C Henriquez-Camacho1, P Villafuerte-Gutierrez2, J A Pérez-Molina3, J Losa1, E Gotuzzo4, N Cheyne5. 1. Infectious Diseases Department, Internal Medicine Unit, Hospital Universitario Fundacion Alcorcon, Madrid, Spain. 2. Hemato-oncology Unit. Hospital Universitario Principe de Asturias, Alcala de Henares, Spain. 3. National Referral Centre for Tropical Diseases, Infectious Diseases Department, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain. 4. Alexander von Humboldt Tropical Medicine Institute, Lima, Peru. 5. Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: International health agencies have promoted nontargeted universal (opt-out) HIV screening tests in different settings, including emergency departments (EDs). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the testing uptake of strategies (opt-in targeted, opt-in nontargeted and opt-out) to detect new cases of HIV infection in EDs. METHODS: We searched the Pubmed and Embase databases, from 1984 to April 2015, for opt-in and opt-out HIV diagnostic strategies used in EDs. Randomized controlled or quasi experimental studies were included. We assessed the percentage of positive individuals tested for HIV infection in each programme (opt-in and opt-out strategies). The mean percentage was estimated by combining studies in a random-effect meta-analysis. The percentages of individuals tested in the programmes were compared in a random-effect meta-regression model. Data were analysed using stata version 12. Quality assessments were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Of the 90 papers identified, 28 were eligible for inclusion. Eight trials used opt-out, 18 trials used opt-in, and two trials used both to detect new cases of HIV infection. The test was accepted and taken by 75 155 of 172 237 patients (44%) in the opt-out strategy, and 73 581 of 382 992 patients (19%) in the opt-in strategy. The prevalence of HIV infection detected by the opt-out strategy was 0.40% (373 cases), that detected by the opt-in nontargeted strategy was 0.52% (419 cases), and that detected by the opt-in targeted strategy was 1.06% (52 cases). CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, the testing uptake of the opt-out strategy was not different from that of the opt-in strategy to detect new cases of HIV infection in EDs.
OBJECTIVES: International health agencies have promoted nontargeted universal (opt-out) HIV screening tests in different settings, including emergency departments (EDs). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the testing uptake of strategies (opt-in targeted, opt-in nontargeted and opt-out) to detect new cases of HIV infection in EDs. METHODS: We searched the Pubmed and Embase databases, from 1984 to April 2015, for opt-in and opt-out HIV diagnostic strategies used in EDs. Randomized controlled or quasi experimental studies were included. We assessed the percentage of positive individuals tested for HIV infection in each programme (opt-in and opt-out strategies). The mean percentage was estimated by combining studies in a random-effect meta-analysis. The percentages of individuals tested in the programmes were compared in a random-effect meta-regression model. Data were analysed using stata version 12. Quality assessments were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Of the 90 papers identified, 28 were eligible for inclusion. Eight trials used opt-out, 18 trials used opt-in, and two trials used both to detect new cases of HIV infection. The test was accepted and taken by 75 155 of 172 237 patients (44%) in the opt-out strategy, and 73 581 of 382 992 patients (19%) in the opt-in strategy. The prevalence of HIV infection detected by the opt-out strategy was 0.40% (373 cases), that detected by the opt-in nontargeted strategy was 0.52% (419 cases), and that detected by the opt-in targeted strategy was 1.06% (52 cases). CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, the testing uptake of the opt-out strategy was not different from that of the opt-in strategy to detect new cases of HIV infection in EDs.
Authors: Merhawi T Gebrezgi; Daniel E Mauck; Diana M Sheehan; Kristopher P Fennie; Elena Cyrus; Abraham Degarege; Mary Jo Trepka Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Qi Rui Soh; Leon Y J Oh; Eric P F Chow; Cheryl C Johnson; Muhammad S Jamil; Jason J Ong Journal: Curr HIV/AIDS Rep Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 5.495
Authors: R Escudero-Sánchez; C J Kurt Meier-de-Taboada; E Bartolome-García; P M Rodríguez-de-Bethencourt-Sanjuan; J E Losa-García Journal: Rev Esp Quimioter Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 1.553