Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Screening in Emergency Departments: Results From the Pragmatic Randomized HIV Testing Using Enhanced Screening Techniques in Emergency Departments Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Identification of HIV remains a critical health priority for which emergency departments (EDs) are a central focus. The comparative cost-effectiveness of various HIV screening strategies in EDs remains largely unknown. The goal of this study was to compare programmatic costs and cost-effectiveness of nontargeted and 2 forms of targeted opt-out HIV screening in EDs using results from a multicenter, pragmatic randomized clinical trial. METHODS: This economic evaluation was nested in the HIV Testing Using Enhanced Screening Techniques in Emergency Departments (TESTED) trial, a multicenter pragmatic clinical trial of different ED-based HIV screening strategies conducted from April 2014 through January 2016. Patients aged 16 years or older, with normal mental status and not critically ill, or not known to be living with HIV were randomized to 1 of 3 HIV opt-out screening approaches, including nontargeted, enhanced targeted, or traditional targeted, across 4 urban EDs in the United States. Each screening method was fully integrated into routine emergency care. Direct programmatic costs were determined using actual trial results, and time-motion assessment was used to estimate personnel activity costs. The primary outcome was newly diagnosed HIV. Total annualized ED programmatic costs by screening approach were calculated using dollars adjusted to 2023 as were costs per patient newly diagnosed with HIV. One-way and multiway sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The trial randomized 76,561 patient visits, resulting in 14,405 completed HIV tests, and 24 (0.2%) new diagnoses. Total annualized new diagnoses were 12.9, and total annualized costs for nontargeted, enhanced targeted, and traditional targeted screening were $111,861, $88,629, and $70,599, respectively. Within screening methods, costs per new HIV diagnoses were $20,809, $23,554, and $18,762, respectively. Enhanced targeted screening incurred higher costs but with similar annualized new cases detected compared with traditional targeted screening. Nontargeted screening yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,586 when compared with traditional targeted screening. Results were most sensitive to HIV prevalence and costs of HIV tests. CONCLUSION: Nontargeted HIV screening was more costly than targeted screening largely due to an increased number of HIV tests performed. Each HIV screening strategy had similar within-strategy costs per new HIV diagnosis with traditional targeted screening yielding the lowest cost per new diagnosis. For settings with budget constraints or very low HIV prevalences, the traditional targeted approach may be preferred; however, given only a slightly higher cost per new HIV diagnosis, ED settings looking to detect the most new cases may prefer nontargeted screening.

Impact of the Communities That HEAL Intervention on Buprenorphine-Waivered Practitioners and Buprenorphine Prescribing: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the HCS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Buprenorphine significantly reduces opioid-related overdose mortality. From 2002 to 2022, the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) required qualified practitioners to receive a waiver from the Drug Enforcement Agency to prescribe buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder. During this period, waiver uptake among practitioners was modest; subsequent changes need to be examined. Objective: To determine whether the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention increased the rate of practitioners with DATA 2000 waivers and buprenorphine prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis of the HEALing Communities Study, a multisite, 2-arm, parallel, community-level, cluster randomized, open, wait-list-controlled comparison clinical trial was designed to assess the effectiveness of the CTH intervention and was conducted between January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2023, in 67 communities in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio, accounting for approximately 8.2 million adults. The participants in this trial were communities consisting of counties (n = 48) and municipalities (n = 19). Trial arm randomization was conducted using a covariate constrained randomization procedure stratified by state. Each state was balanced by community characteristics including urban/rural classification, fatal opioid overdose rate, and community population. Thirty-four communities were randomized to the intervention and 33 to wait-list control arms. Data analysis was conducted between March 20 and September 29, 2023, with a focus on the comparison period from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022. Intervention: Waiver trainings and other educational trainings were offered or supported by the HEALing Communities Study research sites in each state to help build practitioner capacity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver (overall, and stratified by 30-, 100-, and 275-patient limits) per 100 000 adult residents aged 18 years or older during July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022, were compared between the intervention and wait-list control communities. The rate of buprenorphine prescribing among those waivered practitioners was also compared between the intervention and wait-list control communities. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed. Results: A total of 8 166 963 individuals aged 18 years or older were residents of the 67 communities studied. There was no evidence of an effect of the CTH intervention on the adjusted rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver (adjusted relative rate [ARR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94-1.14) or the adjusted rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver who actively prescribed buprenorphine (ARR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86-1.10). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the CTH intervention was not associated with increases in the rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver or buprenorphine prescribing among those waivered practitioners. Supporting practitioners to prescribe buprenorphine remains a critical yet challenging step in the continuum of care to treat opioid use disorder. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04111939.

