Print

Print


Sorry folks, I've inadvertently sent you the wrong weblink to the 'Understanding Uncertainty' website.
The correct weblink is:
http://understandinguncertainty.org/node/239
Regards,
Ash
 

From: Ash Paul <[log in to unmask]>
To: Mohammad Zakaria Pezeshki <[log in to unmask]>; "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, 30 November 2012, 14:23
Subject: Re: My concerns about Mass Screening of people aged 15 to 65 years for HIV infection


Dear Mohammad,
 
A very good website to vist on the topic of HIV screening is the 'Understanding Uncertainty' website, produced by the Winton Programme for the Public Understanding of Risk based in the Statistical Laboratory in the University of Cambridge in England:
You can experiment with the interactive graphic, on the website, to see how altering the properties of the test and the prevalence of the disease affects the test.
 
According to the WHO, any screening programme (which is a population-based programme), needs to fulfill all the criteria of Wilson and Jungner
World Health Organization screening criteria
PRINCIPLES OF EARLY DISEASE DETECTION
Condition
The condition should be an important health problem
There should be a recognisable latent or early symptomatic stage
The natural history of the disease, from latent phase to declared disease, should be adequately
understood
Test
There should be a suitable test or examination
The test should be acceptable to the population
Treatment
There should be an accepted treatment for patients with recognised disease
Screening Programme
Facilities for diagnosis and treatment should be available
There should be an agreed policy on whom to treat as patients
The cost of casefinding (including diagnosis and treatment of patients diagnosed) should be
economically balanced in relation to possible expenditure on medical care as a whole
Casefinding should be a continuing process and not a ‘once for all’ activity
Source: Wilson and Jungner (1968).
Ref:
Wilson JMG, Jungner G. 1968. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. Geneva: World Health
Organization.
 
The United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) has published a Guide to Clinical Preventive Services (http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/pocketgd2012/) which provides recommendations for clinical practice on preventive interventions – screening tests, counselling interventions, immunisations and chemoprophlaxis regimes – for the prevention of more than 80 target conditions. The criteria for determining effectiveness of screening tests are outlined in the report. It stipulates that screening must satisfy two major requirements to be considered effective: the accuracy of the test and the effectiveness of early detection.
The recommendations reflect a standardised review of current scientific evidence and include a summary of published clinical research regarding the clinical effectiveness of each preventive service.
However, one needs to remember that the recommendations in the USPSTF report are influenced largely by only one factor – scientific evidence.
 
Regards,
 
Ash
 
 

From: Mohammad Zakaria Pezeshki <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, 29 November 2012, 16:02
Subject: My concerns about Mass Screening of people aged 15 to 65 years for HIV infection


Dear.Colleagues,

     I devote much time to train my students and residents about the VITAL importance of "proper estimation of Pretest Probability" before requesting any test for diagnosing or screening.  The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) strongly recommends that clinicians screen all people aged 15 to 65 years for HIV infection, according to a draft recommendation statement posted online November 20 (http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/draftrec.htm).  The USPSTF is offering the public an opportunity to comment on this draft recommendation until December 17 and will consider all public comments when writing its final recommendation.  I have learned from this very useful paper ( http://psi.sagepub.com/content/8/2/53.short ) how not considering the "pretest probability for having HIV infection" may result in the TRAGEDY of false positive.  I am pasting the following text from the paper that addresses this issue ( Please see Figure 8 in attached file.  In recent years I have talked with WHO experts about the False positive results of HIV testing when the pretest probability is very low) :

The Illusion of Certainty

Physicians need to inform patients that even the best tests are not perfect and that every test result therefore needs to be interpreted with care or the test needs to be repeated. Some test  results are more threatening than others and need to be handled particularly carefully. One terrifying example is a positive HIV test result. At a conference on AIDS held in 1987, former Senator Lawton Chiles of Florida reported that of 22 blood donors in  Florida who had been notified that they had tested positive withthe ELISA test, 7 committed suicide. A medical text that documented this tragedy years later informed the reader that ‘‘even if the results of both AIDS tests, the ELISA and WB [Western blot], are positive, the chances are only 50-50 that the individual is infected’’ (Stine, 1999, p. 367). This holds for people with low risk behavior, such as blood donors. Indeed, the test (consisting of one or two ELISA tests and a Western Blot test, performed on a  single blood sample) has an extremely high sensitivity of about
99.9% and specificity of about 99.99% (numbers vary, because various criteria have been used that maximize specificity at the expense of sensitivity, or vice versa). Nonetheless, due to a very  low base rate in the order of 1 in 10,000 among heterosexual men with low-risk behavior, the chance of infection can be as low as 50% when a man tests positive in screening. This striking result
becomes clearer after these percentages are translated into natural frequencies: Out of every 10,000 men, it is expected that one will be infected and will test positive with high probability; out of the other, non infected men, it is expected that one will also test positive (the complement to the specificity of 99.99%).  Thus, two test positive, and one of these is infected (Fig. 8).AIDS counselors need to properly inform everyone who takes the test.

Best regards, Mohammad

Mohammad Zakaria Pezeshki, M.D.
Associate Professor
Program for Estimation of Pretest Probability
Department of Community Medicine,
Tabriz Medical School, Golgasht Avenue, Tabriz, Iran,
Tel: 0098 411  336 46 73
Fax: 0098 411 336 46 68