Selective versus universal antenatal HIV testing: epidemiological and implementational factors in policy choice.

Important note: Information in this article was accurate in 1999. The state of the art may have changed since the publication date.

Selective versus universal antenatal HIV testing: epidemiological and implementational factors in policy choice.

AIDS. 1999 Feb 4;13(2):271-8. Unique Identifier : AIDSLINE MED/99217484
Ades AE; Gupta R; Gibb DM; Duong T; Nicoll A; Goldberg D; Stephenson J; Copas A; Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Institute of Child; Health, London, UK.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To develop an epidemiological basis for economic analyses of selective and universal antenatal screening strategies, and to apply it to the UK. METHODS: The prevalence of higher-risk women and the prevalence of undiagnosed infection within groups of high-risk and low-risk women was estimated from surveillance and survey data. The numbers of women tested and the numbers of infected women who would be identified by universal and selective strategies were then calculated under a range of assumptions about the identification of higher-risk women and acceptance of testing. RESULTS: In higher-risk women estimated prevalence of undiagnosed infection was between 0.06% and 2.8%, comparing well with independent estimates. In low-risk women, estimates ranged from 0.014% in London to 0.002% in the rest of the UK. If uptake among the high-risk women was the same in selective and universal strategies, universal testing would entail testing between 7100 (London) and 50000 (rest of England) additional women to detect an additional case. However, if selective screening identified only 60% of those at high risk and achieved only 60% acceptance compared with a universal programme, then universal screening would require only 1150 additional women to identify one additional case in London, compared to 6470 in Scotland and 13140 in the rest of the UK. CONCLUSIONS: Overall prevalence does not form an adequate basis for determining screening strategy. Instead, universal screening can be justified either because the prevalence of HIV in the low-risk group is sufficiently high, or because it achieves sufficiently higher uptake relative to selective screening among those at higher risk.

Keywords: JOURNAL ARTICLE Female *Health Policy Human HIV Infections/*DIAGNOSIS/EPIDEMIOLOGY Prevalence Risk Factors Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
990830
A9981004

AEGiS is a 501(c)3, not-for-profit, tax-exempt, educational corporation. AEGiS is made possible through unrestricted funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bridgestone/Firestone Charitable Trust, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Elton John AIDS Foundation, Gill Foundation, the National Library of Medicine, Quest Diagnostics, Roche and Trimeris, and donations from users like you. Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 1999. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 1999. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .