d’Almeida et al1 evaluated routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening in 29 emergency departments (EDs). We believe that the results of this study are open to very different interpretations and conclusions:
The authors characterize the observed prevalence of newly diagnosed infections (0.14%) as “low.” Applying this value to all persons aged 18 to 64 years in France translates to 56 000 undetected HIV infections. To put that number in perspective, estimates of 50 000 undetected cases were sufficiently alarming to provoke recommendations on routine HIV screening. Similarly, studies from the United States and France demonstrate that routine HIV screening remains cost-effective at prevalences as low as 0.10%.2
The authors recommend targeted screening because 17 of 18 cases identified in their study were drawn from “high-risk” populations. Of the newly notified cases in the French national HIV surveillance database in 2009, 28% are heterosexuals of non–sub-Saharan–African origin. Further evidence shows that these “lower-risk” cases are diagnosed as having more advanced HIV illness and that risk-based targeted testing has failed such patients.3
The authors argue that many high-risk cases identified would likely have been identified anyway via diagnostic testing. This contradicts the growing body of literature on the barriers to HIV screening and missed opportunities to test for HIV among high-risk candidates. A number of studies demonstrate that it is hard to implement targeted screening: health care providers lack time and expertise to conduct risk evaluation; patients are inaccurate in reporting their risk status; and targeting injects an anxiety-ridden, stigmatizing tone into the patient-provider discussion that results in low testing rates.4
The authors claim that ED-based detection failed to reveal HIV at earlier stages. They based their assessment on 12 detected cases with available CD4 cell counts. No doubt, these patients seen in an ED setting were sick. But the question of interest is whether they are diagnosed earlier when compared with a targeted screening program. Nothing in the study by d’Almeida et al1 sheds light on that question. Haukoos et al5 compared targeting with routine ED screening. They too reported sick patients, but median CD4 cell counts among cases diagnosed via nontargeted screening (69/μL [interquartile range, 17-430/μL]) were significantly higher than among cases diagnosed via targeted screening (13/μL [interquartile range, 11-15/μL]; P = .02).5
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. It will be reviewed by JAMA Internal Medicine editors. You will be notified when your comment has been published. Comments should not exceed 500 words of text and 10 references.
Do not submit personal medical questions or information that could identify a specific patient, questions about a particular case, or general inquiries to an author. Only content that has not been published, posted, or submitted elsewhere should be submitted. By submitting this Comment, you and any coauthors transfer copyright to the journal if your Comment is posted.
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
Indicate all relevant conflicts of interest of each author below, including all relevant financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers’ bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. If all authors have none, check "No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will be posted with your response.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 1
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.