Q J Med 2001; 94: 379-390
© 2001 Association of Physicians
Recently diagnosed sexually HIV-infected patients: seroconversion interval, partner notification period and a high yield of HIV diagnoses among partners
European Partner Notification Study Group,*Received 7 March 2001 and in revised form 10 May 2001
We collected data on the outcome of partner notification (PN) for 356 index patients (iPs) newly diagnosed with HIV, all sexually infected, in six European countries, 1995–96. The PN period (the period during which exposed partners should be notified about their risk of being HIV infected) could be defined on the basis of last negative HIV test in 170/356 (48%), from other key dates for 12, and for 14 more on the sole basis of known HIV exposure (total 196/356, 55%). However, of the 170 iPs with a last negative HIV test date, PN period was not defined in 52 (31%), even though 28/52 were recent seroconverters (negative HIV test within 24 months of HIV diagnosis). Discrepancies in PN period evaluation were common: of the 85 iPs for whom PN period was reportedly defined as ‘3 months before last HIV-negative date’, the period actually used was equal to this in only 12. A user-friendly worksheet would simplify the task of eliciting and using key dates to define the PN period. Forms on PN outcome were received for 166/200 (83%) reported current partners, but only 124/508 (24%) ex-partners. Fifty-two of 290 (18%) notified partners already knew they were HIV-positive, and 38/130 (29%) notified partners for whom pre-PN status was negative or unknown were HIV-positive on post-PN testing. Results of HIV tests (if any) after PN were unknown for 37/133 (28%) current partners not already known to be HIV-positive, and for 71/105 (68%) ex-partners—a doubling of the information loss rate. Notification of 133 current and 105 ex-partners not previously identified as HIV-positive thus produced 28 (21%) and 10 (10%) new HIV diagnoses, respectively. The total yield of HIV diagnoses was 38/100 (38%) partners of recent seroconverters (22 already known plus 16 PN-diagnosed), compared with 52/190 (27%) partners of other iPs (30 already known plus 22 PN-diagnosed). We propose prioritization for PN of partners of recent seroconverters, augmented surveillance for HIV diagnoses and recurrence in PN networks of at-risk, non-notified partners, and new measures that preserve anonymity to alert potential and past sexual contacts of HIV-diagnosed individuals who are unable or unwilling to assist in PN.
Address correspondence to Dr S.M. Bird, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 2SR
*Members of the European Partner Notification Study Group are listed at the end of the paper.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. Coleman and M. Lohan Men Who Have Sex with Men and Partner Notification in Ireland: Beyond Binary Dualisms of Gender and Healthcare Current Sociology, March 1, 2009; 57(2): 211 - 230. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. C Harry and M. Sillis Outcome of partner notification of HIV infection in a provincial clinic in East Anglia, UK Int J STD AIDS, January 1, 2008; 19(1): 53 - 54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|