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.
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-infectedpatients. 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.
Authors: Kevin P Delaney; James D Heffelfinger; Laura G Wesolowski; S Michele Owen; William A Meyer; Susan Kennedy; Apurva Uniyal; Peter R Kerndt; Bernard M Branson Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2011-10-22 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Jason S Haukoos; Michael S Lyons; Christopher J Lindsell; Emily Hopkins; Brooke Bender; Richard E Rothman; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh; Lynsay A Maclaren; Mark W Thrun; Comilla Sasson; Richard L Byyny Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2012-03-19 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Kayigan Wilson d'Almeida; Gérald Kierzek; Pierre de Truchis; Stéphane Le Vu; Dominique Pateron; Bertrand Renaud; Caroline Semaille; Vanina Bousquet; François Simon; Didier Guillemot; France Lert; Anne-Claude Crémieux Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2011-10-24
Authors: Jason S Haukoos; Emily Hopkins; Amy A Conroy; Morgan Silverman; Richard L Byyny; Sheri Eisert; Mark W Thrun; Michael L Wilson; Angela B Hutchinson; Jessica Forsyth; Steven C Johnson; James D Heffelfinger Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-07-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jason S Haukoos; Emily Hopkins; Vassily T Eliopoulos; Richard L Byyny; Kate A Laperriere; Myles X Mendoza; Mark W Thrun Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Uriel R Felsen; Chinazo O Cunningham; Moonseong Heo; Donna C Futterman; Jeffrey M Weiss; Barry S Zingman Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Jason S Haukoos; Michael S Lyons; Douglas A E White; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh; Richard E Rothman Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Jason S Haukoos; Emily Hopkins; Meggan M Bucossi; Michael S Lyons; Richard E Rothman; Douglas A E White; Alia A Al-Tayyib; Lucy Bradley-Springer; Jonathan D Campbell; Allison L Sabel; Mark W Thrun Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Daniel J Feller; Oliver J Bear Don't Walk Iv; Jason Zucker; Michael T Yin; Peter Gordon; Noémie Elhadad Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Parastu Kasaie; W David Kelton; Rachel M Ancona; Michael J Ward; Craig M Froehle; Michael S Lyons Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2017-11-11 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Gabor D Kelen; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh; Richard E Rothman; Eshan U Patel; Oliver B Laeyendecker; Mark A Marzinke; William Clarke; Teresa Parsons; Jordyn L Manucci; Thomas C Quinn Journal: AIDS Date: 2016-01-02 Impact factor: 4.177