INTRODUCTION: Understanding the role of sociologic, structural, and biomedical factors that influence the length of time from HIV infection to diagnosis and reducing the time from infection to diagnosis are critical for achieving the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative. In a retrospective analysis, the length of time from HIV infection to diagnosis and its association with individual- and facility-level attributes are determined. METHODS: Data reported by December 2019 to the U.S. National HIV Surveillance System for people with HIV diagnosed during 2014-2018 were analyzed during December 2020. A CD4 depletion model was used to estimate the time from HIV infection to diagnosis. RESULTS: During 2018, the median time from HIV infection to diagnosis was shortest for those infections diagnosed using the rapid testing algorithm (30.3 days, 95% CI=25.5, 34.5) than those diagnosed using the recommended (41.0 days, 95% CI=39.5, 42.0), traditional (37.0 days, 95% CI=29.5, 43.5), or other (35.5 days, 95% CI=32.5, 38.0) diagnostic testing algorithms. From 2014 to 2018, the time from HIV infection to diagnosis remained stable overall for all testing methods except for the traditional diagnostic testing algorithm. In multivariate analyses, those more likely to have HIV diagnosed closer to the time of infection were younger, were White, had transmission risk factors of injection drug use or heterosexual contact (for female individuals) or male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use, or had HIV diagnosed at a correctional or screening facility (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Providing access to expanded testing, including rapid testing in nonclinical settings, is likely to result in a decrease in the length of time a person is unaware of their HIV infection and thus reduce onward transmission of HIV infection.

Since 2014, the recommended laboratory testing algorithm for diagnosing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection has included a supplemental HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation test to confirm infection type on the basis of the presence of type-specific antibodies (1). Correctly identifying HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections is vital because their epidemiology and clinical management differ. To describe the percentage of diagnoses for which an HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation test result was reported and to categorize HIV type based on laboratory test results, 2010-2017 data from CDC's National HIV Surveillance System (NHSS) were analyzed. During 2010-2017, a substantial increase in the number of HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation test results were reported to NHSS, consistent with implementation of the HIV laboratory-based testing algorithm recommended in 2014. However, >99.9% of all HIV infections identified in the United States were categorized as HIV-1, and the number of HIV-2 diagnoses (mono-infection or dual-infection) remained extremely low (<0.03% of all HIV infections). In addition, the overall number of false positive HIV-2 test results produced by the HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation increased. The diagnostic value of a confirmatory antibody differentiation test in a setting with sensitive and specific screening tests and few HIV-2 infections might be limited. Evaluation and consideration of other HIV tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that might increase efficiencies in the CDC and Association of Public Health Laboratories-recommended HIV testing algorithm are warranted.

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.

BACKGROUND: In 2014 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) issued updated laboratory testing recommendations for the diagnosis of HIV infection. OBJECTIVES: To examine trends in the use of HIV diagnostic testing algorithms, and determine whether the use of different algorithms is associated with selected patient characteristics and linkage to HIV medical care. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of HIV infection diagnoses during 2011-2015 reported to the National HIV Surveillance System through December 2016. Algorithm classification: traditional=initial HIV antibody immunoassay followed by a Western blot or immunofluorescence antibody test; recommended=initial HIV antibody IA followed by HIV-1/2 type-differentiating antibody test; rapid=two CLIA-waived rapid tests on same date. RESULTS: During 2011-2015, the percentage of HIV diagnoses made using the traditional algorithm decreased from 84% to 16%, the percentage using the recommended algorithm increased from 0.1% to 64%, and the percentage using the rapid testing algorithm increased from 0.1% to 2%. The percentage of persons linked to care within 30days after HIV diagnosis in 2015 was higher for diagnoses using the recommended algorithm (59%) than for diagnoses using the traditional algorithm (55%) (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: During 2011-2015, the percentage of HIV diagnoses reported using the recommended and rapid testing algorithms increased while the use of the traditional algorithm decreased. In 2015, persons with HIV diagnosed using the recommended algorithm were more promptly linked to care than those with diagnosis using the traditional algorithm.

INTRODUCTION: Thailand conducted a national laboratory assessment of core capacities related to the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005), and thereby established a baseline to measure future progress. The assessment was limited to public laboratories found within the Thai Bureau of Quality and Safety of Food, National Institute of Health and regional medical science centres. METHODS: The World Health Organization (WHO) laboratory assessment tool was adapted to Thailand through a participatory approach. This adapted version employed a specific scoring matrix and comprised 16 modules with a quantitative output. Two teams jointly performed the on-site assessments in December 2010 over a two-week period, in 17 public health laboratories in Thailand. The assessment focused on the capacity to identify and accurately detect pathogens mentioned in Annex 2 of the IHR (2005) in a timely manner, as well as other public health priority pathogens for Thailand. RESULTS: Performance of quality management, budget and finance, data management and communications was considered strong (>90%); premises quality, specimen collection, biosafety, public health functions, supplies management and equipment availability were judged as very good (>70% but ≤90%); while microbiological capacity, staffing, training and supervision, and information technology needed improvement (>60% but ≤70%). CONCLUSIONS: This assessment is a major step in Thailand towards development of an optimized and standardized national laboratory network for the detection and reporting of infectious disease that would be compliant with IHR (2005). The participatory strategy employed to adapt an international tool to the Thai context can also serve as a model for use by other countries in the Region. The participatory approach probably ensured better quality and ownership of the results, while providing critical information to help decision-makers determine where best to invest finite resources.