Cargando…

Evaluating the impact of post-trial implementation of RHIVA nurse-led HIV screening on HIV testing, diagnosis and earlier diagnosis in general practice in London, UK

BACKGROUND: UK and European guidelines recommend HIV testing in general practice. We report on the implementation of the Rapid HIV Assessment trial (RHIVA2) promoting HIV screening in general practice into routine care. METHODS: Interrupted time-series, difference-in-difference analysis and Pearson-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leber, Werner, Panovska-Griffiths, Jasmina, Martin, Peter, Morris, Stephen, Capelas Barbosa, Estela, Estcourt, Claudia, Hutchinson, Jane, Shahmanesh, Maryam, El-Shogri, Farah, Boomla, Kambiz, Delpech, Valerie, Creighton, Sarah, Anderson, Jane, Figueroa, Jose, Griffiths, Chris
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7046496/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32140667
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.11.022
_version_ 1783501956838326272
author Leber, Werner
Panovska-Griffiths, Jasmina
Martin, Peter
Morris, Stephen
Capelas Barbosa, Estela
Estcourt, Claudia
Hutchinson, Jane
Shahmanesh, Maryam
El-Shogri, Farah
Boomla, Kambiz
Delpech, Valerie
Creighton, Sarah
Anderson, Jane
Figueroa, Jose
Griffiths, Chris
author_facet Leber, Werner
Panovska-Griffiths, Jasmina
Martin, Peter
Morris, Stephen
Capelas Barbosa, Estela
Estcourt, Claudia
Hutchinson, Jane
Shahmanesh, Maryam
El-Shogri, Farah
Boomla, Kambiz
Delpech, Valerie
Creighton, Sarah
Anderson, Jane
Figueroa, Jose
Griffiths, Chris
author_sort Leber, Werner
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: UK and European guidelines recommend HIV testing in general practice. We report on the implementation of the Rapid HIV Assessment trial (RHIVA2) promoting HIV screening in general practice into routine care. METHODS: Interrupted time-series, difference-in-difference analysis and Pearson-correlation on three cohorts comprising 42 general practices in City & Hackney (London, UK); covering three periods: pre-trial (2009–2010), trial (2010–2012) and implementation (2012–2014). Cohorts comprised practices receiving: “trial intervention” only (n = 19), “implementation intervention” only (n = 13); and neither (“comparator”) (n = 10). Primary outcomes were HIV testing and diagnosis rates per 1000 people and CD4 at diagnosis. FINDINGS: Overall, 55,443 people were tested (including 38,326 among these cohorts), and 101 people were newly diagnosed HIV positive (including 65 among these cohorts) including 74 (73%) heterosexuals and 69 (68%) people of black African/Caribbean background; with mean CD4 count at diagnosis 357 (SD=237). Among implementation intervention practices, testing rate increased by 85% (from 1·798 (95%CI=(1·657,1·938) at baseline to 3·081 (95%CI=(2·865,3·306); p = 0·0000), diagnosis rate increased by 34% (from 0·0026 (95%CI=(0·0004,0·0037)) to 0·0035 (95%CI=(0·0007,0·0062); p = 0·736), and mean CD4 count at diagnosis increased by 55% (from 273 (SD=372) to 425 (SD=274) cells per μL; p = 0·433). Implementation intervention and trial intervention practices achieved similar testing rates (3·764 vs. 3·081; 6% difference; 95% CI=(-5%,18%); p = 0·358), diagnosis rates (0·0035 vs. 0·0081; -13% difference; 95%CI=(-77%,244%; p = 0·837), and mean CD4 count (425 (SD=274) vs. 351 (SD=257); 69% increase; 95% CI=(-61%,249%); p = 0·359). HIV testing was positively correlated with diagnosis (r = 0·114 (95% CI=[0·074,0·163])), and diagnosis with CD4 count at diagnosis (r = 0·011 (95% CI=[-0·177,0·218])). INTERPRETATION: Implementation of the RHIVA programme promoting nurse-led HIV screening into routine practice in inner-city practices with high HIV prevalence increased HIV testing, and may be associated with increased and earlier diagnosis. HIV screening in primary care should be considered a key strategy to reduce undiagnosed infection particularly among high risk persons not attending sexual health services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research ARC North Thames, and Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7046496
