Remdesivir Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Comparative Analysis of In-hospital All-cause Mortality in a Large Multicenter Observational Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir (RDV) improved clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in randomized trials, but data from clinical practice are limited. METHODS: We examined survival outcomes for US patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between August and November 2020 and treated with RDV within 2 days of hospitalization vs those not receiving RDV during their hospitalization using the Premier Healthcare Database. Preferential within-hospital propensity score matching with replacement was used. Additionally, patients were also matched on baseline oxygenation level (no supplemental oxygen charges [NSO], low-flow oxygen [LFO], high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation [HFO/NIV], and invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [IMV/ECMO]) and 2-month admission window and excluded if discharged within 3 days of admission (to exclude anticipated discharges/transfers within 72 hours, consistent with the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial [ACTT-1] study). Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess time to 14-/28-day mortality overall and for patients on NSO, LFO, HFO/NIV, and IMV/ECMO. RESULTS: A total of 28855 RDV patients were matched to 16687 unique non-RDV patients. Overall, 10.6% and 15.4% RDV patients died within 14 and 28 days, respectively, compared with 15.4% and 19.1% non-RDV patients. Overall, RDV was associated with a reduction in mortality at 14 days (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.76 [0.70-0.83]) and 28 days (0.89 [0.82-0.96]). This mortality benefit was also seen for NSO, LFO, and IMV/ECMO at 14 days (NSO: 0.69 [0.57-0.83], LFO: 0.68 [0.80-0.77], IMV/ECMO: 0.70 [0.58-0.84]) and 28 days (NSO: 0.80 [0.68-0.94], LFO: 0.77 [0.68-0.86], IMV/ECMO: 0.81 [0.69-0.94]). Additionally, HFO/NIV RDV group had a lower risk of mortality at 14 days (0.81 [0.70-0.93]) but no statistical significance at 28 days. CONCLUSIONS: RDV initiated upon hospital admission was associated with improved survival among patients with COVID-19. Our findings complement ACTT-1 and support RDV as a foundational treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

A New Resource for STD Clinical Providers: The Sexually Transmitted Diseases Clinical Consultation Network.

An online consultation tool, the Sexually Transmitted Diseases Clinical Consultation Network is a new resource for sexually transmitted disease clinicians and clinic managers. An initial evaluation shows that most requests (29%) were from medical doctors, followed by nurse practitioners (22%). Syphilis queries comprised 39% of consults followed by gonorrhea (12%) and chlamydia (11%).

Assessing the Changing Landscape of Sexual Health Clinical Service After the Implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

INTRODUCTION: Federal health reform has the potential to impact many public health services, especially sexual health clinics. To assess the impact of such reform within the Denver Sexual Health Clinic (DSHC), we conducted a survey of patients to better understand our client population and their care-seeking behavior. METHODS: Survey data were collected from patients attending the DSHC at 3 different points in time to ascertain insurance status, reasons for not having insurance, reasons for choosing care at the DSHC, and health care use over the past 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 1603 surveys were completed. Forty-two percent of participants were enrolled in health insurance at the time of visit. The percentage of patients with Medicaid increased more than 200% across the survey cycles. Cost was the main reason cited for not having insurance. Participants identified confidentiality and convenience among the top reasons for seeking care at the DSHC regardless of sex or insurance. Although there was no difference in health care use for sexual health services, individuals with health insurance were more likely to have used nonsexual health services in the past 12 months than those without insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients continue to visit the DSHC despite having health insurance. Sexual health clinics must work to understand what drives people to seek care so that they can better prepare for the future.

Evaluation of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System among men who have sex with men in Denver, Colorado.

Denver Public Health implements the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS), a cyclical survey of populations at increased risk for HIV. We evaluated the implementation of NHBS among Denver men who have sex with men (MSM), considering the system's simplicity, data quality, representativeness, and sensitivity to trends. We found that the time required for implementation and the complexity of data management and analysis are barriers to disseminating local findings. Data quality has improved in each cycle of the study but must be protected by continually checking for errors and training field staff to be attentive to detail. Compared with the US census and other convenience samples of Denver MSM, the overall demographic representativeness of NHBS has improved over time. However, there is concern that the underlying population included in the study may be changing. NHBS survey data show evidence of two suspected trends in the local MSM population at risk for HIV: increasing sexual risk-taking and the transition away from bars as a dominant partner-finding location. It is unclear whether the increasing reports of sexual risk-taking reflect a real trend or simply a change in the population sampled, since most NHBS participants are recruited at gay bars and other venues. To ensure that the sample continues to represent the underlying population at risk and accurately identify trends, it is necessary to closely monitor MSM sample characteristics during implementation and incorporate weighted data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention into analyses.

