Search

Routine screening for psychological and cognitive difficulties is recommended in BHIVA guidelines but screening questions are not specified and studies give varied recommendations. Our aim was to see if simple screening in the routine clinic could help better direct our referrals to psychology and highlight those patients requiring, and likely to benefit from, further assessment. We introduced brief questions to assess neurocognitive impairment (NCI) and mood into routine HIV visits, with an onward referral pathway for further investigation for those screening positive. Routine attendees to HIV outpatient care over 12 weeks completed brief screening for depression (PHQ-2) and anxiety (GAD-2) and answered three short questions to screen for possible neurocognitive impairment (NCI-3Q). Patients screening positive underwent further screening via our psychologists and/or referral for neuropsychometric testing. Patient demographics, HIV markers and treatment history were recorded. 97 HIV outpatients were screened; 44 (45%) initially screened positive for NCI and/or mood. 29/44 (66%) were referred for further screening and/or psychological assessment and 21/29 (72%) of those engaged. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and International HIV Dementia Scale (IHDS) were conducted on seven patients; four of these received full neuropsychometric testing. A detectable viral load was associated with positive neurocognitive screening. Rates of NCI and mood disorder among those who were tested were consistent with previous studies. The PHQ-2 and GAD-2 did detect mood problems; however, our results suggest the NCI-3Q questions alone are not good at detecting those with possible NCI. Screening for NCI remains practically difficult in the routine outpatient setting and this pilot supports the need for clearer guidelines on detecting HIV related NCI.

With increasingly successful management of HIV, focus has shifted away from AIDS-related complications to other chronic co-morbidities. For HIV-related cognitive problems, the true aetiopathogenesis and epidemiology remains unclear. Rather than a systematic review, this paper presents the challenges and the opportunities we faced in establishing our own clinical service. Papers were identified using Pubmed and the terms "screening", "HIV" and "neurocognitive". This article covers the background of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) with a focus on HIV-related neurocognitive impairment (NCI), detailing classification, prevalence, diagnostic categories and diagnostic uncertainties. Screening is discussed, including a comparison of the available screening tools for cognitive deficits in HIV-infected patients and the importance of practice effects. Discussed also are the normal ranges and the lack thereof and potential investigations for those found to have impairments. We conclude by discussing the role of NCI screening in routine clinical care at the current time.

Despite ever improving advances in antiretroviral therapy, neurocognitive impairments such as asymptomatic and mild neurocognitive impairment remain a significant problem for the HIV-positive population. We distributed a post-neurocognitive impairment screening service evaluation questionnaire to assess satisfaction and anxiety. Subjects were HIV positive and aged 18-50. They were screened using the Brief Neurocognitive Score and International HIV Dementia Score as well as undergoing screening for anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment [GAD-7]), depression (Participant Health Questionnaire Mood Scale [PHQ-9]) and memory (Everyday Memory Questionnaire [EMQ-R]). On completion, they were either reassured that the tests were normal or were referred for further investigation. Following assessment, subjects were asked to complete an anonymous satisfaction survey; 101 surveys were analysed. Forty-nine per cent of participants stated that they "felt better" following screening, 43% said it "made no difference", 6% stated it "worried me" and 1% "did not understand". On a scale of 0-10 of helpfulness, the mean score was 7.53. Forty-seven subjects indicated that they were referred for further investigation and 46 subjects that nothing else was needed; 8 reported they did not know. Those referred on rated satisfaction at a mean of 7.54/10 and those with normal screen as 7.09/10 (p = 0.46). Of the groups that were referred for further investigation, 6% said the test "worried them" compared to 4% in the non-referred group. Forty-nine per cent said they "felt better" despite an abnormal result compared to 50% in a normal screening result (p = 0.76). The results of this survey show that screening for neurocognitive impairment by this method is acceptable and helpful to participants. It did not lead to an increase in anxiety and there was no correlation between referred for further investigations and anxiety suggesting concerns about creating undue anxiety by screening and referral are unfounded.