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70464962020-03-05 Evaluating the impact of post-trial implementation of RHIVA nurse-led HIV screening on HIV testing, diagnosis and earlier diagnosis in general practice in London, UK Leber, Werner Panovska-Griffiths, Jasmina Martin, Peter Morris, Stephen Capelas Barbosa, Estela Estcourt, Claudia Hutchinson, Jane Shahmanesh, Maryam El-Shogri, Farah Boomla, Kambiz Delpech, Valerie Creighton, Sarah Anderson, Jane Figueroa, Jose Griffiths, Chris EClinicalMedicine Research paper BACKGROUND: UK and European guidelines recommend HIV testing in general practice. We report on the implementation of the Rapid HIV Assessment trial (RHIVA2) promoting HIV screening in general practice into routine care. METHODS: Interrupted time-series, difference-in-difference analysis and Pearson-correlation on three cohorts comprising 42 general practices in City & Hackney (London, UK); covering three periods: pre-trial (2009–2010), trial (2010–2012) and implementation (2012–2014). Cohorts comprised practices receiving: “trial intervention” only (n = 19), “implementation intervention” only (n = 13); and neither (“comparator”) (n = 10). Primary outcomes were HIV testing and diagnosis rates per 1000 people and CD4 at diagnosis. FINDINGS: Overall, 55,443 people were tested (including 38,326 among these cohorts), and 101 people were newly diagnosed HIV positive (including 65 among these cohorts) including 74 (73%) heterosexuals and 69 (68%) people of black African/Caribbean background; with mean CD4 count at diagnosis 357 (SD=237). Among implementation intervention practices, testing rate increased by 85% (from 1·798 (95%CI=(1·657,1·938) at baseline to 3·081 (95%CI=(2·865,3·306); p = 0·0000), diagnosis rate increased by 34% (from 0·0026 (95%CI=(0·0004,0·0037)) to 0·0035 (95%CI=(0·0007,0·0062); p = 0·736), and mean CD4 count at diagnosis increased by 55% (from 273 (SD=372) to 425 (SD=274) cells per μL; p = 0·433). Implementation intervention and trial intervention practices achieved similar testing rates (3·764 vs. 3·081; 6% difference; 95% CI=(-5%,18%); p = 0·358), diagnosis rates (0·0035 vs. 0·0081; -13% difference; 95%CI=(-77%,244%; p = 0·837), and mean CD4 count (425 (SD=274) vs. 351 (SD=257); 69% increase; 95% CI=(-61%,249%); p = 0·359). HIV testing was positively correlated with diagnosis (r = 0·114 (95% CI=[0·074,0·163])), and diagnosis with CD4 count at diagnosis (r = 0·011 (95% CI=[-0·177,0·218])). INTERPRETATION: Implementation of the RHIVA programme promoting nurse-led HIV screening into routine practice in inner-city practices with high HIV prevalence increased HIV testing, and may be associated with increased and earlier diagnosis. HIV screening in primary care should be considered a key strategy to reduce undiagnosed infection particularly among high risk persons not attending sexual health services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research ARC North Thames, and Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry. Elsevier 2020-01-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7046496/ /pubmed/32140667 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.11.022 Text en © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research paper
Leber, Werner
Panovska-Griffiths, Jasmina
Martin, Peter
Morris, Stephen
Capelas Barbosa, Estela
Estcourt, Claudia
Hutchinson, Jane
Shahmanesh, Maryam
El-Shogri, Farah
Boomla, Kambiz
Delpech, Valerie
Creighton, Sarah
Anderson, Jane
Figueroa, Jose
Griffiths, Chris