Knowledge of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention among men who have sex with men in Denver, Colorado.

As part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Denver, Colorado, we assessed knowledge of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP); willingness to use PrEP; and potential changes in risk behaviors among HIV-negative participants reporting sexual activity with a male partner in the preceding 12 months. We examined knowledge of PrEP before (2008) and after (2011) results of the iPrEx trial were available. Of the 425 participants in the 2008 sample, 91 (21 %) were aware of PrEP compared to 131 (28 %) of the 461 participants in the 2011 sample (adjusted prevalence ratio: 1.43, 95 % confidence interval: 1.18, 1.72). Despite the increase in 2011, few MSM in Denver were aware of PrEP. Educating high-risk MSM about the potential utility of PrEP as an adjunct to other effective prevention methods is needed when considering the addition of PrEP to the HIV prevention arsenal.

Remdesivir is Associated with Reduced Mortality in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 Not Requiring Supplemental Oxygen.

Background: Remdesivir has demonstrated benefit in some hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on supplemental oxygen and in nonhospitalized patients breathing room air. The durability of this benefit across time periods with different circulating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variants of concern (VOC) is unknown. This comparative effectiveness study in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and not receiving supplemental oxygen at admission compared those starting remdesivir treatment in the first 2 days of admission with those receiving no remdesivir during their hospitalization across different VOC periods. Method: Using a large, multicenter US hospital database, in-hospital mortality rates were compared among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 but not requiring supplemental oxygen at admission between December 2020 and April 2022. Patients receiving remdesivir at hospital admission were matched 1:1 to those not receiving remdesivir during hospitalization, using propensity score matching. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess 14- and 28-day in-hospital mortality rates or discharge to hospice. Results: Among the 121 336 eligible patients, 58 188 remdesivir-treated patients were matched to 17 574 unique patients not receiving remdesivir. Overall, 5.4% of remdesivir-treated and 7.3% in the non-remdesivir group died within 14 days, and 8.0% and 9.8%, respectively, died within 28 days. Remdesivir treatment was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the in-hospital mortality rate compared with non-remdesivir treatment (14-day and 28-day adjusted hazard ratios [95% confidence interval], 0.75 [0.68-0.83] and 0.83 [0.76-0.90], respectively). This significant mortality benefit endured across the different VOC periods. Conclusions: Remdesivir initiation in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and not requiring supplemental oxygen at admission was associated with a significantly reduced in-hospital mortality rate. These findings highlight a potential survival benefit when clinicians initiated remdesivir on admission across the dominant variant eras of the evolving pandemic.

Comparison of enhanced targeted rapid HIV screening using the Denver HIV risk score to nontargeted rapid HIV screening in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: A clinical prediction tool, the Denver HIV Risk Score, was recently developed to help identify patients with increased probability of undiagnosed HIV infection. Our goal was to compare targeted rapid HIV screening using the Denver HIV Risk Score to nontargeted rapid HIV screening in an urban emergency department (ED) and urgent care. METHODS: We used a prospective, before-after design at an urban medical center with an approximate annual census of 110,000 visits. Patients aged 13 years or older were eligible for screening. Targeted HIV screening of patients identified as high-risk by nurses using the Denver HIV Risk Score during medical screening was compared to nontargeted HIV screening offered by medical screening nurses during 2 separate 4-month time periods. The primary outcome was newly diagnosed HIV-infected patients. RESULTS: 28,506 patients presented during the targeted phase, 1,718 were identified as high-risk, and 551 completed HIV testing. Of these, 7 (1.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5% to 2.6%) were newly diagnosed with HIV infection. 29,510 patients presented during the nontargeted phase and 3,591 completed HIV testing. Of these, 7 (0.2%, 95% CI 0.1% to 0.4%) were newly diagnosed with HIV infection. Targeted HIV screening was significantly associated with identification of newly diagnosed HIV infection when compared to nontargeted screening, adjusting for patient demographics and payer status (relative risk [RR] 10.4, 95% CI 3.4 to 32.0). CONCLUSION: Targeted HIV screening using the Denver HIV Risk Score was strongly associated with new HIV diagnoses when compared to nontargeted screening. Although both HIV screening methods identified the same absolute number of newly diagnosed patients, significantly fewer tests were required during the targeted phase to achieve the same effect.

