Differences among diagnostic testing algorithms in the time from HIV diagnosis to care
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Language:

Dates

Publication Date Range:

to

Document Data

Title:

Document Type:

Library

Collection:

Series:

People

Author:

Help
Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Help
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Differences among diagnostic testing algorithms in the time from HIV diagnosis to care

Filetype[PDF-170.13 KB]


  • English
    • Details Supporting Files You May Also Like

    Details:

    • Alternative Title:
      J Clin Virol
    • Personal Author:
    • Description:
      Background:

      The association between the type of diagnostic testing algorithm for HIV infection and the time from diagnosis to care has not been fully evaluated. Here we extend an earlier analysis of this association by controlling for patient and diagnosing facility characteristics.

      Study design:

      Descriptive analysis of HIV infection diagnoses during 2016 reported to the National HIV Surveillance System through December 2017. Algorithm type: traditional = initial HIV antibody immunoassay followed by a Western blot or immunofluorescence antibody test; recommended = initial HIV antigen/antibody immunoassay followed by HIV-1/2 type-differentiating antibody test; rapid = two CLIA-waived rapid tests on the same date.

      Results:

      In multivariate analyses controlling for patient and diagnosing facility characteristics, persons whose infection was diagnosed using the rapid algorithm were more likely to be linked to care within 30 days than those whose infection was diagnosed using the other testing algorithms (p < 0.01). The median time to link to care during a 30-day follow-up was 9.0 days (95% CI 8.0–12.0) after the rapid algorithm, 17.0 days (95% CI 17.0–18.0) after the recommended algorithm, and 23.0 days (95% CI 22.0–25.0) after the traditional algorithm.

      Conclusions:

      The time from HIV diagnosis to care varied with the type of testing algorithm. The median time to care was shortest for the rapid algorithm, longest for the traditional algorithm, and intermediate for the recommended algorithm. These results demonstrate the importance of choosing an algorithm with a short time between initial specimen collection and report of the final result to the patient.

    • Subject:
    • Source:
      J Clin Virol. 116:18-22
    • Pubmed ID:
      31039483
    • Pubmed Central ID:
      PMC8107884
    • Document Type:
      Journal Article
    • Funding:
      CC999999/ImCDC/Intramural CDC HHS/United States
    • Collection(s):
      CDC Public Access
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • File Type:

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov