Human Reproduction, Vol. 15, No. 8, 1657-1661,
August 2000
© 2000 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
The case for routine HIV screening before IVF treatment
A survey of UK IVF centre policies
1 Bourn Hall Clinic, Bourn, Cambridge, CB3 7TR, and 2 The Surgery, 281 Mill Road, Cambridge CB1 3DG UK
The case for routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening of all couples seeking assisted reproductive treatment is so strong that it should be made obligatory for all couples entering IVF programmes to be given information about HIV transmission, and offered testing. In August 1999, questionnaires regarding routine HIV screening of couples seeking IVF treatment were sent to the medical directors of the 74 licensed assisted conception units in the UK. Of the 45 (60.8%) centres who responded, 19 (42.2%) routinely screen both partners for HIV antibodies, 25 (55.5%) do not screen and one centre selectively screens high-risk patients. There was no significant difference in the proportion of centres that routinely carried out screening with regards to the unit size: six out of 13 (46.2%) small units compared with 13/32 (40.6%) large units. In all, 17 centres (37.8%) rated HIV screening as essential, nine (20%) as desirable, 11 (24.4%) as not required, while eight (17.8%) centres did not comment. Of the 19 centres that have a routine screening policy, 18 have management protocols in the event that the test is positive. Of these 18 centres, 12 adhere rigidly to the protocol, while five centres adhere to the protocol with few exceptions and the remaining one uses its protocol for guidance only. The main reasons for not employing routine HIV screening were: the lack of cost effectiveness, low prevalence of HIV infection in their population, necessity for and cost of counselling, uncertainty about the need for screening and potential delay to start of treatment.
Key words: UK survey/HIV screening/IVF
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Bourn Hall Clinic, Bourn, Cambridge CB3 7TR, UK. E-mail: sf.marcus{at}virgin.net
This debate was previously published on Webtrack, June 1, 2000