Frequency of dressing changes for central venous access devices on catheter-related infections

Background People admitted to intensive care units and those with chronic health care problems often require long-term vascular access. Central venous access devices (CVADs) are used for administering intravenous medications and blood sampling. CVADs are covered with a dressing and secured with an adhesive or adhesive tape to protect them from infection and reduce movement. Dressings are changed when they become soiled with blood or start to come away from the skin. Repeated removal and application of dressings can cause damage to the skin. The skin is an important barrier that protects the body against infection. Less frequent dressing changes may reduce skin damage, but it is unclear whether this practice affects the frequency of catheter-related infections. Objectives To assess the effect of the frequency of CVAD dressing changes on the incidence of catheter-related infections and other outcomes including pain and skin damage. Search methods In June 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched clinical trials registries for registered trials. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of the frequency of CVAD dressing changes on the incidence of catheter-related infections on all patients in any healthcare setting. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane review methodology. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, performed risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We undertook meta-analysis where appropriate or otherwise synthesised data descriptively when heterogeneous. Main results We included five RCTs (2277 participants) that compared different frequencies of CVAD dressing changes. The studies were all conducted in Europe and published between 1995 and 2009. Participants were recruited from the intensive care and cancer care departments of one children's and four adult hospitals. The studies used a variety of transparent dressings and compared a longer interval between dressing changes (5 to15 days; intervention) with a shorter interval between changes (2 to 5 days; control). In each study participants were followed up until the CVAD was removed or until discharge from ICU or hospital. - Confirmed catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) One trial randomised 995 people receiving central venous catheters to a longer or shorter interval between dressing changes and measured CRBSI. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of CRBSI between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 4.98) (low quality evidence). - Suspected catheter-related bloodstream infection Two trials randomised a total of 151 participants to longer or shorter dressing intervals and measured suspected CRBSI. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of suspected CRBSI between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.10) (low quality evidence). - All cause mortality Three trials randomised a total of 896 participants to longer or shorter dressing intervals and measured all cause mortality. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of death from any cause between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25) (low quality evidence). - Catheter-site infection Two trials randomised a total of 371 participants to longer or shorter dressing intervals and measured catheter-site infection. It is unclear whether there is a difference in risk of catheter-site infection between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.63) (low quality evidence). - Skin damage One small trial (112 children) and three trials (1475 adults) measured skin damage. There was very low quality evidence for the effect of long intervals between dressing changes on skin damage compared with short intervals (children: RR of scoring ≥ 2 on the skin damage scale 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.68; data for adults not pooled). - Pain Two studies involving 193 participants measured pain. It is unclear if there is a difference between long and short interval dressing changes on pain during dressing removal (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.38) (low quality evidence). Authors' conclusions The best available evidence is currently inconclusive regarding whether longer intervals between CVAD dressing changes are associated with more or less catheter-related infection, mortality or pain than shorter intervals.

In Response: "Oral versus IV treatment for catheter-related bloodstream infections - by Burke A. Cunha"

In his letter Cunha suggests that oral antibiotic therapy is safer and less expensive than intravenous therapy via central venous catheters (CVCs) (1). The implication is that costs will fall and increased health benefits will be enjoyed resulting in a gain in efficiency within the healthcare system. CVCs are often used in critically ill patients to deliver antimicrobial therapy, but expose patients to a risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). Our current knowledge about the efficiency (i.e. costeffectiveness) of allocating resources toward interventions that prevent CRBSI in patients requiring a CVC has already been reviewed (2). If for some patient groups antimicrobial therapy can be delivered orally, instead of through a CVC, then the costs and benefits of this alternate strategy should be evaluated...

