• Lancet · Sep 2022

    Meta Analysis

    The clinical effect of point-of-care HIV diagnosis in infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    • Robert Luo, Youyi Fong, Debi Boeras, Ilesh Jani, and Lara Vojnov.
    • Global Health Impact Group, Atlanta, GA, USA.
    • Lancet. 2022 Sep 17; 400 (10356): 887-895.

    BackgroundTimely diagnosis and treatment of HIV is crucial in HIV-exposed infants to prevent the high rates of mortality seen during the first 2 years of life if HIV is untreated. However, challenges with sample transportation, testing, and result delivery to caregivers have led to long delays in treatment initiation. We aimed to compare the clinical effect of point-of-care HIV testing versus laboratory-based testing (standard of care) in HIV-exposed infants.MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and WHO Global Index Medicus, from Jan 1, 2014, to Aug 31, 2020. Studies were included if they pertained to the use of point-of-care nucleic acid testing for infant HIV diagnosis, had a laboratory-based nucleic acid test as the comparator or standard of care against the index test (same-day point-of-care testing), evaluated clinical outcomes when point-of-care testing was used, and included HIV-exposed infants aged younger than 2 years. Studies were excluded if they did not use a laboratory-based comparator, a nucleic acid test that had been approved by a stringent regulatory authority, or diagnostic-accuracy or performance evaluations (eg, no clinical outcomes included). Reviews, non-research letters, commentaries, and editorials were also excluded. The risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBINS-I framework. Data were extracted from published reports. Data from all studies were analysed using frequency statistics to describe the overall populations evaluated and their results. Key outcomes were time to result delivery and antiretroviral therapy initiation, and proportion of HIV-positive infants initiated on antiretroviral therapy within 60 days after sample collection.Findings164 studies were identified by the search and seven were included in the analysis, comprising 37 377 infants in total across 15 countries, including 25 170 (67%) who had point-of-care HIV testing and 12 207 (33%) who had standard-of-care testing. The certainty of evidence was high. Same-day point-of-care testing led to a significantly shorter time between sample collection and result delivery to caregivers compared with standard-of-care testing (median 0 days [95% CI 0-0] vs 35 days [35-37]). Time from sample collection to antiretroviral therapy initiation in infants found to be HIV-positive was significantly lower with point-of-care testing compared with standard of care (median 0 days [95% CI 0-1] vs 40 days [36-44]). When each study's result was weighted equally, 90·3% (95% CI 76·7-96·5) of HIV-positive infants diagnosed using point-of-care testing had started antiretroviral therapy within 60 days of sample collection, compared with only 51·6% (27·1-75·7) who had standard-of-care testing (odds ratio 8·74 [95% CI 6·6-11·6]; p<0·0001).InterpretationOverall, the certainty of the evidence in this analysis was rated as high for the primary outcomes related to result delivery and treatment initiation, with no serious risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, or imprecision. In HIV-exposed infants, same-day point-of-care HIV testing was associated with significantly improved time to result delivery, time to antiretroviral therapy initiation, and proportion of HIV-positive infants starting antiretroviral therapy within 60 days compared with standard of care.FundingThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.Copyright © 2022 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.