Screening for problematic opioid use in the emergency department: Comparison of two screening measures.

Study objective: Earlier intervention for opioid use disorder (OUD) may reduce long-term health implications. Emergency departments (EDs) in the United States treat millions with OUD annually who may not seek care elsewhere. Our objectives were (1) to compare two screening measures for OUD characterization in the ED and (2) to determine the proportion of ED patients screening positive for OUD and those who endorse other substance use to guide future screening programs. Methods: A cross-sectional study of randomly selected adult patients presenting to three Midwestern US EDs were enrolled, with duplicate patients excluded. Surveys were administered via research assistant and documented on tablet devices. Demographics were self-reported, and OUD positivity was assessed by the DSM 5 checklist and the WHO ASSIST 3.1. The primary outcome was the concordance between two screening measures for OUD. Our secondary outcome was the proportion of ED patients meeting OUD criteria and endorsed co-occurring substance use disorder (SUD) criteria. Results: We enrolled 1305 participants; median age of participants was 46 years (range 18-84), with 639 (49.0%) Non-Hispanic, White, and 693 (53.1%) female. Current OUD positivity was identified in 17% (222 out of 1305) of the participants via either DSM-5 (two or more criteria) or ASSIST (score of 4 or greater). We found moderate agreement between the measures (kappa = 0.56; Phi coefficient = 0.57). Of individuals screening positive for OUD, 182 (82%) endorsed criteria for co-occurring SUD. Conclusions: OUD is remarkably prevalent in ED populations, with one in six ED patients screening positive. We found a high prevalence of persons identified with OUD and co-occurring SUD, with moderate agreement between measures. Developing and implementing clinically feasible OUD screening in the ED is essential to enable intervention.

Patient motivators to use opioids for acute pain after emergency care.

Introduction: Patients are stakeholders in their own pain management. Factors motivating individuals to seek or use opioids therapeutically for treatment of acute pain are not well characterized but could be targeted to reduce incident iatrogenic opioid use disorder (OUD). Emergency departments (EDs) commonly encounter patients in acute pain for whom decisions regarding opioid therapy are required. Decision-making is necessarily challenged in episodic, unscheduled care settings given time pressure, limited information, and lack of pre-existing patient provider relationship. Patients may decline to take prescribed opioids or conversely seek opioids from other providers or non-medical sources. Methods: Using a framework analysis approach, we qualitatively analyzed transcripts from 29 patients after discharge from an ED visit for acute pain at a large, urban, academic hospital in the midwestern United States to describe motivating factors influencing patient decisions regarding opioid use for acute pain. A semi-structured interview guide framed participant discussion in either a focus group or interview transcribed and analyzed with conventional content analysis. Results: Four major themes emerged from our analysis including a) pain management literacy, b) control preferences, c) risk tolerance, and d) cues to action. Discussion: Our findings suggest targets for future intervention development and a framework to guide the engagement of patients as stakeholders in their own acute pain management.

Evaluation of a large-scale health department naloxone distribution program: Per capita naloxone distribution and overdose morality.