Economic evaluation and catheter-related bloodstream infections

Catheter-related bloodstream infections are a serious problem. Many interventions reduce risk, and some have been evaluated in cost-effectiveness studies. We review the usefulness and quality of these economic studies. Evidence is incomplete, and data required to inform a coherent policy are missing. The cost-effectiveness studies are characterized by a lack of transparency, short time-horizons, and narrow economic perspectives. Data quality is low for some important model parameters. Authors of future economic evaluations should aim to model the complete policy and not just single interventions. They should be rigorous in developing the structure of the economic model, include all relevant economic outcomes, use a systematic approach for selecting data sources for model parameters, and propagate the effect of uncertainty in model parameters on conclusions. This will inform future data collection and improve our understanding of the economics of preventing these infections.

Setting hospital infection control policy : a decision-making framework incorporating health economics and healthcare epidemiology

Background: Reducing rates of healthcare acquired infection has been identified by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care as a national priority. One of the goals is the prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI). At least 3,500 cases of CR-BSI occur annually in Australian hospitals, resulting in unnecessary deaths and costs to the healthcare system between $25.7 and $95.3 million. Two approaches to preventing these infections have been proposed: use of antimicrobial catheters (A-CVCs); or a catheter care and management ‘bundle’. Given finite healthcare budgets, decisions about the optimal infection control policy require consideration of the effectiveness and value for money of each approach. Objectives: The aim of this research is to use a rational economic framework to inform efficient infection control policy relating to the prevention of CR-BSI in the intensive care unit. It addresses three questions relating to decision-making in this area: 1. Is additional investment in activities aimed at preventing CR-BSI an efficient use of healthcare resources? 2. What is the optimal infection control strategy from amongst the two major approaches that have been proposed to prevent CR-BSI? 3. What uncertainty is there in this decision and can a research agenda to improve decision-making in this area be identified? Methods: A decision analytic model-based economic evaluation was undertaken to identify an efficient approach to preventing CR-BSI in Queensland Health intensive care units. A Markov model was developed in conjunction with a panel of clinical experts which described the epidemiology and prognosis of CR-BSI. The model was parameterised using data systematically identified from the published literature and extracted from routine databases. The quality of data used in the model and its validity to clinical experts and sensitivity to modelling assumptions was assessed. Two separate economic evaluations were conducted. The first evaluation compared all commercially available A-CVCs alongside uncoated catheters to identify which was cost-effective for routine use. The uncertainty in this decision was estimated along with the value of collecting further information to inform the decision. The second evaluation compared the use of A-CVCs to a catheter care bundle. We were unable to estimate the cost of the bundle because it is unclear what the full resource requirements are for its implementation, and what the value of these would be in an Australian context. As such we undertook a threshold analysis to identify the cost and effectiveness thresholds at which a hypothetical bundle would dominate the use of A-CVCs under various clinical scenarios. Results: In the first evaluation of A-CVCs, the findings from the baseline analysis, in which uncertainty is not considered, show that the use of any of the four A-CVCs will result in health gains accompanied by cost-savings. The MR catheters dominate the baseline analysis generating 1.64 QALYs and cost-savings of $130,289 per 1.000 catheters. With uncertainty, and based on current information, the MR catheters remain the optimal decision and return the highest average net monetary benefits ($948 per catheter) relative to all other catheter types. This conclusion was robust to all scenarios tested, however, the probability of error in this conclusion is high, 62% in the baseline scenario. Using a value of $40,000 per QALY, the expected value of perfect information associated with this decision is $7.3 million. An analysis of the expected value of perfect information for individual parameters suggests that it may be worthwhile for future research to focus on providing better estimates of the mortality attributable to CR-BSI and the effectiveness of both SPC and CH/SSD (int/ext) catheters. In the second evaluation of the catheter care bundle relative to A-CVCs, the results which do not consider uncertainty indicate that a bundle must achieve a relative risk of CR-BSI of at least 0.45 to be cost-effective relative to MR catheters. If the bundle can reduce rates of infection from 2.5% to effectively zero, it is cost-effective relative to MR catheters if national implementation costs are less than $2.6 million ($56,610 per ICU). If the bundle can achieve a relative risk of 0.34 (comparable to that reported in the literature) it is cost-effective, relative to MR catheters, if costs over an 18 month period are below $613,795 nationally ($13,343 per ICU). Once uncertainty in the decision is considered, the cost threshold for the bundle increases to $2.2 million. Therefore, if each of the 46 Level III ICUs could implement an 18 month catheter care bundle for less than $47,826 each, this approach would be cost effective relative to A-CVCs. However, the uncertainty is substantial and the probability of error in concluding that the bundle is the cost-effective approach at a cost of $2.2 million is 89%. Conclusions: This work highlights that infection control to prevent CR-BSI is an efficient use of healthcare resources in the Australian context. If there is no further investment in infection control, an opportunity cost is incurred, which is the potential for a more efficient healthcare system. Minocycline/rifampicin catheters are the optimal choice of antimicrobial catheter for routine use in Australian Level III ICUs, however, if a catheter care bundle implemented in Australia was as effective as those used in the large studies in the United States it would be preferred over the catheters if it was able to be implemented for less than $47,826 per Level III ICU. Uncertainty is very high in this decision and arises from multiple sources. There are likely greater costs to this uncertainty for A-CVCs, which may carry hidden costs, than there are for a catheter care bundle, which is more likely to provide indirect benefits to clinical practice and patient safety. Research into the mortality attributable to CR-BSI, the effectiveness of SPC and CH/SSD (int/ext) catheters and the cost and effectiveness of a catheter care bundle in Australia should be prioritised to reduce uncertainty in this decision. This thesis provides the economic evidence to inform one area of infection control, but there are many other infection control decisions for which information about the cost-effectiveness of competing interventions does not exist. This work highlights some of the challenges and benefits to generating and using economic evidence for infection control decision-making and provides support for commissioning more research into the cost-effectiveness of infection control.

