Early diagnosis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is critical for individual health and public health. Recognizing this, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revised recommendations in 2006 to broaden HIV screening in healthcare settings. These updated guidelines emphasized the importance of increasing early detection and improving access to care and prevention, particularly in locations like emergency departments and urgent care facilities. These are often points of contact for individuals who may not otherwise seek HIV testing. The current recommendation is opt-out screening for patients aged 13–64 in all healthcare settings, a significant shift from previous risk-based targeted screening approaches.
A study from South Carolina, predating the 2006 guidelines, highlights the critical need for this shift. Analyzing HIV and Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) case reporting from 1997 to 2005, the study reveals substantial missed opportunities for earlier HIV diagnosis within the healthcare system.
During 2001–2005, South Carolina reported 4,315 HIV cases. A concerning 41% of these were classified as “late testers,” meaning they received an AIDS diagnosis within a year of their initial HIV diagnosis. Among these late testers, a staggering 73% had made nearly 8,000 visits to healthcare facilities in South Carolina between 1997 and 2005 before their first positive HIV test. Alarmingly, the diagnoses recorded for 79% of these visits were unlikely to trigger HIV testing under a risk-based strategy. This strongly suggests that routine, opt-out HIV screening could significantly improve early HIV diagnosis rates in South Carolina and similar settings.
South Carolina has maintained an HIV/AIDS Reporting System (HARS) since 1986, collecting data including first HIV-positive test date and AIDS diagnosis date. The state also mandates reporting of all diagnoses from emergency departments, hospitals, ambulatory-care, and outpatient surgery facilities to the Office of Research and Statistics (ORS). Data for this study, covering 1997-2005 visits, was provided by a wide range of healthcare facilities across South Carolina. Diagnoses were categorized as either unlikely to prompt HIV testing (e.g., hypertension, diabetes) or suggestive of HIV infection (e.g., STDs, acute retroviral syndrome symptoms, intravenous drug use).
Data linkage between HARS and ORS was conducted using secure methods, protecting patient confidentiality. The analysis focused on 4,315 HIV cases reported during 2001–2005, with 1,784 (41.3%) being late testers. Of these late testers, 1,302 (73%) had documented healthcare visits prior to their HIV diagnosis.
These 1,302 late testers accounted for 7,988 healthcare visits. While 33.9% of these individuals had risk factors that should have prompted HIV screening (injection drug use or men who have sex with men), the diagnoses associated with 78.6% of their visits were not typically indicators for risk-based HIV testing. Emergency departments accounted for the majority (78.9%) of these visits, followed by inpatient settings (12.3%), outpatient facilities (7.4%), and free clinics (1.4%). The median time between a healthcare visit and HIV diagnosis was 2.5 years, highlighting substantial delays. Many late testers had multiple prior visits: a median of four, with some having over 10 visits before diagnosis. A significant portion of visits (over 15%) occurred within 6 months of diagnosis, but a large majority were much earlier, indicating long periods of undiagnosed infection.
The study’s findings underscore significant failures in previous HIV-testing practices in South Carolina, leading to delayed diagnoses. Early HIV diagnosis is crucial for patient health and can limit further transmission. The fact that approximately three-quarters of late testers had prior healthcare visits represents a major missed opportunity. The diagnoses during these visits, in most cases, would not have triggered risk-based testing. Even among those with identified risk factors, testing was not initiated early enough.
These findings strongly support the current recommendations for routine, opt-out HIV screening in all healthcare settings, including critically important locations like urgent care centers and emergency departments. In 2004, South Carolina had a high rate of reported AIDS cases, indicating a potentially high prevalence of undiagnosed HIV. Data from 2004-2005 showed a large proportion of newly diagnosed individuals had low CD4+ T cell counts, signifying advanced infection and delayed diagnosis.
It is important to acknowledge study limitations, including potential underreporting of HIV/AIDS cases and healthcare visits, and possible inaccuracies in data linkage. Additionally, some individuals might have acquired HIV after their earlier healthcare visits. However, considering the long latency period of HIV, it is likely that many were already infected during these prior visits. Patient refusal of testing and missed documentation of testing recommendations are also potential factors.
Despite these limitations, the sheer volume of healthcare encounters where earlier HIV diagnosis could have been made, combined with the inadequacy of risk-based testing to identify these cases, emphasizes the urgent need for routine HIV screening. Implementing routine screening necessitates increased capacity for treatment and prevention services. South Carolina is actively working to expand these services. The benefits of routine screening, early diagnosis, and prompt linkage to care are substantial, as relying solely on risk factors or symptoms has demonstrably failed to identify a significant portion of HIV-infected individuals until late in their disease progression.
References
- CDC. Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR 2006; 55(No. RR-14):1–17.
- CDC. Revised guidelines for HIV counseling, testing, and referral. MMWR 2001;50(No. RR-19).
- Fauci AS, Pantaleo G, Stanley S, Weissman D. Immunopathogenic mechanisms of HIV infection. Ann Intern Med 1996;124:654–63.
- CDC. Late versus early testing of HIV—16 sites, United States, 2000–2003. MMWR 2003;52:581–6.
- Kahn JO, Walker BD. Acute human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. N Engl J Med 1998;339:33–9.
- Greenwald JL, Rich CA, Bessega S, et al. Evaluation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations regarding routine testing for human immunodeficiency virus by an inpatient service: who are we missing? Mayo Clin Proc 2006;81:452–8.
- Palella FJ, Deloria-Knoll M, Chmiel JS, et al. Survival benefit of initiating antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected persons in different CD4+ cell strata. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:620–6.
- Marks G, Crepaz N, Senterfitt JW, Janssen RS. Meta-analysis of high-risk sexual behavior in persons aware and unaware they are infected with HIV in the United States: implications for HIV prevention programs. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005;39:446–53.
- CDC. HIV/AIDS surveillance report. Vol. 16. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2004:29–30. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2004report/pdf/2004surveillancereport.pdf.
