Figures released by the United States' Centers for Disease Control (CDC) suggest that the incidence of new HIV infections in America fell between 2001 and 2004. A total of 157,252 people were newly diagnosed with HIV in this period in the 33 US states that use confidential, name-based surveillance of HIV infections.
Overall, the rate of HIV diagnoses fell from 23 per 100,000 people in 2001 to 21 per 100,000 in 2004. There were, however, significant racial differences in the rate of new HIV diagnoses. African Americans were eight times more likely to be diagnosed whites during this period (76 per 100,000 vs 9 per 100,000), even though there was a 5% fall per year in new diagnoses amongst African Americans (89 per 100,000 in 2001; 76 per 100,000 in 2001). “HIV diagnoses continue to disproportionately impact blacks, with black men who have sex with men and black women most severely affect”, comments the CDC, which is “collaborating with community leaders from across the country to prioritize prevention needs and develop and implement interventions to reduce HIV transmission among black men who have sex with men and women…and other at-risk populations.”
Gay men remained the single group most affected by HIV in the US, accounting for 44% of all new diagnoses between 2001 and 2004. Between 2001 and 2003, the number of new diagnoses remained stable in gay men, but increased by 8% in 2004 across all racial and ethnic groups. The CDC attributes the recent increase in gay either to increases in risky sexual activity, or a greater level of HIV testing.
HIV testing is being promoted in the US, and the CDC comment, “as a result of recent and continued efforts to encourage and expand HIV testing, [we] expect to see increases in HIV diagnoses, regardless of underlying trends in infections.”
Although the reliability of the latest confidential, named-based surveillance figures has been improved thank to New York state’s adoption of this method of HIV surveillance, the CDC acknowledge that a number of areas with high HIV prevalence, most notability California and Illinois do not use this method of monitoring.