Search

Through sequential cross-sectional surveys, we examined intent to use home HIV test collection kits, actual use and barriers to use among persons at high risk for HIV infection. Interest in kits was assessed in the 1995-96 HIV Testing Survey (HITS, n=1683). Kit use, knowledge of kits and barriers to use were assessed in the 1998-99 HITS (n=1788), after kits had become widely available. When asked to choose among future testing options, 19% of 1995-96 participants intended to use kits. Untested participants were more likely than previously tested HIV-negative participants to choose kits for their next HIV test (p < 0.001). Among 1998-99 participants, only 24 (1%) had used kits; 46% had never heard of kits. Predictors of not knowing about kits included never having been HIV tested and black or Latino race. Common reasons for not using kits among participants aware of home test kits were concerns about accuracy, lack of in-person counselling and cost. Despite high rates of anticipated use, kits have had minimal impact on the testing behaviour of persons at high risk for HIV infection. Increasing awareness of kits, reducing price and addressing concerns about kit testing procedures may increase kit use, leading to more HIV testing by at-risk individuals.

Objective: Name-based HIV reporting is controversial in the United States because of concerns that it may deter high-risk persons from being tested. We sought to determine whether persons at risk of HIV infection knew their state's HIV reporting policy and whether they had delayed or avoided testing because of it., Design: A cross-sectional anonymous survey., Methods: We interviewed 2404 participants in one of three high-risk groups: men who have sex with men (MSM), heterosexuals attending a sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic, and street-recruited injection drug users (IDU). Participants were asked standardized questions about their knowledge of reporting policies and reasons for having delayed or avoided testing. We recruited in eight US states: four with name-based reporting and four without; all offered anonymous testing at certain sites., Results: Fewer than 25% correctly identified their state's HIV reporting policy. Over 50% stated they did not know whether their state used name-based reporting. Of the total, 480 participants (20%) had never been tested. Of these, 17% from states with name-based reporting selected concern about reporting as a reason for not testing compared with 14% from states without name-based reporting (P = 0.5). Comparing previously tested participants from states with name-based reporting to those from states without, concern about HIV reporting was given as a reason for delaying testing by 26% compared with 13% of IDU (P < 0.001), and for 26% compared with 19% of MSM (P = 0.06)., Conclusion: Most participants did not know their state's HIV reporting policy. Name-based reporting policies were not associated with avoiding HIV testing because of worry about reporting, although they may have contributed to delays in testing among some IDU.

Name-based surveillance of HIV infection is the law in 31 U.S. states but remains controversial. This policy can be advocated solely to support surveillance of the epidemic, but a frequent argument is that it also provides a public health benefit by allowing follow-up of HIV-infected persons. These persons can then receive timely medical care and can be assisted with notifying sex and needle-sharing partners. Few comparative data are available to evaluate the outcomes of these interventions. In five states with name-based surveillance of HIV infection, the Multistate Evaluation of Surveillance for HIV Study Group surveyed a cross-sectional probability sample of persons with AIDS who tested positive for HIV before the date of their AIDS diagnosis. Health department follow-up of a reported HIV infection was not associated with more timely receipt of medical care after a positive HIV test result. Only 8.6% of persons who delayed medical care after their first positive HIV test result gave concern about being reported by name as a reason; no person gave it as the main reason. Persons who were tested anonymously and those who were tested confidentially did not differ in the mean number of sex and needle-sharing partners notified: Those tested anonymously reported personally notifying 3.85 sex and needle-sharing partners, and those tested confidentially reported notifying-personally and through the health department-3.80 partners. Many researchers and policymakers believe that name-based surveillance of HIV infection will have positive or negative effects on partner notification and access to health care. These results suggest that the potential for such effects has been exaggerated.

