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

Non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV: 10-year retrospective analysis in Seattle, Washington.

Despite treatment guidelines in place since 2005, non-occupational post-exposure HIV prophylaxis (nPEP) remains an underutilized prevention strategy. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients presenting to a publicly-funded HIV clinic in Seattle, Washington for nPEP between 2000 and 2010 (N = 360). nPEP prescriptions were provided for 324 (90%) patients; 83% of prescription decisions were appropriate according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, but only 31% (N = 111/360) of patients were considered "high risk." In order to use limited resources most efficiently, public health agencies should target messaging for this high-cost intervention to individuals with high-risk HIV exposures

Risk behaviors among patients exposed to HIV-positive contact or contact with unknown HIV status (N = 351).^*

<p>*Nine (2.5%) patients were excluded from this table because they reported that their source contact was HIV-negative or because data about their source contact was missing.</p>†<p>Four (1%) patients reported that his/her contact was HIV negative: one reported a regular source contact, one reported an anonymous source contact, and data for source contact type was missing for two of these patients.</p>‡<p>Information about source contact was missing for five (1.5%) patients.</p

Understanding Barriers to Routine HIV Screening: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Healthcare Providers in King County, Washington

<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended routine HIV screening in healthcare settings for persons between 13 and 64 years old. In 2010, the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) was changed to align testing rules with these recommendations. We designed this survey to ascertain the current state of HIV testing and barriers to routine screening in King County, Washington.</p> <h3>Methods</h3><p>Between March 23 and April 16, 2010, a convenience sample of healthcare providers completed an online survey. Providers answered true-false and multiple choice questions about national recommendations and the WAC, policies in their primary clinical settings, and their personal HIV testing practices. Providers were asked to agree or disagree whether commonly reported barriers limited their implementation of routine HIV screening.</p> <h3>Results</h3><p>Although 76% of the 221 respondents knew that the CDC recommended routine HIV screening for persons regardless of their risk, 99 (45%) providers reported that their primary clinical setting had a policy to target testing based on patient risk factors. Forty-four (20%) providers reported that their primary clinical setting had a policy of routine HIV screening, 54 (25%) reported no official policy, and 15 (7%) did not know whether a policy existed. Only 11 (5%) providers offer HIV testing to all patients at initial visits. When asked about barriers to routine screening, 57% of providers agreed that perception that their patient population is low risk limits the number of HIV tests they perform. Only 26 (13%) providers agreed that concern about reimbursement posed a barrier to testing.</p> <h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Most providers participating in this survey continue to target HIV testing, despite knowledge of national recommendations. Efforts are still needed to educate providers and policymakers, clarify the recent WAC revisions, and implement structural changes in order to increase HIV testing in Washington State.</p> </div