Hepatitis: Handsfield HH

Branson BM, Handsfield HH, Lampe MA, Janssen RS, Taylor AW, Lyss SB, Clark JE, Anonymous00353. · Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (proposed), Atlanta, GA 30333, USA. · MMWR Recomm Rep. · Pubmed #16988643 links to  free full text

Abstract: These recommendations for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing are intended for all health-care providers in the public and private sectors, including those working in hospital emergency departments, urgent care clinics, inpatient services, substance abuse treatment clinics, public health clinics, community clinics, correctional health-care facilities, and primary care settings. The recommendations address HIV testing in health-care settings only. They do not modify existing guidelines concerning HIV counseling, testing, and referral for persons at high risk for HIV who seek or receive HIV testing in nonclinical settings (e.g., community-based organizations, outreach settings, or mobile vans). The objectives of these recommendations are to increase HIV screening of patients, including pregnant women, in health-care settings; foster earlier detection of HIV infection; identify and counsel persons with unrecognized HIV infection and link them to clinical and prevention services; and further reduce perinatal transmission of HIV in the United States. These revised recommendations update previous recommendations for HIV testing in health-care settings and for screening of pregnant women (CDC. Recommendations for HIV testing services for inpatients and outpatients in acute-care hospital settings. MMWR 1993;42[No. RR-2]:1-10; CDC. Revised guidelines for HIV counseling, testing, and referral. MMWR 2001;50[No. RR-19]:1-62; and CDC. Revised recommendations for HIV screening of pregnant women. MMWR 2001;50[No. RR-19]:63-85). Major revisions from previously published guidelines are as follows: For patients in all health-care settings HIV screening is recommended for patients in all health-care settings after the patient is notified that testing will be performed unless the patient declines (opt-out screening). Persons at high risk for HIV infection should be screened for HIV at least annually. Separate written consent for HIV testing should not be required; general consent for medical care should be considered sufficient to encompass consent for HIV testing. Prevention counseling should not be required with HIV diagnostic testing or as part of HIV screening programs in health-care settings. For pregnant women HIV screening should be included in the routine panel of prenatal screening tests for all pregnant women. HIV screening is recommended after the patient is notified that testing will be performed unless the patient declines (opt-out screening). Separate written consent for HIV testing should not be required; general consent for medical care should be considered sufficient to encompass consent for HIV testing. Repeat screening in the third trimester is recommended in certain jurisdictions with elevated rates of HIV infection among pregnant women.

Handsfield HH. · Center for AIDS and STD, University of Washington, and the Department of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington 98106, USA. · Am J Med. · Pubmed #16271545 No free full text.

Abstract: Sexual transmission accounts for the majority of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in industrialized countries. Hepatitis A virus (HAV) can be transmitted by sexual practices that involve fecal-oral exposure. Both infections are disproportionately frequent in men who have sex with men (MSM). Routine immunization against HBV is recommended for MSM and for persons being evaluated or treated for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and HAV immunization is advised for MSM and for other persons at risk who are commonly seen in STD care settings, such as users of illegal drugs. However, numerous attitudinal and structural barriers interfere with routine immunization in persons at risk for sexual acquisition of HAV and HBV. Substantial success has been documented in vaccinating persons at risk in public STD clinics and other settings; however, at a national level, efforts to achieve desired immunization rates have largely failed. Until universal childhood immunization produces a largely immune adult population, the universal vaccination of adults-as a supplement to the current risk-based approaches-may be worthwhile to achieve immunization of persons at risk for sexual transmission of HBV.

Margolis HS, Handsfield HH, Jacobs RJ, Gangi JE. · Hepatitis Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA. · Am J Obstet Gynecol. · Pubmed #10649147 No free full text.

Abstract: The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of tools to identify and counsel patients at risk for sexually transmitted hepatitis B virus infection. Physicians were randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group. The intervention group was provided with materials intended to encourage patients to return for counseling and to guide counseling concerning prevention of hepatitis B virus infection. Baseline data on 457 patients at risk for hepatitis B virus infection showed that 7% had received prevention counseling and 2% had begun hepatitis B vaccination. Counseling was least likely to occur in obstetric-gynecologic practices, among uninsured patients, and among patients whose only risk factor was a diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease. After a 6-month intervention period 26% of the intervention group patients and 7% of the control group patients had been counseled (P <.01). Vaccination was more likely among intervention group patients (8% vs <1%; P <.001). The use of tools to identify and counsel patients at risk for sexually transmitted hepatitis B virus infection resulted in increased office-based prevention activities.

Golden MR, Gift TL, Brewer DD, Fleming M, Hogben M, St Lawrence JS, Thiede H, Handsfield HH. · Division of Infectious Diseases and the Center for AIDS & STD, Public Health-Seattle & King County, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98104, USA. · AIDS. · Pubmed #16988518 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a health department-based peer referral program for identifying previously undiagnosed cases of HIV among men who have sex with men (MSM). DESIGN AND METHODS: Between 2002 and 2005, 283 MSM peer recruiters were enrolled in a public health program in King County, Washington, USA. Peer recruiters were enrolled from a sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic, an HIV clinic, via media advertisements and through collaboration with community-based organizations (CBO). The peer recruiters underwent a brief training and were then paid US$ 20 for each peer they referred to be tested for HIV, STD and viral hepatitis. Peers were paid US$ 20 for being tested. The main outcome measure was the number of new cases of HIV identified and cost per case of HIV identified. RESULTS: Recruiters referred 498 peers for HIV, STD and hepatitis testing. Among 438 peers not previously diagnosed with HIV, 22 (5%) were HIV positive, of whom 18 received their HIV test results. Other infections were variably prevalent among tested peers: gonorrhea [23/307 (8%)], chlamydia [6/285 (2%)], syphilis [1/445 (0.2%)], hepatitis C [61/198 (31%)], surface antigen positive hepatitis B [8/314 (3%)]. Excluding the costs of testing for viral hepatitis and STDs other than HIV, the cost per new HIV case identified was US$ 4929. During the same period, the cost per new case of HIV detected through bathhouse-based HIV testing and through the county's largest CBO-based HIV testing program were US$ 8250 and US$ 11 481, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Peer referral is an effective means of identifying new cases of HIV among MSM.