barriers and proposed solutions to LA ART implementation were identified at the individual, clinic and health system levels. Provider perceptions of patient level barriers included challenges with adhering to frequent injection appointments and injection tolerability. Proposed solutions included patient education, having designated staff for clinic visit retention, and clinic flexibility with appointment scheduling. The main provider concern was identifying appropriate candidates for LA ART; proposed solutions focused on patient provider communication and decision making. Clinic level barriers included the need for additional skilled individuals to administer injections, shifts in workflow as demand increases and the logistics of cold-chain storage. Proposed solutions included staff hiring and training, strategic planning around workflow and logistics, and the possibility of offering injections in other settings, including the home. Health system level barriers included cost and approvals from national regulatory bodies. Potential solutions included governments subsidizing treatment, ensuring cost is competitive with oral ART, and offering co-pay assistance. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the importance of multi-level support systems to optimize patient-provider communication and treatment decision-making; clinic staffing, workflow, logistics protocols and infrastructure; and cost-related factors within a given health system

Understanding patient acceptance and refusal of HIV testing in the emergency department

<p>ABSTRACT</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite high rates of patient satisfaction with emergency department (ED) HIV testing, acceptance varies widely. It is thought that patients who decline may be at higher risk for HIV infection, thus we sought to better understand patient acceptance and refusal of ED HIV testing.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In-depth interviews with fifty ED patients (28 accepters and 22 decliners of HIV testing) in three ED HIV testing programs that serve vulnerable urban populations in northern California.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Many factors influenced the decision to accept ED HIV testing, including curiosity, reassurance of negative status, convenience, and opportunity. Similarly, a number of factors influenced the decision to decline HIV testing, including having been tested recently, the perception of being at low risk for HIV infection due to monogamy, abstinence or condom use, and wanting to focus on the medical reason for the ED visit. Both accepters and decliners viewed ED HIV testing favorably and nearly all participants felt comfortable with the testing experience, including the absence of counseling. While many participants who declined an ED HIV test had logical reasons, some participants also made clear that they would prefer not to know their HIV status rather than face psychosocial consequences such as loss of trust in a relationship or disclosure of status in hospital or public health records.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Testing for HIV in the ED as for any other health problem reduces barriers to testing for some but not all patients. Patients who decline ED HIV testing may have rational reasons, but there are some patients who avoid HIV testing because of psychosocial ramifications. While ED HIV testing is generally acceptable, more targeted approaches to testing are necessary for this subgroup.</p

Implementation of long-acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine: primary results from the perspective of staff study participants in the Cabotegravir And Rilpivirine Implementation Study in European Locations

Introduction: Cabotegravir plus rilpivirine (CAB + RPV) is the first complete long-acting (LA) regimen recommended for maintaining HIV-1 virological suppression. Cabotegravir And Rilpivirine Implementation Study in European Locations (CARISEL) is an implementation–effectiveness study examining the implementation of CAB+RPV LA administered every 2 months (Q2M) in European HIV centres. We present staff study participant (SSP) perspectives on the administration of CAB+RPV LA over 12 months. Methods: Eighteen clinics were randomized to one of two implementation support packages: standard arm (Arm-S) or enhanced arm (Arm-E). Arm-S included video injection training and provider/patient toolkits. Additionally, Arm-E included skilled wrap-around team meetings, face-to-face injection training and continuous quality improvement (CQI) calls. SSPs completed surveys on the acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of CAB+RPV LA as an intervention and its implementation into their clinics, as well as barriers and facilitators to implementation. All surveys were completed at Month (M)1 (baseline), M5 and M12; data collection was completed by February 2022. Qualitative data were obtained from semi-structured interviews at M1, M5 and M12. The primary objective was assessed via formal statistical comparisons between study arms of the Acceptability of Implementation Measure, Implementation Appropriateness Measure and Feasibility of Implementation Measure surveys (1–5 Likert scale ranging from 1 = “completely disagree” to 5 = “completely agree”). Equivalent measures anchored to CAB+RPV LA as a therapy were also assessed. Results: Seventy SSPs completed surveys and interviews at M1, 68 at M5 and 62 at M12. Mean acceptability/appropriateness/feasibility scores were ≥3.8 (out of 5) at M12 for implementation- and intervention-based measures. An analysis of covariance showed no significant differences between study arms for these outcomes. Although barriers were noted, most SSPs were not overly concerned that these would impact implementation; concern about these anticipated barriers also decreased over time. At M12, 90.3% (n = 56/62) of SSPs held a positive opinion about CAB+RPV LA implementation. Qualitative interviews and CQI calls highlighted three top practices that supported implementation: implementation planning; education about CAB+RPV LA clinical efficacy; and education around administering injections and managing pain/discomfort after injections. Conclusions: CARISEL demonstrated that CAB+RPV LA dosed Q2M was successfully implemented across a range of European locations, with SSPs finding implementation highly acceptable, appropriate and feasible. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04399551

Clinical Study The Prevalence of Undiagnosed HIV Infection in Those Who Decline HIV Screening in an Urban Emergency Department

Objective. To determine the prevalence of occult HIV infection in patients who decline routine HIV testing in an urban emergency department. Design, Setting, and Patients. Discarded blood samples were obtained from patients who had declined routine ED HIV testing. After insuring that the samples came from patients not known to be HIV positive, they were deidentified, and rapid HIV testing was preformed using 5 μL of whole blood. Main Outcome Measures. The prevalence of occult HIV infection in those who declined testing compared with prevalence in those who accepted testing. Results. 600 consecutive samples of patients who declined routine HIV screening were screened for HIV. Twelve (2%) were reactive. Over the same period of time, 4845 patients accepted routine HIV testing. Of these, 35 (0.7%) were reactive. The difference in the prevalence of HIV infection between those who declined and those who accepted testing was significant (P = .001). The relative risk of undetected HIV infection in the group that declined testing was 2.74 times higher (95% CI 1.44-5.18) compared with those accepted testing. Conclusion. The rate of occult HIV infection is nearly three-times higher in those who decline routine ED HIV testing compared with those who accept such testing. Interventions are urgently needed to decrease the opt-out rate in routine ED HIV testing settings