BACKGROUND: Oral rapid HIV testing has been reported to have a lower sensitivity and specificity than rapid HIV testing with whole blood and has been associated with clusters of false-positive results. Patient preference for oral rapid HIV testing compared with more invasive whole blood fingerstick may influence the acceptance of rapid HIV testing. OBJECTIVE: To compare HIV test acceptance rates among patients routinely offered fingerstick compared with those routinely offered oral fluid screening in an urban hospital emergency department. METHODS: The Universal Screening for HIV Infection in the Emergency Room Phase II was a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial that randomized subjects to either fingerstick or oral rapid HIV screening in an urban academic emergency department. From May 5, 2009, to January 4, 2010, eligible patients aged 18-75 years were invited to participate in the trial. The primary outcome measure was HIV test acceptance rate. RESULTS: : 2012 eligible patients were approached, of whom 1651 (82%) consented to trial participation and enrolled. Among those enrolled, 830 and 821 were randomized to the fingerstick and oral fluid arms, respectively. Acceptance of rapid HIV testing was similar in both arms; 67% (553 of 830) of subjects accepted fingerstick testing compared with 69% (565 of 821) who accepted oral (P = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Although fingerstick rapid HIV testing is more invasive than oral fluid testing, test acceptance rates did not differ. Given the option, preference should therefore be given to fingerstick testing because of its slightly superior test characteristics. System factors such as ease of staff use, necessary Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments waivers, laboratory capacity, and HIV prevalence should also be considered.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Oral rapid HIV testing has been reported to have a lower sensitivity and specificity than rapid HIV testing with whole blood and has been associated with clusters of false-positive results. Patient preference for oral rapid HIV testing compared with more invasive whole blood fingerstick may influence the acceptance of rapid HIV testing. OBJECTIVE: To compare HIV test acceptance rates among patients routinely offered fingerstick compared with those routinely offered oral fluid screening in an urban hospital emergency department. METHODS: The Universal Screening for HIV Infection in the Emergency Room Phase II was a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial that randomized subjects to either fingerstick or oral rapid HIV screening in an urban academic emergency department. From May 5, 2009, to January 4, 2010, eligible patients aged 18-75 years were invited to participate in the trial. The primary outcome measure was HIV test acceptance rate. RESULTS: : 2012 eligible patients were approached, of whom 1651 (82%) consented to trial participation and enrolled. Among those enrolled, 830 and 821 were randomized to the fingerstick and oral fluid arms, respectively. Acceptance of rapid HIV testing was similar in both arms; 67% (553 of 830) of subjects accepted fingerstick testing compared with 69% (565 of 821) who accepted oral (P = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Although fingerstick rapid HIV testing is more invasive than oral fluid testing, test acceptance rates did not differ. Given the option, preference should therefore be given to fingerstick testing because of its slightly superior test characteristics. System factors such as ease of staff use, necessary Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments waivers, laboratory capacity, and HIV prevalence should also be considered.
Authors: Kevin P Delaney; Bernard M Branson; Apurva Uniyal; Peter R Kerndt; Patrick A Keenan; Krishna Jafa; Ann D Gardner; Denise J Jamieson; Marc Bulterys Journal: AIDS Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Mara San Antonio-Gaddy; April Richardson-Moore; Gale R Burstein; Daniel R Newman; Bernard M Branson; Guthrie S Birkhead Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Tanya L Kowalczyk Mullins; Paula K Braverman; Lorah D Dorn; Linda M Kollar; Jessica A Kahn Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2009-07-30 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: David R Eitel; Debbie A Travers; Alexander M Rosenau; Nicki Gilboy; Richard C Wuerz Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Tim R H Read; Jane S Hocking; Catriona S Bradshaw; Andrea Morrow; Andrew E Grulich; Christopher K Fairley; Marcus Y Chen Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-09-04
Authors: Luciane Almeida Amado Leon; Adilson José de Almeida; Vanessa Salete de Paula; Renata Santos Tourinho; Daniel Antunes Maciel Villela; Ana Maria Coimbra Gaspar; Lia Laura Lewis-Ximenez; Marcelo Alves Pinto Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alexis F Sauer-Budge; Samuel J Brookfield; Ronald Janzen; Sarah McGray; Anna Boardman; Holger Wirz; Nira R Pollock Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ishani Ganguli; Jamie E Collins; William M Reichmann; Elena Losina; Jeffrey N Katz; Christian Arbelaez; Laurel A Donnell-Fink; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-08 Impact factor: 3.240