OBJECTIVE: We examined whether HIV-1 testing using a rapid assay increases the proportion of pregnant women obtaining HIV-1 results and the uptake of perinatal HIV-1 interventions. METHODS:Pregnant women attending public health clinics in Nairobi were offered voluntary counselling and testing for HIV-1. Consenting women were randomly assigned to receive either rapid or conventional HIV-1 testing. Women randomly assigned to rapid testing were allowed to receive same-day results or to return later. The results for women randomly assigned to conventional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing were available after 7 days. HIV-1-infected women were referred for antiretroviral prophylaxis to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1. RESULTS: Among 1282 women offered voluntary HIV-1 testing and counselling, 1249 accepted testing, of whom 627 were randomly assigned to rapid testing and 622 to conventional testing. The median duration between testing and obtaining results was 0 days for women who received rapid testing compared with 11 days for women who received conventional testing. The percentage receiving HIV-1 results was significantly higher among women who received rapid testing compared with conventional testing. Of 161 HIV-1-seropositive women, only 24 receivedantiretroviral prophylaxis. The uptake of perinatal HIV-1 interventions did not differ between HIV-1-seropositive women randomly assigned to rapid testing or conventional ELISA testing. CONCLUSION:Rapid HIV-1 testing significantly increased the proportion of women receiving HIV-1 results, which is important for sexual and perinatal HIV-1 prevention. The challenge remains to improve the uptake of perinatal HIV-1 interventions among HIV-1-seropositive women.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: We examined whether HIV-1 testing using a rapid assay increases the proportion of pregnant women obtaining HIV-1 results and the uptake of perinatal HIV-1 interventions. METHODS: Pregnant women attending public health clinics in Nairobi were offered voluntary counselling and testing for HIV-1. Consenting women were randomly assigned to receive either rapid or conventional HIV-1 testing. Women randomly assigned to rapid testing were allowed to receive same-day results or to return later. The results for women randomly assigned to conventional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing were available after 7 days. HIV-1-infectedwomen were referred for antiretroviral prophylaxis to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1. RESULTS: Among 1282 women offered voluntary HIV-1 testing and counselling, 1249 accepted testing, of whom 627 were randomly assigned to rapid testing and 622 to conventional testing. The median duration between testing and obtaining results was 0 days for women who received rapid testing compared with 11 days for women who received conventional testing. The percentage receiving HIV-1 results was significantly higher among women who received rapid testing compared with conventional testing. Of 161 HIV-1-seropositive women, only 24 received antiretroviral prophylaxis. The uptake of perinatal HIV-1 interventions did not differ between HIV-1-seropositive women randomly assigned to rapid testing or conventional ELISA testing. CONCLUSION: Rapid HIV-1 testing significantly increased the proportion of women receiving HIV-1 results, which is important for sexual and perinatal HIV-1 prevention. The challenge remains to improve the uptake of perinatal HIV-1 interventions among HIV-1-seropositive women.
Authors: N Shaffer; R Chuachoowong; P A Mock; C Bhadrakom; W Siriwasin; N L Young; T Chotpitayasunondh; S Chearskul; A Roongpisuthipong; P Chinayon; J Karon; T D Mastro; R J Simonds Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-03-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: S Z Wiktor; E Ekpini; J M Karon; J Nkengasong; C Maurice; S T Severin; T H Roels; M K Kouassi; E M Lackritz; I M Coulibaly; A E Greenberg Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-03-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M Cartoux; P Msellati; N Meda; C Welffens-Ekra; L Mandelbrot; V Leroy; P Van de Perre; F Dabis Journal: AIDS Date: 1998-12-03 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: F Dabis; M L Newell; L Fransen; J Saba; P Lepage; V Leroy; M Cartoux; N Meda; D K Whynes; C Peckham; R Nduati; P Msellati; I D Vincenzi; P van de Perre Journal: Health Policy Plan Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 3.344
Authors: L A Guay; P Musoke; T Fleming; D Bagenda; M Allen; C Nakabiito; J Sherman; P Bakaki; C Ducar; M Deseyve; L Emel; M Mirochnick; M G Fowler; L Mofenson; P Miotti; K Dransfield; D Bray; F Mmiro; J B Jackson Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-09-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kara M Palamountain; Jeff Baker; Elliot P Cowan; Shaffiq Essajee; Laura T Mazzola; Mutsumi Metzler; Marco Schito; Wendy S Stevens; Gloria J Young; Gonzalo J Domingo Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Paul K Drain; Emily P Hyle; Farzad Noubary; Kenneth A Freedberg; Douglas Wilson; William R Bishai; William Rodriguez; Ingrid V Bassett Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Thomas M Painter; Kassamba L Diaby; Danielle M Matia; Lillian S Lin; Toussaint S Sibailly; Moïse K Kouassi; Ehounou R Ekpini; Thierry H Roels; Stefan Z Wiktor Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-09-04
Authors: Eugene J Kongnyuy; Enow R Mbu; Francois X Mbopi-Keou; Nelson Fomulu; Philip N Nana; Pierre M Tebeu; Rebecca N Tonye; Robert J I Leke Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2009-02-27 Impact factor: 3.007