Since the height of HIV incidence in the mid-1980s, advances in treatment have delayed progression of HIV infection. As a result, surveillance of AIDS cases alone is no longer sufficient to monitor the current status of the HIV epidemic. At the national level, new HIV diagnoses and progression of these cases to AIDS are used to describe the epidemic. The capacity to monitor the national HIV epidemic has consistently improved over the last several years. An increasing number of states report diagnosed HIV cases to the national surveillance system, allowing data from this system to better represent the national picture. Monitoring the national HIV epidemic depends on a nationwide system using standardized methods of data collection, and establishing such a comprehensive system remains one of the highest priorities for national HIV case surveillance.
References
1.
ThackerSBBerkelmanRL. Public health surveillance in the United States. Epidemiol Rev1988;10:164–90.
2.
LangmuirAD. The surveillance of communicable diseases of national importance. N Engl J Med1963;268:182–92.
3.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US). CDC guidelines for national human immunodeficiency virus case surveillance, including monitoring for human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. MMWR Recomm Rep1999;48(RR-13):1–27.
4.
GostinLOWardJWBakerAC. National HIV case reporting for the United States—a defining moment in the history of the epidemic. N Engl J Med1997;337:1162–7.
5.
CDC (US). Current trends update on acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)—United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep1982;31(37):507–8, 513–4.
6.
Department of Health and Human Services Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents–A Working Group of the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1 infected adults and adolescents; 2005 [cited 2006 May 3]. Available from: URL: http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf.
7.
CDC (US). 1993 Revised classification system for HIV infection and expanded surveillance case definition for AIDS among adolescents and adults. MMWR Recomm Rep1992;41(RR-17).
8.
CDC (US). Current trends update: impact of the expanded AIDS surveillance case definition for adolescents and adults on case reporting—United States, 1993. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep1994;43(9):160–1, 167–70.
9.
HechtFMChesneyMALehmanJSOsmondDVranizanKColmanS. Does HIV reporting by name deter testing?AIDS2000;14:1801–8.
10.
NelsonH. Californian doctors now oppose HIV reporting. Lancet1996;347:756.
11.
MorinSF. Early detection of HIV: assessing the legislative context. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr2000;25(Suppl 2):S144–50.
12.
FairchildALColgroveJBayerR. The myth of exceptionalism: the history of venereal disease reporting in the twentieth century. J Law Med Ethics2003;31:624–37.
13.
Institute of Medicine. Measuring what matters—allocation, planning, and quality assessment for the Ryan White CARE Act. Washington: National Academies Press; 2004.
14.
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. CSTE position statement 1986–17: AIDS case reporting: reciprocal notification; 1986 [cited 2005 Sep 8]. Available from: URL: http://www.cste.org/ps/1986/1986-17.htm.
15.
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. CSTE position statement 01-ID-04: Reciprocal (Inter-state) notification of HIV cases; 2001 [cited 2005 Sep 8]. Available from: URL: http://www.cste.org/ps/2001/2001-id-04.htm.
16.
Health Resources Services Administration (US). Ryan White CARE Act Amendments: 2000 Compilation; 2000 [cited 2005 Aug 5]. Available from: URL: http://hab.hrsa.gov/law/compile.htm.
17.
GlynnMKRhodesP. Estimated HIV prevalence in the United States at the end of 2003 [Abstract T1-B1101]. Proceedings of the 2005 National HIV Prevention Conference; 2005 Jun 12–15; Atlanta, GA.
18.
CDC (US). Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), and other opportunistic infections (OI): cases reported to CDC as of July 8, 1982 [cited 2005 Aug 3]. Available from: URL: www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/surveillance82.pdf.
19.
CDC (US). Racial/ethnic disparities in diagnoses of HIV/AIDS—33 states, 2001–2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2006;55(5):121–5.
20.