Cost-effectiveness of a central venous catheter care bundle

Background: A bundled approach to central venous catheter care is currently being promoted as an effective way of preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI). Consumables used in the bundled approach are relatively inexpensive which may lead to the conclusion that the bundle is cost-effective. However, this fails to consider the nontrivial costs of the monitoring and education activities required to implement the bundle, or that alternative strategies are available to prevent CR-BSI. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a bundle to prevent CR-BSI in Australian intensive care patients. ---------- Methods and Findings: A Markov decision model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the bundle relative to remaining with current practice (a non-bundled approach to catheter care and uncoated catheters), or use of antimicrobial catheters. We assumed the bundle reduced relative risk of CR-BSI to 0.34. Given uncertainty about the cost of the bundle, threshold analyses were used to determine the maximum cost at which the bundle remained cost-effective relative to the other approaches to infection control. Sensitivity analyses explored how this threshold alters under different assumptions about the economic value placed on bed-days and health benefits gained by preventing infection. If clinicians are prepared to use antimicrobial catheters, the bundle is cost-effective if national 18-month implementation costs are below $1.1 million. If antimicrobial catheters are not an option the bundle must cost less than $4.3 million. If decision makers are only interested in obtaining cash-savings for the unit, and place no economic value on either the bed-days or the health benefits gained through preventing infection, these cost thresholds are reduced by two-thirds.---------- Conclusions: A catheter care bundle has the potential to be cost-effective in the Australian intensive care setting. Rather than anticipating cash-savings from this intervention, decision makers must be prepared to invest resources in infection control to see efficiency improvements.

Cost effectiveness of antimicrobial catheters in the intensive care unit : Addressing uncertainty in the decision