We examined use of the San Francisco needle exchange program (NEP) by 1093 injection drug users (IDUs) recruited in methadone maintenance and out-patient detoxification programs in the first 2 years after the opening of the NEP in 1988. Thirty-one percent of IDUs had ever used the NEP. IDUs who were frequent injectors, homeless, and aware of their serostatus were more likely to use the NEP. To assess self-selection of IDUs at risk for seroconversion for using needle exchange, we calculated pre-needle exchange seroconversion rates. Among 385 IDUs seen twice, the HIV seroconversion rate was 0.38% per person year among subjects who never used needle exchange, but it was 9.34% per person year among those who later used needle exchange (p = 0.003). NEP attracted a subset of IDUs at very high risk for HIV infection. Among injectors who were interviewed before and after the opening of the needle exchanges in San Francisco, the number of sharing partners did not change among IDUs who attended or among IDUs who never attended the NEP. The NEP attracted a very-high-risk subgroup of IDUs, as measured by risk behavior and pre-needle exchange HIV-seroconversion rate. NEPs should be considered prime sites for behavior-change interventions.

The goals of this study were to compare the prevalence of oral lesions in women infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and HIV-negative women, and to determine the association of oral lesions with route of HIV transmission and with level of immunosuppression in infected women. As part of a prospective 4-year study, oral examinations and blood tests were performed, at 6-month intervals, on 176 HIV-infected women and on 117 HIV-negative women at risk for HIV infection. We evaluated participants for the following oral conditions: hairy leukoplakia, candidiasis, ulcers, warts, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, and parotid enlargement. As previously reported in men, the prevalence of oral lesions was significantly higher among HIV-infected (22%) than HIV-negative women (3%) [odds ratio (OR) = 8.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8, 23.5], particularly candidiasis (14%) and hairy leukoplakia (10%). Among HIV-infected women with CD4 cell count nadir > or = 200 cells/microliters, the prevalence of hairy leukoplakia was higher among those infected heterosexually than among injection drug users (OR = 5.5; 95% CI: 1.5; 19). The OR for the association between oral lesions and CD4 cell count nadir (< 200 vs. > 500 cells/microliters) was 8.9 (95% CI: 2.6, 30), indicating a strong positive association with level of immunosuppression.

Objectives: To determine differences in CD4+ and CD8+ lymphocyte values, beta 2-microglobulin (beta 2M), and HIV p24 antigenemia by sex and race among HIV-seropositive and HIV-seronegative injecting drug users (IDU), and to compare these values with those in homosexual men of equivalent status., Design: Baseline values from a cohort of 206 HIV-seropositive and 173 HIV-seronegative IDU were compared with values from a cohort of 288 HIV-seropositive homosexual men and 176 HIV-seronegative controls, who were prospectively followed at 6-month intervals, to examine differences in laboratory values in HIV-infected individuals by sex, race, and risk group., Methods: Among HIV-seropositives, we compared white and black IDU only (n = 167), and white male IDU (n = 38) with white homosexual men (n = 256). Laboratory values from the cohort of homosexual men at 24, 36 and 48 months of follow-up were compared with IDU values., Results: HIV-infected female IDU had significantly higher CD4+ lymphocyte counts (P < 0.03) and percentages of CD4+ lymphocytes (P < 0.004) than male IDU, resulting in higher CD4:CD8 ratios (P < 0.002). White IDU had significantly higher serum beta 2M levels than black IDU (P < 0.02). Black female IDU were much less likely to be HIV p24-antigenemic (1%) than all other groups (P < 0.005). Compared with homosexual men, male IDU had significantly elevated beta 2M levels (0.58 mg/l higher). When controlled for CD4+ lymphocyte values as a surrogate for length of time HIV-infected, beta 2M and HIV p24 antigenemia differences persisted., Conclusions: These differences should be considered when HIV p24 antigen, CD4+ lymphocyte counts and beta 2M levels are used as surrogate markers in clinical trials and management of HIV disease.

The relationship between crack use, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, and risk behavior among 1281 intravenous drug users in treatment is analyzed. Of these patients, 23% reported crack use, and blacks and women were more likely to use crack. Of crack users 19% were HIV positive, in comparison to 8% of non-users (OR = 2.9, P = 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, the association was no longer significant (OR = 1.4, P = 0.14). Independent behavioral predictors of HIV seropositivity were number of sexual partners, and intravenous cocaine use among blacks. Crack use was a marker for high-risk sexual and drug use behavior in the study population.