CDC (US). Diagnosis and reporting of HIV and AIDS in states with integrated HIV and AIDS surveillance—United States, January 1994–June 1997. MMWR Morb Mortality Wkly Rep1998;47(15):309–14.
21.
LonginiIMClarkWSByersRHWardJWDarrowWWLempGF. Statistical analysis of the stages of HIV infection using a Markov model. Stat Med1989;8:831–43.
22.
HendriksJCSattenGALonginiIMvan DrutenHASchellekensPTCoutinhoRA. Use of immunological markers and continuous-time Markov models to estimate progression of HIV infection in homosexual men. AIDS1996;10:649–56.
23.
JanssenRGHoltgraveDRValdiserriROShepherdMGayleHDDe CockKM. The serostatus approach to fighting the HIV epidemic: prevention strategies for infected individuals. Am J Public Health2001;91:1019–24.
24.
LeeLMMcKennaMT. Monitoring the incidence of HIV infection in the United States. Public Health Rep2007;122(Suppl 1):72–9.
25.
McDavidKMcKennaMT. HIV/AIDS risk factor ascertainment: a critical challenge. AIDS Patient Care STDS2006;20:285–92.
26.
McDavidKKajeseT. For whom and when are HIV risk factors most likely not reported? [Abstract]. Proceedings of the 2005 National HIV Prevention Conference; 2005 Jun 12–15; Atlanta, GA.
27.
KaronJMRosenbergPSMcQuillanGKhareMGwinnMPetersenLR. Prevalence of HIV infection in the United States, 1984 to 1992. JAMA1996;276:126–31.
28.
McQuillanGKruszon-MoranDKottiriBJKamimotoLALamLCowartMF. Prevalence of HIV in the United States household population: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1988 to 2002. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr2006;41:651–6.
29.
MarschnerIC. Using time of first positive HIV test and other auxiliary data in back-projection of AIDS incidence. Stat Med1994;13:1959–74.
30.
CuiJBeckerNG. Estimating HIV incidence using dates of both HIV and AIDS diagnoses. Stat Med2000;19:1165–77.
31.
PosnerSJMyersLHassigSERiceJCKissingerPFarleyTA. Estimating HIV incidence and detection rates from surveillance data. Epidemiology2004;15:164–72.
32.
HallHILeeLMLiJSongRMcKennaM. Describing the HIV/AIDS epidemic: using HIV case data in addition to AIDS case reporting. Ann Epidemiol2005;15:5–12.
33.
LeeLMKaronJMSelikRNealJJFlemingPL. Survival after AIDS diagnosis in adolescents and adults during the treatment era, United States, 1984–1997. JAMA2001;285:1308–15.
34.
CDC (US). HIV/AIDS surveillance report: cases of HIV infection and AIDS in the United States, 2003. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report2003;15:1–46.
35.
HallHIMcDavidKLingQ. Trends in progression from an initial HIV diagnosis to AIDS, United States [Abstract 972]. 12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2005 Feb 22–25; Boston, MA.
36.
SosmanJMMacGowanRJMargolisADEldridgeEFlaniganTVardamanJ. Screening for sexually transmitted diseases and hepatitis in 18–29-year-old men recently released from prison: feasibility and acceptability. Int J STD AIDS2005;16:117–22.
37.
MetcalfCADouglasJMJr.MalotteCKCrossHDillonBAPaulSM. Relative efficacy of prevention counseling with rapid and standard HIV testing: a randomized, controlled trial (RESPECT-2). Sex Transm Dis2005;32:130–8.
38.
GordonCMForsythADStallRCheeverLW. Prevention interventions with persons living with HIV/AIDS: state of the science and future directions. AIDS Educ Prev2005;17(Suppl A):6–20.
39.
MolitorFKuennethCWaltermeyerJMendozaMAguirreABrockmannK. Linking HIV-infected persons of color and injection drug users to HIV medical and other services: the California Bridge Project. AIDS Patient Care STDS2005;19:406–12.