Derivation and validation of the Denver Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) risk score for targeted HIV screening.

Targeted screening remains an important approach to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing. The authors aimed to derive and validate an instrument to accurately identify patients at risk for HIV infection, using patient data from a metropolitan sexually transmitted disease clinic in Denver, Colorado (1996-2008). With multivariable logistic regression, they developed a risk score from 48 candidate variables using newly identified HIV infection as the outcome. Validation was performed using an independent population from an urban emergency department in Cincinnati, Ohio. The derivation sample included 92,635 patients; 504 (0.54%) were diagnosed with HIV infection. The validation sample included 22,983 patients; 168 (0.73%) were diagnosed with HIV infection. The final score included age, gender, race/ethnicity, sex with a male, vaginal intercourse, receptive anal intercourse, injection drug use, and past HIV testing, and values ranged from -14 to +81. For persons with scores of <20, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, and ≥50, HIV prevalences were 0.31% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20, 0.45) (n = 27/8,782), 0.41% (95% CI: 0.29, 0.57) (n = 36/8,677), 0.99% (95% CI: 0.63, 1.47) (n = 24/2,431), 1.59% (95% CI: 1.02, 2.36) (n = 24/1,505), and 3.59% (95% CI: 2.73, 4.63) (n = 57/1,588), respectively. The risk score accurately categorizes patients into groups with increasing probabilities of HIV infection.

Implementation and effectiveness of an expedited partner therapy program in an urban clinic.

BACKGROUND: Partner notification of exposure to gonorrhea or chlamydia is traditionally conducted by the index case or a disease intervention specialist. However, a significant proportion of partners remain untreated and thus are at risk for continued transmission. Expedited partner therapy (EPT) obviates the requirement for a health care visit by the partner: the index case delivers medications to the partner. Although shown to be efficacious in randomized control trials, effectiveness studies of delivering EPT in real-world situations are needed. We describe the implementation, patient characteristics, and clinical impact of an EPT program at the Denver Metro Health Clinic (DMHC). METHODS: We identified 2578 patient visits eligible for EPT (heterosexual men or women diagnosed as having chlamydia or gonorrhea) from November, 2006, to April, 2011. We examined EPT acceptance rates over clinical process improvements. To measure clinical impact, we assessed the association between initial acceptance of EPT and infection status among 351 patients who returned for retesting. RESULTS: Requiring complete documentation of EPT in the clinic electronic medical record increased EPT acceptance from 20% to 48%. Expedited partner therapy acceptance was associated with a reduced risk of chlamydial reinfection (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-1.6) and a reduced risk of gonorrheal reinfection (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.4); however, these changes were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Expedited partner therapy at the DMHC was substantially enhanced by process changes in the clinic and may be associated with a decreased risk of reinfection.

Misleading sexual partners about HIV status among persons living with HIV/AIDS.

Most people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) disclose their serostatus to their sexual partners and take steps to protect their partners from HIV. Prior research indicates that some PLWHA portray themselves to their sexual partners as HIV-negative or otherwise misrepresent their HIV status. The aim of this study was to document the prevalence of misleading sexual partners about HIV status and to identify factors associated with misleading. A sample of 310 PLWHA completed a self-administered questionnaire assessing demographic information, disclosure, HIV knowledge, HIV altruism, psychopathy, and sexual risk behavior. Participants were also asked "Since you were diagnosed as having HIV, have you ever misled a sexual partner about your HIV status?" Overall, 18.6% of participants indicated that they had misled a sexual partner. Those who had misled a partner at some point since their diagnosis reported more current HIV transmission risk behaviors, including unprotected anal or vaginal sex with a partner who was HIV-negative or whose HIV status was unknown. Participants who had misled a partner did not differ from those who had not in terms of demographic characteristics. Individuals who had misled a partner scored significantly lower on a measure of HIV knowledge than those who had not misled a partner. HIV altruism and psychopathy were associated with sexual risk behavior, but did not differ between those who had misled and those who had not. Disclosure of HIV status can reduce HIV transmission, but only if people are candid. Interventions aimed at increasing knowledge and accurate disclosure may reduce the spread of HIV.

