Michael S. Lyons

Nomenclature and Definitions for Emergency Department Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Testing: Report from the 2007 Conference of the National Emergency Department HIV Testing Consortium

Early diagnosis of persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) through diagnostic testing and screening is a critical priority for individual and public health. Emergency departments (EDs) have an important role in this effort. As EDs gain experience in HIV testing, it is increasingly apparent that implementing testing is conceptually and operationally complex. A wide variety of HIV testing practice and research models have emerged, each reflecting adaptations to site-specific factors and the needs of local populations. The diversity and complexity inherent in nascent ED HIV testing practice and research are associated with the risk that findings will not be described according to a common lexicon. This article presents a comprehensive set of terms and definitions that can be used to describe ED-based HIV testing programs, developed by consensus opinion from the inaugural meeting of the National ED HIV Testing Consortium. These definitions are designed to facilitate discussion, increase comparability of future reports, and potentially accelerate wider implementation of ED HIV testing.

Health Department Collaboration with Emergency Departments as a Model for Public Health Programs Among At-risk Populations

Objectives. Accessing at-risk and underserved populations for intervention remains a major obstacle for public health programs. Emergency departments (EDs) care for patients not otherwise interacting with the health care system, and represent a venue for such programs. A variety of perceived and actual barriers inhibit widespread implementation of ED-based public health programs. Collaboration between local health departments and EDs may overcome such barriers. The goal of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a health department-funded, ED-based public health program in comparison with other similar community-based programs through analysis of data reported by health department-funded HIV counseling and testing centers in one Ohio county. Method. Data for HIV counseling and testing at publicly funded sites in southwestern Ohio from January 1999 through December 2002 were obtained from the Ohio Department of Health. Demographic and risk-factor profiles were compared between the counseling and testing program located in the ED of a large, urban teaching hospital and the other publicly funded centers in the same county. Results. A total of 26,382 patients were counseled and tested; 5,232 were ED patients, and 21,150 were from community sites. HIV positivity was 0.86% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64%, 1.15%) in the ED and 0.65% (95% CI 0.55%, 0.77%) elsewhere. The ED program accounted for 19.8% of all tests and 24.7% of all positive results. The ED notified 77.3% of individuals testing positive and 84.4% of individuals testing negative. At community program centers, 88.3% of patients testing positive and 63.8% of patients testing negative were notified of results. All ED patients notified of positive status were successfully referred to infectious disease specialists. Conclusions. Public health programs can operate effectively in the ED. EDs should have a rapidly expanding role in the national public health system.

2009 US emergency department HIV testing practices.

OBJECTIVES We characterize HIV testing practices and programs in US emergency departments (EDs) in 2009. METHODS A national Web-based survey of members of the National ED HIV Testing Consortium, participants in the 2007 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-sponsored ED HIV Testing Workshops, all US academic EDs, and a weighted random sample of US community EDs with snowball sampling to recruit additional testing sites was conducted. Data collected included geographic location, estimated seroprevalence, indications for testing, method of consent, weekly number of tests, funding, and costs. RESULTS Of 619 sites surveyed, 338 (54.6%) responded. A total of 277 (82.0%) reported conducting any HIV testing, and 75 (22.2%) reported systematic HIV testing programs, operationally defined as having testing or screening organized at the departmental or institutional level. systematic HIV testing programs were concentrated in the Northeast, at high-volume urban EDs, and in regions with higher HIV/AIDS prevalence. Most systematic HIV testing programs had existed for less than or equal to 3 years, and nearly one third reported using an opt-out approach for consent. Among systematic HIV testing programs, the number of patients tested ranged from less than 1 to 2,100 tests per week. Overall, universal screening was the most commonly reported screening method reported overall, and rates of HIV positivity were consistently above the CDC threshold of 0.1%. CONCLUSION The number of EDs conducting HIV testing has grown substantially since release of the 2006 CDC HIV testing recommendations. Although many EDs have systematic HIV testing programs, the majority do not. Ongoing surveillance will be required to quantify the evolution of ED-based HIV testing and the factors that facilitate or impede expanded translation.

