Mpox emerged on the global scale in 2022 and predominately affected gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM). Stigma related to mpox is a potential harm for individuals experiencing multiple levels of marginalization who may already be discriminated against in family, health care, and other social domains. To understand perceived mpox stigma among cisgender GBMSM in the United States, we conducted a study within the American Men's Internet Survey with 824 cisgender GBMSM >= 15 years from August 5 to 15, 2022. Perceived mpox stigma was most prevalent among non-Hispanic Black individuals (13.9%) compared to non-Hispanic White individuals (6.0%) and particularly among men aged 25-29 (15.1%) compared to men aged 40+ (5.6%). In adjusted logistic regression models, mpox stigma was significantly associated with knowing someone who tested for mpox (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 4.3 95% confidence interval, CI [2.1, 9.0]), knowing someone who was vaccinated for mpox (aOR = 2.1; 95% CI [1.2, 3.7]), or having an unexplained rash in the 3 months prior to survey completion (aOR = 3.6; 95% CI [1.9, 7.0]). These initial findings suggested people who were more connected to mpox-affected social networks and also those who had symptoms consistent with mpox were more likely to experience stigma. Taken together, these data suggest the potential harmful impact of mpox-related stigma by affecting those who would most benefit from services. Moreover, these data suggest the importance of real-time stigma measurement and mitigation for both rapidly emergent and chronic infectious diseases to improve equity, reduce fear and misinformation, and optimize the impact of public health responses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) Impact Statement Stigma can have far-reaching consequences. It can exacerbate health disparities, influence social networks, and discourage individuals from seeking preventative health care, including vaccination. This study's findings highlight that, even if not widespread, stigma can concentrate in marginalized groups and drastically affect individuals' lives. By acknowledging and addressing stigma, public health agencies and providers can foster inclusivity, limit fear, promote trust in health care systems, and improve the overall health and resilience of communities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)

The 2016 HIV Diagnostics Conference, held in Atlanta, Georgia, was attended by public health officials, laboratorians, HIV testing program managers, surveillance coordinators and industry representatives. The conference addressed test performance data, the implementation of new testing algorithms, quality assurance, and the application of new tests in a variety of settings. With regard to the recommended Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Association of Public Health Laboratories HIV laboratory testing algorithm, the conference featured performance data, implementation challenges such as a lack of test options for the second and third steps, as well as data needs for new tests that may be used as part of the algorithm. There are delays when nucleic acid testing is needed with the algorithm. Novel tests such as point of care nucleic acid tests are needed on the U.S. market to readily identify acute infection. Multiplex tests are being developed which allow for the simultaneous detection of multiple pathogens. CDC staff highlighted new guidance for testing in non-clinical settings. Innovative approaches to linking testing and care in some settings have led to identification of early infections, improved receipt of test results and expedited initiation of therapy. Work continues to optimize testing so that infections are accurately identified as early as possible and time to treatment is minimized to improve health outcomes and prevent transmission.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the period of time between an exposure resulting in infection with HIV and when a test can reliably detect the presence of that infection, i.e. the test window period, may benefit testing programs and clinicians in counseling patients about when the clinician and the patient can be confident a suspected exposure did not result in HIV infection. METHODS: We evaluated the intervals between reactivity of the Aptima HIV-1 RNA nucleic acid test (Aptima) and 20 FDA-approved HIV immunoassays using 222 longitudinally collected plasma specimens from HIV-1 seroconverters from the United States. A multi-model framework based upon two general approaches, interval-censored survival and binomial regression, was implemented to estimate the relative emergence of test reactivity, referred to in this report as an inter-test reactivity interval (ITRI). We then combined ITRI results with simulated data for the eclipse period, the time between exposure and detection of HIV virus by Aptima, to develop estimates of the window period for each test. RESULTS: The estimated ITRIs were shorter with each new class of HIV tests, ranging from 5.9 to 24.8 days. The 99th percentiles of the window period probability distribution ranged from 44 days for laboratory screening tests that detect both antigen and antibody to 65 days for the Western blot test. CONCLUSIONS: Our directly comparable estimates of the emergence of reactivity for 20 immunoassays are valuable to testing providers for interpreting negative HIV test results obtained shortly after exposure, and for counseling individuals on when to retest after an exposure.

BACKGROUND: Blood specimens for HIV testing are frequently collected using serum collection tubes. The Aptima HIV-1 RNA Qualitative test, originally approved for diagnostic use as a supplemental test for use with plasma, is now approved for use with serum, and may be used in new laboratory-based HIV testing algorithms which detect acute and established HIV infections. OBJECTIVES: To compare the sensitivity of Aptima using serum and plasma specimens from persons with established HIV infection. STUDY DESIGN: Parallel serum and plasma specimens were collected from 325 persons with established HIV-1 infection who had positive immunoassay (IA) and Western blot (WB) results. Samples with negative Aptima results were considered false-negative and were subjected to repeat testing. Aptima sensitivity for serum and plasma was calculated relative to IA and WB, and compared using the McNemar test. RESULTS: The sensitivity of Aptima using serum (97.23%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 94.81-98.73) was similar to that using plasma (97.54%, 95% [CI] 95.21-98.93) p=1.00. Five of ten specimens initially false-negative on either serum or plasma were reactive on repeat testing. No specimens initially classified as false-negative on both matrices were reactive on both matrices on repeat testing. CONCLUSIONS: In specimens from persons with established infections, Aptima performed with similar sensitivity when used with serum or plasma. Using serum for immunoassay screening and supplemental testing may provide added convenience for laboratories.

BACKGROUND: The HIV-1 Western blot (WB) and immunofluorescence assay used to confirm HIV infections are less sensitive during seroconversion than immunoassays (IAs) used for screening. An alternative diagnostic algorithm has been proposed to detect early HIV-1 infection and differentiate HIV-1 from HIV-2. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the performance of an algorithm with a third generation IA that when reactive was followed by a rapid test (Multispot) that differentiates HIV-1 from HIV-2. Multispot-reactive specimens were considered HIV-infected. Multispot-negative specimens were tested with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for resolution. STUDY DESIGN: WB-positive specimens [serum (n=2202), plasma (n=1109) and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) (n=1065)] were obtained from HIV-infected persons not taking antiretrovirals. HIV-uninfected specimens [plasma (n=1517) and PBMCs (n=1508)] with negative IA and NAAT results were obtained from blood donors. Specimens were tested with third generation IAs (Abbott rDNA, ADVIA Centaur, GS HIV1-2 Plus O, Ortho VITROS) in singlet, Multispot, and NAAT (APTIMA (RNA) and AMPLICOR (DNA)). We calculated algorithm sensitivity and specificity and the proportion of IA-reactive specimens requiring NAAT. RESULTS: Algorithm sensitivity was 99.95% with APTIMA and 100% with AMPLICOR. One WB-positive specimen reactive by all IAs and AMPLICOR was negative by Multispot and APTIMA. Algorithm specificity was 100% using APTIMA or AMPLICOR as NAAT. From 0.10% (Abbott) to 2.43% (VITROS) of IA-reactive specimens required NAAT. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed algorithm performs with high sensitivity and specificity in specimens from persons with established HIV infection and uninfected blood donors and appears to be a good alternative to the current algorithm.