Clinical Management of Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to characterize hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and describe their real-world treatment patterns and outcomes over time. METHODS: Adult patients hospitalized on May 1, 2020-December 31, 2020 with a discharge diagnosis of COVID-19 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patient and hospital characteristics, treatments, baseline severity based on oxygen support, length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, and mortality were examined. RESULTS: The study included 295657 patients (847 hospitals), with median age of 66 (interquartile range, 54-77) years. Among each set of demographic comparators, the majority were male, white, and over 65. Approximately 85% had no supplemental oxygen charges (NSOc) or low-flow oxygen (LFO) at baseline, whereas 75% received no more than NSOc or LFO as maximal oxygen support at any time during hospitalization. Remdesivir (RDV) and corticosteroid treatment utilization increased over time. By December, 50% were receiving RDV and 80% were receiving corticosteroids. A higher proportion initiated COVID-19 treatments within 2 days of hospitalization in December versus May (RDV, 87% vs 40%; corticosteroids, 93% vs 62%; convalescent plasma, 68% vs 26%). There was a shift toward initiating RDV in patients on NSOc or LFO (68.0% [May] vs 83.1% [December]). Median LOS decreased over time. Overall mortality was 13.5% and it was highest for severe patients (invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [IMV/ECMO], 53.7%; high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation [HFO/NIV], 32.2%; LFO, 11.7%; NSOc, 7.3%). The ICU use decreased, whereas mortality decreased for NSOc and LFO. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical management of COVID-19 is rapidly evolving. This large observational study found that use of evidence-based treatments increased from May to December 2020, whereas improvement in outcomes occurred over this time-period.

HIV testing in emergency departments in the United States: a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published recommendations for HIV testing in health care settings, calling for nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening in most settings, including emergency departments (EDs). Although a number of ED-based testing strategies exist, it is unclear to what extent they are used. The objective of this study is to survey academic and community EDs throughout the United States to determine ED-based HIV testing practices. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey study of all academic EDs and a weighted random sample of all community-based EDs in the United States. A standardized survey instrument was developed and administered with an Internet-based survey platform, followed by direct contact and mail. The survey included domains related to perceived HIV testing barriers, whether HIV testing was performed and methods used, and familiarity with the CDC recommendations and whether they had been adopted. RESULTS: Of the 131 total academic sites and the 435 community sites, 99 (76%) and 150 (35%) completed the survey, respectively. A larger proportion of academic sites believed HIV testing was needed (P=.02) and a larger proportion actually provided HIV testing (65% versus 50%; P=.04). Among the academic and community EDs that provided testing, 74% and 62% performed diagnostic testing, 26% and 22% performed targeted screening, and 16% and 6% performed nontargeted screening, respectively. A larger proportion of academic EDs reported receiving external funding to support testing (23% versus 4%; P=.001), whereas a large proportion of community sites considered costs a significant barrier to testing (P=.03). A larger proportion of academic EDs reported being familiar with the 2006 CDC recommendations (64% versus 40%; P<.001), although only 26% and 37% reported having implemented any part of them, respectively. CONCLUSION: Academic EDs only make up approximately 3% of all EDs in the United States. Significant differences exist between academic and community EDs as they relate to performing HIV testing. Increased efforts should be made to improve the ability of community EDs to provide this service.