Introduction: Some types of antimicrobial-coated central venous catheters (A-CVC) have been shown to be cost-effective in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI). However, not all types have been evaluated, and there are concerns over the quality and usefulness of these earlier studies. There is uncertainty amongst clinicians over which, if any, antimicrobial-coated central venous catheters to use. We re-evaluated the cost-effectiveness of all commercially available antimicrobialcoated central venous catheters for prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods: We used a Markov decision model to compare the cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial-coated central venous catheters relative to uncoated catheters. Four catheter types were evaluated; minocycline and rifampicin (MR)-coated catheters; silver, platinum and carbon (SPC)-impregnated catheters; and two chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine-coated catheters, one coated on the external surface (CH/SSD (ext)) and the other coated on both surfaces (CH/SSD (int/ext)). The incremental cost per qualityadjusted life-year gained and the expected net monetary benefits were estimated for each. Uncertainty arising from data estimates, data quality and heterogeneity was explored in sensitivity analyses. Results: The baseline analysis, with no consideration of uncertainty, indicated all four types of antimicrobial-coated central venous catheters were cost-saving relative to uncoated catheters. Minocycline and rifampicin-coated catheters prevented 15 infections per 1,000 catheters and generated the greatest health benefits, 1.6 quality-adjusted life-years, and cost-savings, AUD $130,289. After considering uncertainty in the current evidence, the minocycline and rifampicin-coated catheters returned the highest incremental monetary net benefits of $948 per catheter; but there was a 62% probability of error in this conclusion. Although the minocycline and rifampicin-coated catheters had the highest monetary net benefits across multiple scenarios, the decision was always associated with high uncertainty. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that the cost-effectiveness of using antimicrobial-coated central venous catheters within the ICU is highly uncertain. Policies to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infection amongst ICU patients should consider the cost-effectiveness of competing interventions in the light of this uncertainty. Decision makers would do well to consider the current gaps in knowledge and the complexity of producing good quality evidence in this area.

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters

BACKGROUND: US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters no more frequently than every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bloodstream infection. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is an update of a review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the PVD Specialised Register (December 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11). We also searched MEDLINE (last searched October 2012) and clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 but the confidence interval (CI) was wide, creating uncertainty around the estimate (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the PVD Specialised Register (December 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11). We also searched MEDLINE (last searched October 2012) and clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 but the confidence interval (CI) was wide, creating uncertainty around the estimate (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present.

Using the collaborative evidence based practice model : a systematic review and uptake of chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressings on central venous access devices in a tertiary cancer centre

Background: Greater research utilisation in cancer nursing practice is needed, in order to provide well-informed and effective nursing care to people affected by cancer. This paper aims to report on the implementation of evidence-based practice in a tertiary cancer centre. Methods: Using a case report design, this paper reports on the use of the Collaborative Model for Evidence Based Practice (CMEBP) in an Australian tertiary cancer centre. The clinical case is the uptake of routine application of chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressings for preventing centrally inserted catheter-related bloodstream infections. In this case report, a number of processes that resulted in a service-wide practice change are described. Results: This model was considered a feasible method for successful research utilisation. In this case report, chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressings were proposed and implemented in the tertiary cancer centre with an aim of reducing the incidence of centrally inserted catheter-related bloodstream infections and potentially improving patient health outcomes. Conclusion: The CMEBP is feasible and effective for implementing clinical evidence into cancer nursing practice. Cancer nurses and health administrators need to ensure a supportive infrastructure and environment for clinical inquiry and research utilisation exists, in order to enable successful implementation of evidence-based practice in their cancer centres.

Changing learning to improve practice : hand hygiene education in Queensland medical schools

The aim of Queensland Health’s ‘Clean hands are life savers’ program is to change the culture and behaviour of healthcare workers related to hand hygiene. Hand hygiene is considered to be the most effective means of preventing pathogen cross-transmission and healthcare-associated infections. Most hospitals throughout Queensland as well as Australia now manage a hand hygiene program to increase the hand hygiene compliance of all healthcare workers. Reports taken from routine hand hygiene observations reveal that doctors are usually less compliant in their hand-washing practices than other healthcare worker groups. The Centre for Healthcare Related Infection Surveillance and Prevention (CHRISP) has attempted to have an impact on this challenging group through their Medical Leadership Initiative. With education as a core component of the program, efforts were made to ensure our future doctors were receiving information that aligned with Queensland Health standards during their formative years at medical school. CHRISP met with university instructors to understand what infection prevention education was currently included in the curriculum and support the introduction of new learning activities that specifically focused on hand hygiene. This prompted change to the existing curriculum and a range of interventions were employed with mixed success. Although met with challenges, methods to integrate more infection prevention teaching were found.