Derivation and Validation of the Denver Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Risk Score for Targeted HIV Screening

Targeted screening remains an important approach to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing. The authors aimed to derive and validate an instrument to accurately identify patients at risk for HIV infection, using patient data from a metropolitan sexually transmitted disease clinic in Denver, Colorado (1996-2008). With multivariable logistic regression, they developed a risk score from 48 candidate variables using newly identified HIV infection as the outcome. Validation was performed using an independent population from an urban emergency department in Cincinnati, Ohio. The derivation sample included 92,635 patients; 504 (0.54%) were diagnosed with HIV infection. The validation sample included 22,983 patients; 168 (0.73%) were diagnosed with HIV infection. The final score included age, gender, race/ethnicity, sex with a male, vaginal intercourse, receptive anal intercourse, injection drug use, and past HIV testing, and values ranged from -14 to +81. For persons with scores of <20, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, and ≥50, HIV prevalences were 0.31% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20, 0.45) (n = 27/8,782), 0.41% (95% CI: 0.29, 0.57) (n = 36/8,677), 0.99% (95% CI: 0.63, 1.47) (n = 24/2,431), 1.59% (95% CI: 1.02, 2.36) (n = 24/1,505), and 3.59% (95% CI: 2.73, 4.63) (n = 57/1,588), respectively. The risk score accurately categorizes patients into groups with increasing probabilities of HIV infection.

Moving Beyond Misuse and Diversion: The Urgent Need to Consider the Role of Iatrogenic Addiction in the Current Opioid Epidemic

An epidemic of drug overdose deaths has led to calls for programs and policies to limit misuse and diversion of opioid medications. Any parallel call to consider the risk of iatrogenic addiction when treating pain has been muted in comparison. We have moved beyond questions of nonmedical use, abuse, and diversion to highlight the role of prescription opioids in causing addiction even when prescribed and used appropriately. Unfortunately, current evidence is insufficient, and a rapid expansion of longitudinal research is urgently needed to guide clinicians in balancing the need for opioids with the risk of adverse consequences. Meanwhile, medical education should place greater emphasis on the abuse liability of prescription opioids, and providers should endeavor to attenuate risk when possible.

Randomized comparison of universal and targeted HIV screening in the emergency department.

Objective:Universal HIV screening is recommended but challenging to implement. Selectively targeting those at risk is thought to miss cases, but previous studies are limited by narrow risk criteria, incomplete implementation, and absence of direct comparisons. We hypothesized that targeted HIV screening, when fully implemented and using maximally broad risk criteria, could detect nearly as many cases as universal screening with many fewer tests. Methods:This single-center cluster-randomized trial compared universal and targeted patient selection for HIV screening in a lower prevalence urban emergency department. Patients were excluded for age (<18 and >64 years), known HIV infection, or previous approach for HIV testing that day. Targeted screening was offered for any risk indicator identified from charts, staff referral, or self-disclosure. Universal screening was offered regardless of risk. Baseline seroprevalence was estimated from consecutive deidentified blood samples. Results:There were 9572 eligible visits during which the patient was approached. For universal screening, 40.8% (1915/4692) consented with 6 being newly diagnosed [0.31%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13% to 0.65%]. For targeted screening, 37% (1813/4880) had no testing indication. Of the 3067 remaining, 47.4% (1454) consented with 3 being newly diagnosed (0.22%, 95% CI: 0.06% to 0.55%). Estimated seroprevalence was 0.36% (95% CI: 0.16% to 0.70%). Targeted screening had a higher proportion consenting (47.4% vs. 40.8%, P < 0.002), but a lower proportion of ED encounters with testing (29.7% vs. 40.7%, P < 0.002). Conclusions:Targeted screening, even when fully implemented with maximally permissive selection, offered no important increase in positivity rate or decrease in tests performed. Universal screening diagnosed more cases, because more were tested, despite a modestly lower consent rate.

Operational Methods of HIV Testing in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES Casual review of existing literature reveals a multitude of individualized approaches to emergency department (ED) HIV testing. Cataloging the operational options of each approach could assist translation by disseminating existing knowledge, endorsing variability as a means to address testing barriers, and laying a foundation for future work in the area of operational models and outcomes investigation. The objective of this study is to provide a detailed account of the various models and operational constructs that have been described for performing HIV testing in EDs. METHODS Systematic review of PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the Web of Science through February 6, 2009 was performed. Three investigators independently reviewed all potential abstracts and identified all studies that met the following criteria for inclusion: original research, performance of HIV testing in an ED in the United States, description of operational methods, and reporting of specific testing outcomes. Each study was independently assessed and data from each were abstracted with standardized instruments. Summary and pooled descriptive statistics were reported by using recently published nomenclature and definitions for ED HIV testing. RESULTS The primary search yielded 947 potential studies, of which 25 (3%) were included in the final analysis. Of the 25 included studies, 13 (52%) reported results using nontargeted screening as the only patient selection method. Most programs reported using voluntary, opt-in consent and separate, signed consent forms. A variety of assays and communication methods were used, but relatively limited outcomes data were reported. CONCLUSION Currently, limited evidence exists to inform HIV testing practices in EDs. There appears to be recent progression toward the use of rapid assays and nontargeted patient selection methods, with the rate at which reports are published in the peer-reviewed literature increasing. Additional research will be required, including controlled clinical trials, more structured program evaluation, and a focus on an expanded profile of outcome measures, to further improve our understanding of which HIV testing methods are most effective in the ED.