Comparison of HIV Screening Strategies in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The National HIV Strategic Plan for the US recommends HIV screening in emergency departments (EDs). The most effective approach to ED-based HIV screening remains unknown. Objective: To compare strategies for HIV screening when integrated into usual ED practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included patients visiting EDs at 4 US urban hospitals between April 2014 and January 2016. Patients included were ages 16 years or older, not critically ill or mentally altered, not known to have an HIV positive status, and with an anticipated length of stay 30 minutes or longer. Data were analyzed through March 2021. Interventions: Consecutive patients underwent concealed randomization to either nontargeted screening, enhanced targeted screening using a quantitative HIV risk prediction tool, or traditional targeted screening as adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Screening was integrated into clinical practice using opt-out consent and fourth-generation antigen-antibody assays. Main Outcomes and Measures: New HIV diagnoses using intention-to-treat analysis, absolute differences, and risk ratios (RRs). Results: A total of 76 561 patient visits were randomized; median (interquartile range) age was 40 (28-54) years, 34 807 patients (51.2%) were women, and 26 776 (39.4%) were Black, 22 131 (32.6%) non-Hispanic White, and 14 542 (21.4%) Hispanic. A total of 25 469 were randomized to nontargeted screening; 25 453, enhanced targeted screening; and 25 639, traditional targeted screening. Of the nontargeted group, 6744 participants (26.5%) completed testing and 10 (0.15%) were newly diagnosed; of the enhanced targeted group, 13 883 participants (54.5%) met risk criteria, 4488 (32.3%) completed testing, and 7 (0.16%) were newly diagnosed; and of the traditional targeted group, 7099 participants (27.7%) met risk criteria, 3173 (44.7%) completed testing, and 7 (0.22%) were newly diagnosed. When compared with nontargeted screening, targeted strategies were not associated with a higher rate of new diagnoses (enhanced targeted and traditional targeted combined: difference, -0.01%; 95% CI, -0.04% to 0.02%; RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.56; P = .38; and enhanced targeted only: difference, -0.01%; 95% CI, -0.04% to 0.02%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.84; P = .47). Conclusions and Relevance: Targeted HIV screening was not superior to nontargeted HIV screening in the ED. Nontargeted screening resulted in significantly more tests performed, although all strategies identified relatively low numbers of new HIV diagnoses. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01781949.

Routine opt-out rapid HIV screening and detection of HIV infection in emergency department patients.

CONTEXT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends routine (nontargeted) opt-out HIV screening in health care settings, including emergency departments (EDs), where the prevalence of undiagnosed infection is 0.1% or greater. The utility of this approach in EDs remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening in the ED was associated with identification of more patients with newly diagnosed HIV infection than physician-directed diagnostic rapid HIV testing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Quasi-experimental equivalent time-samples design in an urban public safety-net hospital with an approximate annual ED census of 55,000 patient visits. Patients were 16 years or older and capable of providing consent for rapid HIV testing. INTERVENTIONS: Nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening and physician-directed diagnostic rapid HIV testing alternated in sequential 4-month time intervals between April 15, 2007, and April 15, 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of patients with newly identified HIV infection and the association between nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening and identification of HIV infection. RESULTS: In the opt-out phase, of 28,043 eligible ED patients, 6933 patients (25%) completed HIV testing (6702 patients were screened; 231 patients were diagnostically tested). Ten of 6702 patients (0.15%; 95% CI, 0.07%-0.27%) who did not decline HIV screening in the opt-out phase had new HIV diagnoses, and 5 of 231 patients (2.2%; 95% CI, 0.7%-5.0%) who were diagnostically tested during the opt-out phase had new HIV diagnoses. In the diagnostic phase, of 29,925 eligible patients, 243 (0.8%) completed HIV testing. Of these, 4 patients (1.6%; 95% CI, 0.5%-4.2%) had new diagnoses. The prevalence of new HIV diagnoses in the opt-out phase (including those diagnostically tested) and in the diagnostic phase was 15 in 28,043 (0.05%; 95% CI, 0.03%-0.09%) and 4 in 29,925 (0.01%; 95% CI, 0.004%-0.03%), respectively. Nontargeted opt-out HIV screening was independently associated with new HIV diagnoses (risk ratio, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.2-10.8) when adjusting for patient demographics, insurance status, and whether diagnostic testing was performed in the opt-out phase. The median CD4 cell count for those with new HIV diagnoses in the opt-out phase (including those diagnostically tested) and in the diagnostic phase was 69/microL (IQR, 17-430) and 13/microL (IQR, 11-15) , respectively (P = .02). CONCLUSION: Nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening in the ED, vs diagnostic testing, was associated with identification of a modestly increased number of patients with new HIV diagnoses, most of whom were identified late in the course of disease.

Psychosocial characteristics and sexual behaviors of people in care for HIV infection: an examination of men who have sex with men, heterosexual men and women.

Few studies have examined the psychosocial factors associated with sexual transmission behaviors among HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM), heterosexual men (MSW) and women. We enrolled 1,050 sexually active HIV-positive patients at seven HIV clinics in six US cities as part of a clinic-based behavioral intervention. We describe the sexual transmission behaviors and examine demographic, clinical, psychosocial, and clinic prevention variables associated with unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse (UAVI). Twenty-three percent of MSM, 12.3% of MSW and 27.8% of women engaged in UAVI with partners perceived to be HIV-negative or of unknown serostatus. Among MSM and MSW, having multiple partners and lower self-efficacy were associated with increased odds of UAVI. Self-rating one's health status as excellent/very good was a risk factor for UAVI among MSM. Among women, binge drinking and stressful life events were associated with UAVI. These findings identify variables that warrant attention in targeted interventions.

