Dataset Information

Diagnosis delays in the UK according to pre- or post-migration acquisition of HIV

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate whether infection occurred pre- or post-migration and the associated diagnosis delay in migrants diagnosed with HIV in the UK.

Design

We analysed a cohort of individuals diagnosed with HIV in the UK in 2014-2016 born in Africa or elsewhere in Europe. Inclusion criteria were arrival within 15 years before diagnosis, availability of HIV pol sequence and viral subtype shared by at least 10 individuals.

Methods

We examined phylogenies for evidence of infection after entry into the UK and incorporated this information into a Bayesian analysis of timing of infection using biomarkers of CD4+ cell count, avidity assays, proportion of ambiguous nucleotides in viral sequences and last negative test dates where available.

Results

1256 individuals were included. The final model indicated that HIV was acquired post-migration for most men who have sex with men (MSM) born in Europe (posterior expectation 65%, 95% credibility interval 64%-67%) or Africa (65%, 62%-69%), whereas a minority (20%-30%) of men and women with heterosexual transmission acquired HIV post-migration. Estimated diagnosis delays were lower for MSM than for those with heterosexual transmission, and were lower for those with post-migration infection across all subgroups. For MSM acquiring HIV post-migration the estimated mean time to diagnosis was <1 year, but for those who acquired HIV pre-migration the mean time from infection to diagnosis was >5 years for all subgroups.

Conclusions

Acquisition of HIV post-migration is common, particularly among MSM calling for prevention efforts aimed at migrant communities. Delays in diagnosis reinforce the need for targeted testing initiatives.

SUBMITTER: Stirrup O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7612284 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:UK and European guidelines recommend HIV testing in general practice. We report on the implementation of the Rapid HIV Assessment trial (RHIVA2) promoting HIV screening in general practice into routine care. Methods:Interrupted time-series, difference-in-difference analysis and Pearson-correlation on three cohorts comprising 42 general practices in City & Hackney (London, UK); covering three periods: pre-trial (2009-2010), trial (2010-2012) and implementation (2012-2014). Cohorts comprised practices receiving: "trial intervention" only (n = 19), "implementation intervention" only (n = 13); and neither ("comparator") (n = 10). Primary outcomes were HIV testing and diagnosis rates per 1000 people and CD4 at diagnosis. Findings:Overall, 55,443 people were tested (including 38,326 among these cohorts), and 101 people were newly diagnosed HIV positive (including 65 among these cohorts) including 74 (73%) heterosexuals and 69 (68%) people of black African/Caribbean background; with mean CD4 count at diagnosis 357 (SD=237). Among implementation intervention practices, testing rate increased by 85% (from 1·798 (95%CI=(1·657,1·938) at baseline to 3·081 (95%CI=(2·865,3·306); p = 0·0000), diagnosis rate increased by 34% (from 0·0026 (95%CI=(0·0004,0·0037)) to 0·0035 (95%CI=(0·0007,0·0062); p = 0·736), and mean CD4 count at diagnosis increased by 55% (from 273 (SD=372) to 425 (SD=274) cells per ?L; p = 0·433). Implementation intervention and trial intervention practices achieved similar testing rates (3·764 vs. 3·081; 6% difference; 95% CI=(-5%,18%); p = 0·358), diagnosis rates (0·0035 vs. 0·0081; -13% difference; 95%CI=(-77%,244%; p = 0·837), and mean CD4 count (425 (SD=274) vs. 351 (SD=257); 69% increase; 95% CI=(-61%,249%); p = 0·359). HIV testing was positively correlated with diagnosis (r = 0·114 (95% CI=[0·074,0·163])), and diagnosis with CD4 count at diagnosis (r = 0·011 (95% CI=[-0·177,0·218])). Interpretation:Implementation of the RHIVA programme promoting nurse-led HIV screening into routine practice in inner-city practices with high HIV prevalence increased HIV testing, and may be associated with increased and earlier diagnosis. HIV screening in primary care should be considered a key strategy to reduce undiagnosed infection particularly among high risk persons not attending sexual health services. Funding:National Institute for Health Research ARC North Thames, and Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry.

Project description:BackgroundSince a national lockdown was introduced across the UK in March, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer screening has been suspended, routine diagnostic work deferred, and only urgent symptomatic cases prioritised for diagnostic intervention. In this study, we estimated the impact of delays in diagnosis on cancer survival outcomes in four major tumour types.MethodsIn this national population-based modelling study, we used linked English National Health Service (NHS) cancer registration and hospital administrative datasets for patients aged 15-84 years, diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and oesophageal cancer between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2010, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2014, and diagnosed with lung cancer between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2012, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2015. We use a routes-to-diagnosis framework to estimate the impact of diagnostic delays over a 12-month period from the commencement of physical distancing measures, on March 16, 2020, up to 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis. To model the subsequent impact of diagnostic delays on survival, we reallocated patients who were on screening and routine referral pathways to urgent and emergency pathways that are associated with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis. We considered three reallocation scenarios representing the best to worst case scenarios and reflect actual changes in the diagnostic pathway being seen in the NHS, as of March 16, 2020, and estimated the impact on net survival at 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis to calculate the additional deaths that can be attributed to cancer, and the total years of life lost (YLLs) compared with pre-pandemic data.FindingsWe collected data for 32 583 patients with breast cancer, 24 975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with oesophageal cancer, and 29 305 with lung cancer. Across the three different scenarios, compared with pre-pandemic figures, we estimate a 7·9-9·6% increase in the number of deaths due to breast cancer up to year 5 after diagnosis, corresponding to between 281 (95% CI 266-295) and 344 (329-358) additional deaths. For colorectal cancer, we estimate 1445 (1392-1591) to 1563 (1534-1592) additional deaths, a 15·3-16·6% increase; for lung cancer, 1235 (1220-1254) to 1372 (1343-1401) additional deaths, a 4·8-5·3% increase; and for oesophageal cancer, 330 (324-335) to 342 (336-348) additional deaths, 5·8-6·0% increase up to 5 years after diagnosis. For these four tumour types, these data correspond with 3291-3621 additional deaths across the scenarios within 5 years. The total additional YLLs across these cancers is estimated to be 59 204-63 229 years.InterpretationSubstantial increases in the number of avoidable cancer deaths in England are to be expected as a result of diagnostic delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Urgent policy interventions are necessary, particularly the need to manage the backlog within routine diagnostic services to mitigate the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer.FundingUK Research and Innovation Economic and Social Research Council.