Emergency Department-Based Brief Intervention to Reduce Risky Driving and Hazardous/Harmful Drinking in Young Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND Risky driving and hazardous drinking are associated with significant human and economic costs. Brief interventions for more than one risky behavior have the potential to reduce health-compromising behaviors in populations with multiple risk-taking behaviors such as young adults. Emergency department (ED) visits provide a window of opportunity for interventions meant to reduce both risky driving and hazardous drinking. METHODS We determined the efficacy of a Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) protocol addressing risky driving and hazardous drinking. We used a randomized controlled trial design with follow-ups through 12 months. ED patients aged 18 to 44 who screened positive for both behaviors (n = 476) were randomized to brief intervention (BIG), contact control (CCG), or no-contact control (NCG) groups. The BIG (n = 150) received a 20-minute assessment and two 20-minute interventions. The CCG (n = 162) received a 20-minute assessment at baseline and no intervention. The NCG (n = 164) were asked for contact information at baseline and had no assessment or intervention. Outcomes at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were self-reported driving behaviors and alcohol consumption. RESULTS Outcomes were significantly lower in BIG compared with CCG through 6 or 9 months, but not at 12 months: Safety belt use at 3 months (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08 to 0.65); 6 months (AOR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.42); and 9 months (AOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.56); binge drinking at 3 months (adjusted rate ratio [ARR] 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.97) and 6 months (ARR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.97); and ≥5 standard drinks/d at 3 months (AOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.91) and 6 months (AOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.98). No substantial differences were observed between BIG and NCG at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS Our findings indicate that SBIRT reduced risky driving and hazardous drinking in young adults, but its effects did not persist after 9 months. Future research should explore methods for extending the intervention effect.

Contributions to early HIV diagnosis among patients linked to care vary by testing venue

ObjectiveEarly HIV diagnosis reduces transmission and improves health outcomes; screening in non-traditional settings is increasingly advocated. We compared test venues by the number of new diagnoses successfully linked to the regional HIV treatment center and disease stage at diagnosis.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using structured chart review of newly diagnosed HIV patients successfully referred to the regions only HIV treatment center from 1998 to 2003. Demographics, testing indication, risk profile, and initial CD4 count were recorded.ResultsThere were 277 newly diagnosed patients meeting study criteria. Mean age was 33 years, 77% were male, and 46% were African-American. Median CD4 at diagnosis was 324. Diagnoses were earlier via partner testing at the HIV treatment center (N = 8, median CD4 648, p = 0.008) and with universal screening by the blood bank, military, and insurance companies (N = 13, median CD4 483, p = 0.05) than at other venues. Targeted testing by health care and public health entities based on patient request, risk profile, or patient condition lead to later diagnosis.ConclusionTest venues varied by the number of new diagnoses made and the stage of illness at diagnosis. To improve the rate of early diagnosis, scarce resources should be allocated to maximize the number of new diagnoses at screening venues where diagnoses are more likely to be early or alter testing strategies at test venues where diagnoses are traditionally made late. Efforts to improve early diagnosis should be coordinated longitudinally on a regional basis according to this conceptual paradigm.

Interpreting and Implementing the 2006 CDC Recommendations for HIV Testing in Health-Care Settings

On September 22, 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced recommendations to expand the role of health-care providers in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing. These clearlyjustified guidelines aim to remove traditional testing barriers, and thereby increase the rate of earlier diagnosis. This overarching strategy to increase testing in all health-care settings also includes less traditional sites such as emergency departments and correctional health-care facilities. The motivation for the guidelines is intuitive, as the need for augmented testing is well supported. Of those infected with HIV in the U.S., approximately one-quarter are unaware of their disease status. People who are unaware of their infection disproportionately account for new transmissions and are unable to benefit from treatment. The HIV incidence has not fallen below approximately 40,000 new diagnoses per year, of which approximately 40% are diagnosed late in the course of infection. Universal screening, even in populations with a disease prevalence of 0.1%, has been shown to be cost-effective. While the guidelines have been reviewed in depth, current interpretations do not adequately outline a structure for further debate or facilitate incremental or partial implementation of the recommendations. This must be remedied, as comprehensive implementation of the guidelines will be controversial or logistically impossible in many settings for the foreseeable future. Herein, we provide a clarified interpretation by outlining the core guideline elements individually and within the context of current barriers to implementation. We then discuss potential combinations of the core elements that would enable increased testing in settings where comprehensive guideline implementation is not possible.