Arguments for and against HIV self-testing

Approximately 60% of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals are unaware of their infection, and stigma and discrimination continue to threaten acceptance of HIV testing services worldwide. Self-testing for HIV has garnered controversy for years and the debate reignited with the approval of a point-of-care test for over-the-counter sale in the US in 2012. Here, we present arguments for and against HIV self-testing. The case in support of HIV self-testing contends that: the modality is highly acceptable, especially among the most at-risk individuals; self-testing empowers users, thus helping to normalize testing; and mutual partner testing has the potential to increase awareness of risk and avert condomless sex between discordant partners. Arguments against HIV self-testing include: cost limits access to those who need testing most; false-negative results, especially during the window period, may lead to false reassurance and could promote sex between discordant partners at the time of highest infectivity; opportunities for counseling, linkage to care, and diagnosis of other sexually transmitted infections may be missed; and self-testing leads to potential for coercion between partners. Research is needed to better define the risks of self-testing, especially as performance of the assays improves, and to delineate the benefits of programs designed to improve access to self-test kits, because this testing modality has numerous potential advantages and drawbacks

Patient acceptance of universal screening for hepatitis C virus infection

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the United States, about 70% of 2.9-3.7 million people with hepatitis C (HCV) are unaware of their infection. Although universal screening might be a cost-effective way to identify infections, prevent morbidity, and reduce transmission, few efforts have been made to determine patient opinions about new approaches to screening.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We surveyed 200 patients in August 2010 at five outpatient clinics of a major public urban medical center in Seattle, WA, with an 85.8% response rate.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The sample was 55.3% women, median 47 years of age, and 56.3% white and 32.7% African or African-American; 9.5% and 2.5% reported testing positive for HCV and HIV, respectively. The vast majority of patients supported universal screening for HCV. When presented with three options for screening, 48% preferred universal testing without being informed that they were being tested or provided with negative results, 37% preferred testing with the chance to "opt-out" of being tested and without being provided with negative results, and 15% preferred testing based on clinician judgment. Results were similar for HIV screening.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patients support universal screening for HCV, even if that screening involves testing without prior consent or the routine provision of negative test results. Current screening guidelines and procedures should be reconsidered in light of patient priorities.</p

Phase 2 Study of the Safety and Tolerability of Maraviroc-Containing Regimens to Prevent HIV Infection in Men Who Have Sex With Men (HPTN 069/ACTG A5305)

Maraviroc (MVC) is a candidate for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis

Why Do Men Who Have Sex With Men Test for HIV Infection? Results From a Community-Based Testing Program in Seattle

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends at least annual HIV testing for men who have sex with men (MSM), but motivations for testing are not well understood. METHODS: We evaluated data from MSM testing for HIV at a community-based program in King County, Washington. Correlates of regular testing were examined using GEE regression models. RESULTS: Between February 2004 and June 2011, 7176 MSM attended 12,109 HIV testing visits. When asked reasons for testing, 49% reported it was time for their regular test, 27% reported unprotected sex, 24% were starting relationships, 21% reported sex with someone new, 21% sought STI/hepatitis screening, 12% reported sex with an HIV-infected partner, 2% suspected primary HIV infection, and 16% reported other reasons. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with regular testing included having a regular healthcare provider and the following in the previous year: having only male partners, having ≥10 male partners, inhaled nitrite use, not injecting drugs, and not having unprotected anal intercourse with a partner of unknown/discordant status (p≤0.001 for all). Men reporting regular testing reported shorter intertest intervals than men who did not (median of 233 vs. 322 days, respectively; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Regular testing, sexual risk, and new partnerships were important drivers of HIV testing among MSM, and regular testing was associated with increased testing frequency. Promoting regular testing may reduce the time that HIV-infected MSM are unaware of their status, particularly among those who have sex with men and women or inject drugs