HtrA, RseP, and Tsp do not elicit a pathology related serum IgG response during sexually transmitted infection with Chlamydia trachomatis

Chlamydia trachomatis sexually transmitted infection can cause serious reproductive morbidities. This study determined the prevalence of serum IgG response to C. trachomatis putative stress response proteins in females to test for an association with genital tract pathology. There was no significant association of serum IgG to HtrA, Tsp, or RseP with infection or pathology. cHSP60 serum IgG prevalence was significantly associated with infection compared to negative (infertile) controls (p = 0.002), but not with upper genital tract pathology. Serum IgG1-4 antibody subclasses reactive with the antigens was not significantly different between cohorts, although different responses to each antigen were detected.

Estimation on disease burden related to hepatitis B virus infection in Shandong province of China [山东省乙型肝炎病毒感染所致相关疾病的疾病负担研究]

Objective: To comprehensively measure the burden of hepatitis B, liver cirrhosis and liver cancer in Shandong province, using disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) to estimate the disease burden attribute to hepatitis B virus (HBV)infection. Methods: Based on the mortality data of hepatitis B, liver cirrhosis and liver cancer derived from the third National Sampling Retrospective Survey for Causes of Death during 2004 and 2005, the incidence data of hepatitis B and the prevalence and the disability weights of liver cancer gained from the Shandong Cancer Prevalence Sampling Survey in 2007, we calculated the years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs) and DALYs of three diseases following the procedures developed for the global burden of disease (GBD) study to ensure the comparability. Results: The total burden for hepatitis B, liver cirrhosis and liver cancer were 211 616 (39 377 YLLs and 172 239 YLDs), 16 783 (13 497 YLLs and 3286 YLDs) and 247 795 (240 236 YLLs and 7559 YLDs) DALYs in 2005 respectively, and men were 2.19, 2.36 and 3.16 times as that for women, respectively in Shandong province. The burden for hepatitis B was mainly because of disability (81.39%). However, most burden on liver cirrhosis and liver cancer were due to premature death (80.42% and 96.95%). The burden of each patient related to hepatitis B, liver cirrhosis and liver cancer were 4.8, 13.73 and 11.11 respectively. Conclusion: Hepatitis B, liver cirrhosis and liver cancer caused considerable burden to the people living in Shandong province, indicating that the control of hepatitis B virus infection would bring huge potential benefits.

Suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and HIV infection

A cross-sectional study was performed to investigate the prevalence and predictors of suicidal ideation and past suicide attempt in an Australian sample of human imumunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive and HIV-negative homosexual and bisexual men. Sixty-five HIV-negative and 164 HIV-positive men participated. A suicidal ideation score was derived from using five items selected from the Beck Depression Inventory and the General Health Questionnaire (28-item version). Lifetime and current prevalence rates of psychiatric disorder were evaluated with the Diagnostic Interview Schedule Version-III-R. The HIV-positive (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] Stage IV) men (n=85) had significantly higher total suicidal ideation scores than the asymptomatic HIV-positive men (CDC Stage II/III) (n=79) and the HIV-negative men. High rates of past suicide attempt were detected in the HIV-negative (29%) and HIV-positive men (21%). Factors associated with suicidal ideation included being HIV-positive, the presence of current psychiatric disorder, higher neuroticism scores, external locus of control, and current unemployment. In the HIV-positive group analyzed separately, higher suicidal ideation was discriminated by the adjustment to HIV diagnosis (greater hopelessness and lower fighting spirit), disease factors (greater number of current acquired immunodeficiency syndrome [AIDS]-related conditions), and background variables (neuroticism). Significant predictors of a past attempted suicide were a positive lifetime history of psychiatric disorder (particularly depression diagnoses), a lifetime history of injection drug use, and a family history of suicide attempts. The findings indicate increased levels of suicidal ideation in symptomatic HIV-positive men and highlight the role that multiple psychosocial factors associated with suicidal ideation and attempted suicide play in this population.