This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Finger-stick and oral rapid HIV testing accepted by patients in ED
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Finger-stick rapid HIV testing acceptability did not differ from the acceptability of oral rapid HIV testing among patients who were routinely offered HIV testing in an urban hospital ED, according to data from a recent study.
“Among patients who were interested in having a rapid HIV test at the outset, we found no difference in patients’ willingness to be tested when comparing finger-stick vs. oral sampling,” Laurel Donnell-Fink, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told Infectious Disease News.
Laurel Donnell-Fink
“We recommend finger-stick testing in a clinical setting given the slightly better accuracy of the finger-stick test in areas where HIV infection rates are low. However, rapid oral testing is a valuable backup for patients who decline finger-stick testing or for settings where high-volume finger-stick testing might be less feasible.”
The Universal Screening for HIV-infection in the Emergency Room (USHER-Phase II) randomized controlled trial was conducted from May 5, 2009, to Jan. 4, 2010. Patients presenting to the ED were offered the opportunity for rapid HIV screening. Patients who were enrolled were randomly assigned to a finger-stick whole-blood or oral fluid specimen collection.
The trial included 1,651 patients who agreed to enroll in the trial: 830 were randomly assigned to the finger-stick arm and 821 were randomly assigned to the oral fluid arm. Demographic factors were similar between the arms: mean age was 33 years; 65% were female; 24% were white; 24% were black; and 38% Hispanic.
Compared with a test acceptance rate of 67% in the finger-stick arm, the rate was 69% in the oral fluid arm. Researchers observed no differences in test acceptance by race, gender or education. In the finger-stick arm, 66% of the HIV tests were completed vs. 69% of the tests in the oral fluid arm. In both arms, more than 99% of those who accepted an HIV test received the test.
“Health care professionals who are contemplating the use of rapid HIV testing in their clinics are now armed with additional data enabling a more informed decision about which rapid test to use — oral or finger stick — and the news is good,” Donnell-Fink said. “Our study showed that patients are equally likely to accept either test, regardless of their race, gender or level of education. Clinicians can therefore focus on other important factors in a testing program, such as ease of staff use and laboratory requirements and capacity, when making this important implementation decision.”
References:
Donnell-Fink L. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012;doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e31826a6d67.
Disclosure:
The researchers report no relevant financial disclosures.