OBJECTIVES: To report per-capita distribution of take-home naloxone to lay bystanders and evaluate changes in opioid overdose mortality in the county over time. METHODS: Hamilton County Public Health in southwestern Ohio led the program from Oct 2017-Dec 2019. Analyses included all cartons distributed within Hamilton County or in surrounding counties to people who reported a home address within Hamilton County. Per capita distribution was estimated using publicly available census data. Opioid overdose mortality was compared between the period before (Oct 2015-Sep 2017) and during (Oct 2017-Sep 2019) the program. RESULTS: A total of 10,416 cartons were included for analyses, with a total per capita distribution of 1,275 cartons per 100,000 county residents (average annual rate of 588/100,000). Median monthly opioid overdose mortality in the two years before (28 persons, 95% CI 25-31) and during (26, 95% CI 23-28) the program did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Massive and rapid naloxone distribution to lay bystanders is feasible. Even large-scale take-home naloxone distribution may not substantially reduce opioid overdose mortality rates.

Substance Use and Mental Health Screening Within an Emergency Department-Based HIV Screening Program: Outcomes From 1 Year of Implementation.

INTRODUCTION: The emergency department (ED) may be an optimal setting to screen for substance use disorders (SUDs) and co-occurring psychiatric disorders (CODs). We report on the frequency of problematic substance use and comorbid elevated mental health symptoms detected during a 1-year implementation period of an ED-based SUD/COD screening approach within an established ED HIV screening program. METHODS: Patients (N = 1,924) were approached by dedicated HIV screening staff in an urban, Midwestern ED. Patients first completed measures assessing problematic alcohol (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Concise [AUDIT-C]) and substance use across 10 categories of substances (National Institute on Drug Abuse-Modified Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test [NIDA-Modified ASSIST]). Patients with positive alcohol and/or substance use screens completed measures assessing symptoms of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7]), and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (PTSD Checklist-Civilian [PCL-C]). RESULTS: Patients were predominantly male (60.3%) with a mean age of 38.1 years (SD = 13.0); most identified as White (50.8%) or Black (44.8%). A majority (58.5%) had a positive screen for problematic alcohol and/or other substance use. Of those with a positive substance use screen (n = 1,126), 47.0% had a positive screen on one or more of the mental health measures with 32.1% endorsing elevated depressive symptoms, 29.6% endorsing elevated PTSD-related symptoms, and 28.5% endorsing elevated anxiety symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Among those receiving ED HIV screening, a majority endorsed problematic alcohol and/or other substance use and co-occurring elevated mental health symptoms. Substance use and mental health screening programs that can be integrated within other ED preventive services may enhance the identification of individuals in need of further assessment, referral, or linkage to substance use treatment services.

Patient perceptions of microaggressions and discrimination toward patients during emergency department care.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in emergency department (ED) care based on race and ethnicity have been demonstrated. Patient perceptions of emergency care can have broad impacts, including poor health outcomes. Our objective was to measure and explore patient experiences of microaggressions and discrimination during ED care. METHODS: This mixed-methods study of adult patients from two urban academic EDs integrates quantitative discrimination measures and semistructured interviews of discrimination experiences during ED care. Participants completed demographic questionnaires and the Discrimination in Medical Settings (DMS) scale and were invited for a follow-up interview. Transcripts of recorded interviews were analyzed leveraging conventional content analysis with line-by-line coding for thematic descriptions. RESULTS: The cohort included 52 participants, with 30 completing the interview. Nearly half the participants were Black (n = 24, 46.1%) and half were male (n = 26, 50%). "No" or "rare" experiences of discrimination during the ED visit were reported by 22/48 (46%), some/moderate discrimination by 19/48 (39%), and significant discrimination in 7/48 (15%). Five main themes were found: (1) clinician behaviors-communication and empathy, (2) emotional response to health care team actions, (3) perceived reasons for discrimination, (4) environmental pressures in the ED, and (5) patients are hesitant to complain. We found an emergent concept where persons with moderate/high DMS scores, in discussing instances of discrimination, frequently reflected on previous health care experiences rather than on their current ED visit. CONCLUSIONS: Patients attributed microaggressions to many factors beyond race and gender, including age, socioeconomic status, and environmental pressures in the ED. Of those who endorsed moderate to significant discrimination via survey response during their recent ED visit, most described historical experiences of discrimination during their interview. Previous experiences of discrimination may have lasting effects on patient perceptions of current health care. System and clinician investment in patient rapport and satisfaction is important to prevent negative expectations for future encounters and counteract those already in place.

