Jordans Carlijn C E, Niemantsverdriet-Rokx Lotte, Struik Jan L, van der Waal Eva C, van der Voorn Paul V J M, Bakker Nienke, Verbon Annelies, Bindels Patrick J E, Rokx Casper
Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3015 CN, The Netherlands.
Gezondheidscentrum Mathenesserlaan, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
BMC Prim Care. 2024 Dec 27;25(1):440. doi: 10.1186/s12875-024-02666-0.
HIV indicator condition-guided testing is recommended by guidelines to identify undiagnosed HIV infections. However, general practitioners (GPs) frequently see patients for indicator conditions without testing them for HIV. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether implementing HIV teams, using trained GP ambassadors, promoted local HIV indicator condition-guided testing practices in urban GP centers in the Netherlands.
We conducted a prospective implementation study between May 2021 and March 2023. Patients ≥ 18 years newly diagnosed with HIV indicator conditions in three GP centers were included. The intervention consisted of HIV expert led education for GPs with a stepwise implementation of point-of-care testing (phase 1), followed by adding peer-to-peer case feedback by trained GP ambassadors (phase 2). Questionnaires were used to assess the experiences and beliefs of HIV indicator condition-driven testing in patients and GPs. The primary outcome was the overall HIV testing rate in patients diagnosed with indicator conditions compared to pre-implementation. Secondary outcomes were HIV testing rate per phase and per indicator condition, HIV positivity rate, and patients' and GPs' experiences with this testing strategy.
In 132,338 patient visits, 846 (0.6%, 95%CI 0.6-0.7%) HIV indicator conditions were diagnosed, including 485 sexually transmitted infections (57.3%). Overall, 215 (25.4%) indicator conditions were tested for HIV after the implementation of HIV teams. The testing rate was comparable between the two phases (25.2% versus 25.9%, p = 0.83). The testing rates pre- and post-implementation were comparable (21.3% versus 25.4%, p = 0.33). The most frequently tested HIV indicator conditions were unexplained weight loss (n = 13, 41.9%), unexplained lymphadenopathy (n = 8, 38.1%), and sexually transmitted infections (n = 161, 33.2%). Three patients (1.4%, 95%CI 0.3-4.0%) tested positive for HIV. Test acceptance in patients was high as was the self-perceived knowledge of GPs on HIV indicator conditions.
Implementing HIV teams did not enhance HIV indicator condition-guided testing in urban GP centers from a low HIV prevalence setting. The high patients acceptance rate and self-perceived knowledge among GPs regarding HIV indicator conditions did not manifest in high HIV testing rates. Patients accepted testing, but a gap was found between the self-perceived knowledge of GPs regarding HIV indicator conditions and testing, and the actual HIV testing rate.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05225493 (registration date: 17-01-2022).
指南推荐采用HIV指示性疾病引导检测来识别未确诊的HIV感染。然而,全科医生(GP)在诊疗指示性疾病患者时,常常不进行HIV检测。本研究旨在评估在荷兰城市全科医疗中心组建HIV团队并配备经过培训的全科医生大使,是否能促进当地HIV指示性疾病引导检测实践。
我们在2021年5月至2023年3月期间进行了一项前瞻性实施研究。纳入了在三个全科医疗中心新诊断出患有HIV指示性疾病的18岁及以上患者。干预措施包括由HIV专家对全科医生进行教育,并逐步实施即时检验(第一阶段),随后增加由经过培训的全科医生大使提供的点对点病例反馈(第二阶段)。通过问卷调查评估患者和全科医生对HIV指示性疾病驱动检测的体验和看法。主要结局是与实施前相比,被诊断患有指示性疾病患者的总体HIV检测率。次要结局包括各阶段和各指示性疾病的HIV检测率、HIV阳性率,以及患者和全科医生对该检测策略的体验。
在132,338次患者就诊中,诊断出846例(0.6%,95%CI 0.6 - 0.7%)HIV指示性疾病,其中包括485例性传播感染(57.3%)。总体而言,组建HIV团队后,215例(25.4%)指示性疾病患者接受了HIV检测。两个阶段的检测率相当(25.2%对25.9%,p = 0.83)。实施前后的检测率相当(21.3%对25.4%,p = 0.33)。检测频率最高的HIV指示性疾病是不明原因体重减轻(n = 13,41.9%)、不明原因淋巴结病(n = 8,38.1%)和性传播感染(n = 161,33.2%)。三名患者(1.4%,95%CI 0.3 - 4.0%)HIV检测呈阳性。患者对检测的接受度较高,全科医生对HIV指示性疾病的自我认知也较高。
在HIV低流行地区的城市全科医疗中心,组建HIV团队并未提高HIV指示性疾病引导检测水平。患者对检测的高接受率以及全科医生对HIV指示性疾病的较高自我认知,并未转化为高HIV检测率。患者接受检测,但全科医生对HIV指示性疾病及检测的自我认知与实际HIV检测率之间存在差距。
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05225493(注册日期:2022年1月17日)。