Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 13, 2025
Pairwise Growth Competition Assay for Determining the Replication Fitness of Human Immunodeficiency Viruses
Published on: May 4, 2015
Unique Needs for the Implementation of Emergency Department Human Immunodeficiency Virus Screening in Adolescents
Colleen K Gutman1,2, Elizabeth Duda1, Naomi Newton1
1From the, Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Background:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend universal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening starting at 13 years, which has been implemented in many general U.S. emergency departments (EDs) but infrequently in pediatric EDs. We aimed to 1) implement a pilot of routine adolescent HIV screening in a pediatric ED and 2) determine the unique barriers to CDC-recommended screening in this region of high HIV prevalence.
Methods:
This was a prospective 4-month implementation of a routine HIV screening pilot in a convenience sample of adolescents 13 to 18 years at a single pediatric ED, based on study personnel availability. Serum-based fourth-generation HIV testing was run through a central laboratory. Parents were allowed to remain in the room for HIV counseling and testing. Data were collected regarding patient characteristics and HIV testing quality metrics. Comparisons were made using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Regression analysis was performed to assess for an association between parent presence at the time of enrollment and adolescent decision to participate in HIV screening.
Results:
Over 4 months, 344 of 806 adolescents approached consented to HIV screening (57% female, mean ± SD = 15.1 ± 1.6 years). Adolescents with HIV screening were more likely to be older than those who declined (p = 0.025). Other blood tests were collected with the HIV sample for 21% of adolescents; mean time to result was 105 minutes (interquartile range = 69 to 123) and 79% were discharged before the result was available. Having a parent present for enrollment was not associated with adolescent participation (adjusted odds ratio = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.70). Barriers to testing included: fear of needlestick, time to results, cost, and staff availability. One of 344 tests was positive in a young adolescent with Stage 1 HIV.
Conclusions:
Routine HIV screening in adolescents was able to be implemented in this pediatric ED and led to the identification of early infection in a young adolescent who would have otherwise been undetected at this stage of disease. Addressing the unique barriers to adolescent HIV screening is critical in high-prevalence regions and may lead to earlier diagnosis and treatment in this vulnerable population.