Implementation Facilitation to Promote Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is underused. Objective: To evaluate whether provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD increased after implementation facilitation (IF), an educational and implementation strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial compared grand rounds with IF, with pre-post 12-month baseline and IF evaluation periods, at 4 academic EDs. The study was conducted from April 1, 2017, to November 30, 2020. Participants were ED and community clinicians treating patients with OUD and observational cohorts of ED patients with untreated OUD. Data were analyzed from July 16, 2021, to July 14, 2022. Exposure: A 60-minute in-person grand rounds was compared with IF, a multicomponent facilitation strategy that engaged local champions, developed protocols, and provided learning collaboratives and performance feedback. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the rate of patients in the observational cohorts who received ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD treatment (primary implementation outcome) and the rate of patients engaged in OUD treatment at 30 days after enrollment (effectiveness outcome). Additional implementation outcomes included the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver to prescribe buprenorphine and ED visits with buprenorphine administered or prescribed and naloxone dispensed or prescribed. Results: A total of 394 patients were enrolled during the baseline evaluation period and 362 patients were enrolled during the IF evaluation period across all sites, for a total of 756 patients (540 [71.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 39.3 [11.7] years), with 223 Black patients (29.5%) and 394 White patients (52.1%). The cohort included 420 patients (55.6%) who were unemployed, and 431 patients (57.0%) reported unstable housing. Two patients (0.5%) received ED-initiated buprenorphine during the baseline period, compared with 53 patients (14.6%) during the IF evaluation period (P < .001). Forty patients (10.2%) were engaged with OUD treatment during the baseline period, compared with 59 patients (16.3%) during the IF evaluation period (P = .01). Patients in the IF evaluation period who received ED-initiated buprenorphine were more likely to be in treatment at 30 days (19 of 53 patients [35.8%]) than those who did not 40 of 309 patients (12.9%; P < .001). Additionally, there were increases in the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver (from 11 to 196 clinicians) and ED visits with provision of buprenorphine (from 259 to 1256 visits) and naloxone (from 535 to 1091 visits). Conclusions and Relevance: In this multicenter effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial, rates of ED-initiated buprenorphine and engagement in OUD treatment were higher in the IF period, especially among patients who received ED-initiated buprenorphine. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023930.

Genetic Variants Associated With Opioid Use Disorder.

Genetics are presumed to contribute 30-40% to opioid use disorder (OUD), allowing for the possibility that genetic markers could be used to identify personal risk for developing OUD. We aimed to test the potential association among 180 candidate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 120 of which were related to the dopamine reward pathway and 60 related to pharmacokinetics. Participants were randomly recruited in 2020-2021 in a cross-sectional genetic association study. Self-reported health history including Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) OUD criteria and buccal swabs were collected. A total of 1,301 participants were included in the analyses for this study. Of included participants, 250 met the DSM-5 criteria for ever having OUD. Logistic regression, adjusting for age and biologic sex, was used to characterize the association between each SNP and DSM-5 criteria consistent with OUD. Six SNPs found in four genes were associated with OUD: increased odds with CYP3A5 (rs15524 and rs776746) and DRD3 (rs324029 and rs2654754), and decreased odds with CYP3A4 (rs2740574) and CYP1A2 (rs2069514). Homozygotic CYP3A5 (rs15524 and rs776746) had the highest adjusted odds ratio of 2.812 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.737, 4.798) and 2.495 (95% CI 1.670, 3.835), respectively. Variants within the dopamine reward and opioid metabolism pathways have significant positive (DRD3 and CYP3A5) and negative (CYP3A4 and CYP1A2) associations with OUD. Identification of these variants provides promising possibilities for genetic prognostic and therapeutic targets for future investigation.