Evaluating the impact of post-trial implementation of RHIVA nurse-led HIV screening on HIV testing, diagnosis and earlier diagnosis in general practice in London, UK
title Evaluating the impact of post-trial implementation of RHIVA nurse-led HIV screening on HIV testing, diagnosis and earlier diagnosis in general practice in London, UK
title_full Evaluating the impact of post-trial implementation of RHIVA nurse-led HIV screening on HIV testing, diagnosis and earlier diagnosis in general practice in London, UK
title_fullStr Evaluating the impact of post-trial implementation of RHIVA nurse-led HIV screening on HIV testing, diagnosis and earlier diagnosis in general practice in London, UK
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating the impact of post-trial implementation of RHIVA nurse-led HIV screening on HIV testing, diagnosis and earlier diagnosis in general practice in London, UK
title_short Evaluating the impact of post-trial implementation of RHIVA nurse-led HIV screening on HIV testing, diagnosis and earlier diagnosis in general practice in London, UK
title_sort evaluating the impact of post-trial implementation of rhiva nurse-led hiv screening on hiv testing, diagnosis and earlier diagnosis in general practice in london, uk
topic Research paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7046496/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32140667
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.11.022
work_keys_str_mv AT leberwerner evaluatingtheimpactofposttrialimplementationofrhivanurseledhivscreeningonhivtestingdiagnosisandearlierdiagnosisingeneralpracticeinlondonuk
AT panovskagriffithsjasmina evaluatingtheimpactofposttrialimplementationofrhivanurseledhivscreeningonhivtestingdiagnosisandearlierdiagnosisingeneralpracticeinlondonuk
AT martinpeter evaluatingtheimpactofposttrialimplementationofrhivanurseledhivscreeningonhivtestingdiagnosisandearlierdiagnosisingeneralpracticeinlondonuk
AT morrisstephen evaluatingtheimpactofposttrialimplementationofrhivanurseledhivscreeningonhivtestingdiagnosisandearlierdiagnosisingeneralpracticeinlondonuk
AT capelasbarbosaestela evaluatingtheimpactofposttrialimplementationofrhivanurseledhivscreeningonhivtestingdiagnosisandearlierdiagnosisingeneralpracticeinlondonuk
AT estcourtclaudia evaluatingtheimpactofposttrialimplementationofrhivanurseledhivscreeningonhivtestingdiagnosisandearlierdiagnosisingeneralpracticeinlondonuk
AT hutchinsonjane evaluatingtheimpactofposttrialimplementationofrhivanurseledhivscreeningonhivtestingdiagnosisandearlierdiagnosisingeneralpracticeinlondonuk
AT shahmaneshmaryam evaluatingtheimpactofposttrialimplementationofrhivanurseledhivscreeningonhivtestingdiagnosisandearlierdiagnosisingeneralpracticeinlondonuk
AT elshogrifarah evaluatingtheimpactofposttrialimplementationofrhivanurseledhivscreeningonhivtestingdiagnosisandearlierdiagnosisingeneralpracticeinlondonuk
AT boomlakambiz evaluatingtheimpactofposttrialimplementationofrhivanurseledhivscreeningonhivtestingdiagnosisandearlierdiagnosisingeneralpracticeinlondonuk
AT delpechvalerie evaluatingtheimpactofposttrialimplementationofrhivanurseledhivscreeningonhivtestingdiagnosisandearlierdiagnosisingeneralpracticeinlondonuk
AT creightonsarah evaluatingtheimpactofposttrialimplementationofrhivanurseledhivscreeningonhivtestingdiagnosisandearlierdiagnosisingeneralpracticeinlondonuk
AT andersonjane evaluatingtheimpactofposttrialimplementationofrhivanurseledhivscreeningonhivtestingdiagnosisandearlierdiagnosisingeneralpracticeinlondonuk
AT figueroajose evaluatingtheimpactofposttrialimplementationofrhivanurseledhivscreeningonhivtestingdiagnosisandearlierdiagnosisingeneralpracticeinlondonuk
AT griffithschris evaluatingtheimpactofposttrialimplementationofrhivanurseledhivscreeningonhivtestingdiagnosisandearlierdiagnosisingeneralpracticeinlondonuk