S Ha1, S Foley1, D Paquette1, J Seto1. 1. Centre for Communicable Diseases and Infection Control, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada, it is estimated that 71,300 persons were living with HIV at the end of 2011. Approximately 25% (14,500 to 21,500) of prevalent cases were unaware of their HIV infection. Expanded use of HIV rapid tests may increase the detection of undiagnosed infections, enable earlier treatment and support services and prevent the onward transmission of HIV. OBJECTIVE: To examine patient acceptability, impact (defined as receipt of test results and linkage to care) and cost-effectiveness of HIV rapid tests. METHODS: A search was conducted for systematic reviews on HIV rapid testing, with studies from both developed and developing countries, published in English and between 2000 and 2013. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review (AMSTAR) tool was used to assess the included systematic reviews for methodological quality. Results were summarized narratively for each of the outcomes. RESULTS: Eight systematic reviews were included. Acceptability of HIV rapid tests was generally high in medical settings (69% to 98%) especially among pregnant women and youth attending emergency rooms but was lower in non-medical settings (14% to 46%). The percentage of people who obtained their test results was variable. It was high (83% to 93%) in emergency rooms but was low in a rapid care setting with regular business hours (27%). Impact on linkage to care was limited. Only one systematic review examined cost-effectiveness of rapid testing and concluded that HIV rapid tests were cost-effective in comparison to traditional methods; however, results were all based on static models. CONCLUSION: Overall, HIV rapid tests demonstrated generally high acceptability, variability in receiving test results and limited impact on linkage to care. While these findings suggest that HIV rapid tests may be useful, further research is needed to confirm in whom, when and where they are best used and how to ensure better linkage to care.
BACKGROUND: In Canada, it is estimated that 71,300 persons were living with HIV at the end of 2011. Approximately 25% (14,500 to 21,500) of prevalent cases were unaware of their HIV infection. Expanded use of HIV rapid tests may increase the detection of undiagnosed infections, enable earlier treatment and support services and prevent the onward transmission of HIV. OBJECTIVE: To examine patient acceptability, impact (defined as receipt of test results and linkage to care) and cost-effectiveness of HIV rapid tests. METHODS: A search was conducted for systematic reviews on HIV rapid testing, with studies from both developed and developing countries, published in English and between 2000 and 2013. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review (AMSTAR) tool was used to assess the included systematic reviews for methodological quality. Results were summarized narratively for each of the outcomes. RESULTS: Eight systematic reviews were included. Acceptability of HIV rapid tests was generally high in medical settings (69% to 98%) especially among pregnant women and youth attending emergency rooms but was lower in non-medical settings (14% to 46%). The percentage of people who obtained their test results was variable. It was high (83% to 93%) in emergency rooms but was low in a rapid care setting with regular business hours (27%). Impact on linkage to care was limited. Only one systematic review examined cost-effectiveness of rapid testing and concluded that HIV rapid tests were cost-effective in comparison to traditional methods; however, results were all based on static models. CONCLUSION: Overall, HIV rapid tests demonstrated generally high acceptability, variability in receiving test results and limited impact on linkage to care. While these findings suggest that HIV rapid tests may be useful, further research is needed to confirm in whom, when and where they are best used and how to ensure better linkage to care.
Authors: Charlotte A Gaydos; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh; Leah Harvey; Avanti Burah; Helen Won; Mary Jett-Goheen; Mathilda Barnes; Patricia Agreda; Nick Arora; Richard E Rothman Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Brent Wolff; Barbara Nyanzi; George Katongole; Deo Ssesanga; Anthony Ruberantwari; Jimmy Whitworth Journal: Health Policy Plan Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 3.344
Authors: Timothy D Minniear; Barry Gilmore; Sandra R Arnold; Patricia M Flynn; Katherine M Knapp; Aditya H Gaur Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2009-09-14 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Freddy Perez; Tarisai Mukotekwa; Anna Miller; Joanna Orne-Gliemann; Monica Glenshaw; Inam Chitsike; François Dabis Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 2.622