Applying National Estimates of Adults With Indications for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis to Populations of Men Who Have Sex With Men and People Who Inject Drugs in Colorado: Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a highly effective option for HIV prevention. To realize the full benefit of PrEP at the population level, uptake must reach those at the greatest risk of HIV acquisition. Guidance published by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that the number of individuals with indications for PrEP is 1.1-1.2 million nationally based on survey data of key populations and local transmission patterns. We applied these estimates at state and county levels to determine the number of individuals who might benefit from PrEP locally and compared our estimates to CDC-published estimates for Colorado. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to produce estimates of key populations with indications for PrEP in Colorado as a whole and by county type. These estimates will be used for public health strategic planning for HIV prevention goals at the state and county jurisdictional levels. METHODS: Colorado population estimates were obtained from the state demography office, which utilizes US decennial census data and input from county and local agencies to forecast the population. We limited our analysis to adults aged 18-59 years to be consistent with CDC methodology for PrEP estimates. We performed a literature review to define the best population-level percentages to determine numbers of HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM) and people who inject drugs (PWID) in Colorado. These percentages were applied to the state and to each county by its rural-urban designation. Finally, CDC-derived percentages of MSM and PWID with indications for PrEP were applied to these estimates to determine numbers of MSM and PWID who may benefit from PrEP use. RESULTS: In 2017, 3,252,648 adults aged 18-59 years were living in Colorado. By applying published estimates of percentages of men who had sex with other men in the past 12 months, we determined that 41,353-49,624 adult males could be considered sexually active MSM. We estimated that 9758-13,011 adults aged 18-59 years were likely to have injected drugs in the past 12 months. By accounting for numbers of people living with HIV in those categories and applying the CDC PrEP percentages of MSM and PWID with indications for PrEP nationally, we estimated that 8792-12,528 MSM and PWID in Colorado had indications for PrEP; this number is smaller than that estimated by CDC, although within the lower CI limit. CONCLUSIONS: By employing a simple framework consisting of census data, literature review, population estimates, and national estimates for PrEP indicators, we derived estimates for potential PrEP use in our state. Statewide estimates of key populations by state and county type will enable health officials to set informed goals and track progress toward optimizing PrEP uptake. This formula may be applicable to other states with similar epidemics and resources. .

Brief report: Validation of a quantitative HIV risk prediction tool using a national HIV testing cohort.

Routine screening is recommended for HIV detection. HIV risk estimation remains important. Our goal was to validate the Denver HIV Risk Score using a national cohort from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Patients of 13 years and older were included, 4,830,941 HIV tests were performed, and 0.6% newly diagnosed infections were identified. Of all visits, 9% were very low risk (HIV prevalence = 0.20%), 27% low risk (HIV prevalence = 0.17%), 41% moderate risk (HIV prevalence = 0.39%), 17% high risk (HIV prevalence = 1.19%), and 6% very high risk (HIV prevalence = 3.57%). The Denver HIV Risk Score accurately categorized patients into different HIV risk groups.

Opportunity Knocks: HIV Prevention in Primary Care.

Expansions in health care coverage, a comprehensive framework for HIV prevention and care, electronic medical records, and novel HIV prevention modalities create a current opportunity to change the trajectory of the HIV epidemic in the United States. HIV is increasingly disproportionately found in populations historically at higher risk, including gay men and other men who have sex with men, transgender women, injection drug users, and persons of color. This underscores the need for providers to identify persons at higher risk for HIV and assure the provision of screening and prevention services. In turn, universal screening for HIV-testing every adolescent and adult at least once in their lifetime-will increasingly be necessary to find the infrequent cases of HIV in lower risk populations. In both these domains, primary care providers will play a unique role in complementing traditional providers of HIV prevention and care services by increasing the proportion of their patients who have been screened for HIV, opening dialogues around sexual health, including asking about sexual orientation and gender identity, and prescribing antivirals as pre- and postexposure prophylaxis for their non-HIV-infected patients. Primary care providers must understand and embrace their importance along the HIV prevention and care continuum.