The Determining Effective Testing in Emergency Departments and Care Coordination on Treatment Outcomes (DETECT) for Hepatitis C (Hep C) Linkage-to-Care Trial: rationale and design of an emergency department-based randomized clinical trial of linkage-to-care strategies for hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C (HCV) poses a major public health problem in the USA. While early identification is a critical priority, subsequent linkage to a treatment specialist is a crucial step that bridges diagnosed patients to treatment, cure, and prevention of ongoing transmission. Emergency departments (EDs) serve as an important clinical setting for HCV screening, although optimal methods of linkage-to-care for HCV-diagnosed individuals remain unknown. In this article, we describe the rationale and design of The Determining Effective Testing in Emergency Departments and Care Coordination on Treatment Outcomes (DETECT) for Hepatitis C (Hep C) Linkage-to-Care Trial. METHODS: The DETECT Hep C Linkage-to-Care Trial will be a single-center prospective comparative effectiveness randomized two-arm parallel-group superiority trial to test the effectiveness of linkage navigation and clinician referral among ED patients identified with untreated HCV with a primary hypothesis that linkage navigation plus clinician referral is superior to clinician referral alone when using treatment initiation as the primary outcome. Participants will be enrolled in the ED at Denver Health Medical Center (Denver, CO), an urban, safety-net hospital with approximately 75,000 annual adult ED visits. This trial was designed to enroll a maximum of 280 HCV RNA-positive participants with one planned interim analysis based on methods by O'Brien and Fleming. This trial will further inform the evaluation of cost effectiveness, disparities, and social determinants of health in linkage-to-care, treatment, and disease progression. DISCUSSION: When complete, the DETECT Hep C Linkage-to-Care Trial will significantly inform how best to perform linkage-to-care among ED patients identified with HCV. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04026867 Original date: July 1, 2019 URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04026867.

Derivation and Validation of a Brief Emergency Department-Based Prediction Tool for Posttraumatic Stress After Motor Vehicle Collision.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To derive and initially validate a brief bedside clinical decision support tool that identifies emergency department (ED) patients at high risk of substantial, persistent posttraumatic stress symptoms after a motor vehicle collision. METHODS: Derivation (n=1,282, 19 ED sites) and validation (n=282, 11 separate ED sites) data were obtained from adults prospectively enrolled in the Advancing Understanding of RecOvery afteR traumA study who were discharged from the ED after motor vehicle collision-related trauma. The primary outcome was substantial posttraumatic stress symptoms at 3 months (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 ≥38). Logistic regression derivation models were evaluated for discriminative ability using the area under the curve and the accuracy of predicted risk probabilities (Brier score). Candidate posttraumatic stress predictors assessed in these models (n=265) spanned a range of sociodemographic, baseline health, peritraumatic, and mechanistic domains. The final model selection was based on performance and ease of administration. RESULTS: Significant 3-month posttraumatic stress symptoms were common in the derivation (27%) and validation (26%) cohort. The area under the curve and Brier score of the final 8-question tool were 0.82 and 0.14 in the derivation cohort and 0.76 and 0.17 in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: This simple 8-question tool demonstrates promise to risk-stratify individuals with substantial posttraumatic stress symptoms who are discharged to home after a motor vehicle collision. Both external validation of this instrument, and work to further develop more accurate tools, are needed. Such tools might benefit public health by enabling the conduct of preventive intervention trials and assisting the growing number of EDs that provide services to trauma survivors aimed at promoting psychological recovery.

