An ongoing dialogue on HIV/AIDS, infectious diseases,
October 31st, 2009
Would Changing Restrictive HIV Testing Laws Improve Survival?
Emphatically yes — to the tune of >600,000* years of life gained nationwide. So says a nifty paper being presented at the annual IDSA meeting today by Mike April, under the direction of Rochelle Walensky.
(*Original abstract said 549,437, cited in the link; number at the actual presentation, though, was 609,656.)
Bottom line is that laws that limit HIV testing (such as requiring written consent, ahem) lead to later diagnoses, and hence shorter projected life span for those with HIV. As always with such models, one could quibble with certain assumptions, but the results remain robust through a wide range of sensitivity analyses.
In fact, the only way that switching to an opt-out testing policy could fail to improve survival is if opt-out discouraged a large group of people from getting tested at all — for which there’s not the slightest bit of evidence whatsoever.
Are you listening Massachusetts? I think you are .
Paul E. Sax, MD
Contributing Editor
NEJM Journal Watch
Infectious Diseases
Biography | Disclosures | Summaries
Learn more about HIV and ID Observations.
NEJM Journal Watch — Recent Infectious Disease Articles- HIV Prevention and Treatment: Updated Recommendations from the International AIDS Society–USA
- Observations from ID and Beyond: Dr. Thomas O'Brien — Expert in Antimicrobial Resistance and Giant in His Field (Literally)
- How Serious Is Artemisinin Partial Resistance in African Malaria Parasites?
- Observations from ID and Beyond: Who's Going to Get Lenacapavir for HIV Prevention?
- Can We Shorten the Duration of Antibiotic Treatment for Bacteremia?