US panel recommends HIV screening for everyone aged 15 to 64 years
BMJ 2013; 346 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2874 (Published 03 May 2013) Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f2874All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Let us hope that this advance in the US helps encourage more routine HIV screening within the United Kingdom. With the effectiveness of new antiretroviral therapies, the diagnosis of HIV infection should no longer be seen as a catastrophic event. As a result, any patient who presents to medical services should be offered routine screening and rescreening. Champenois, et al. (2013) showed that during the 3 year period prior to HIV diagnosis, 99% of participants in France had seen a healthcare provider, with 93% of those contacts with a general practitioner. In addition, 79% of the MSM who visited the healthcare provider were not offered HIV test screening. Most notably only 2% of patients presenting with recurrent bacterial infection and 11% of those presenting with generalised lymphadenopathy were offered screening.
Unlike the US, the ’test and treat’ strategy is not the recommended approach in the UK (BHIVA guidelines 2012) however there is still the large benefit of targeting behaviour change to help tackle the spread of HIV. Surely as a result we need to re-evaluate our reluctance to screen patients at any opportunity.
GUM clinics are easily accessible in the United Kingdom’s major cities but Champenois goes on to show that 32% of HIV positive patients had never been tested before, surely this group of patients are unlikely to attend their local GUM clinic for testing. We should offer routine screening to any patient presenting to their general practitioner for any cause.
References:
Champenois, K. Missed opportunities for HIV testing in newly-HIV-diagnosed patients, a cross sectional study. BMC Infectious Diseases 2013, 13:200 doi:10.1186/1471-2334-13-200
British HIV Associtation. British HIV Association guidelines for the treatment of HIV-1 positive adults with antiretroviral therapy 2012. HIV Medicine (2012), 13 (Suppl. 2), 1–85 doi:10.1111/j.1468-1293.2012.01029_1.x
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: US panel recommends HIV screening for everyone aged 15 to 64 years
Dear Editors,
Extreme mismanagement in Greek public hospitals has deprived funds for HIV screening.
A sharp rise of new cases over the last years has been documented.
Reference
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_10/05/2013_498218
Competing interests: Dr Stavros Saripanidis is a diligent taxpayer who has been financing Greek public Hospitals for years. He is outraged to see such extreme and humiliating shortages.