Missed Opportunities for HIV and Hepatitis C Screening Among Emergency Department Patients With Untreated Opioid Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the frequency of emergency department (ED) HIV and hepatitis C (HCV) screening in a high-risk cohort of ED patients with untreated opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: This analysis used data from a prospective, observational study of English-speaking adults with untreated OUD enrolled from April 2017 to December 2018 in 4 urban, academic EDs. Two cohorts were defined for this analysis by self-reported negative/unknown status for HIV (cohort 1) and HCV (cohort 2). Sites featured structured screening programs throughout the entire enrollment period for HIV and during at least part of the enrollment period for HCV. We calculated the proportion tested for HIV and HCV during the study enrollment ED visit. RESULTS: Among 394 evaluated ED patients, 328 of 394 (83.2%) were not tested for HIV or HCV and 244 of 393 (62.1%) lacked a usual medical care provider. In cohort 1, 375 reported negative or unknown HIV status; 59/375 (15.7%) overall and 33/218 (15.1%) of those reporting recent injection drug use were tested for HIV. In cohort 2, 231 reported negative of unknown HCV status; 22/231 (9.5%) overall and 9/98 (9.2%) of those reporting recent injection drug use were tested for HCV. The proportion tested by the ED ranged from 3% to 25% for HIV and 4% to 32% for HCV across study sites. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency department HIV and HCV screening remains infrequent among patients with untreated OUD, including those who inject drugs, even in EDs committed to screening. Targeted HIV/HCV screening should be considered as an adjunct strategy until the ideal of universal screening is more fully achieved.

Protocol for community-driven selection of strategies to implement evidence-based practices to reduce opioid overdoses in the HEALing Communities Study: a trial to evaluate a community-engaged intervention in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York and Ohio.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid-involved overdose deaths continue to surge in many communities, despite numerous evidence-based practices (EBPs) that exist to prevent them. The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) was launched to develop and test an intervention (ie, Communities That HEAL (CTH)) that supports communities in expanding uptake of EBPs to reduce opioid-involved overdose deaths. This paper describes a protocol for a process foundational to the CTH intervention through which community coalitions select strategies to implement EBPs locally. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CTH is being implemented in 67 communities (randomised to receive the intervention) in four states in partnership with coalitions (one per community). Coalitions must select at least five strategies, including one to implement each of the following EBPs: (a) overdose education and naloxone distribution; expanded (b) access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), (c) linkage to MOUD, (d) retention in MOUD and (e) safer opioid prescribing/dispensing. Facilitated by decision aid tools, the community action planning process includes (1) data-driven goal setting, (2) discussion and prioritisation of EBP strategies, (3) selection of EBP strategies and (4) identification of next steps. Following review of epidemiologic data and information on existing local services, coalitions set goals and discuss, score and/or rank EBP strategies based on feasibility, appropriateness within the community context and potential impact on reducing opioid-involved overdose deaths with a focus on three key sectors (healthcare, behavioural health and criminal justice) and high-risk/vulnerable populations. Coalitions then select EBP strategies through consensus or majority vote and, subsequently, suggest or choose agencies with which to partner for implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The HCS protocol was approved by a central Institutional Review Board (Advarra). Results of the action planning process will be disseminated in academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals, online and print media, and in meetings with community stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04111939.

The synthetic opioid fentanyl increases HIV replication and chemokine co-receptor expression in vitro.

The US is experiencing a major public health crisis that is fueled by the illicit use of synthetic opioids including fentanyl. While several drugs of abuse can enhance viral replication and/or antagonize immune responses, the impact of specific synthetic opioids on HIV pathogenesis is poorly understood. Thus, we evaluated the effects of fentanyl on HIV replication in vitro. HIV-susceptible or HIV-expressing cell lines were incubated with fentanyl. HIV p24 synthesis and chemokine receptor levels were quantified by ELISA in culture supernatants and cell lysates, respectively. Addition of fentanyl resulted in a dose-dependent increase in HIV replication. Fentanyl enhanced expression of the HIV chemokine co-receptors CXCR4 and CCR5 and caused a dose-dependent decrease in cell viability. The opioid antagonist naltrexone blocked the effect of fentanyl on HIV replication and CCR5 receptor levels but not CXCR4 receptor levels. TLR9 expression was induced by HIV; however, fentanyl inhibited TLR9 expression in a dose-dependent manner. These data demonstrate that the synthetic opioid fentanyl can promote HIV replication in vitro. As increased HIV levels are associated with accelerated disease progression and higher likelihood of transmission, additional research is required to enhance the understanding of opioid-virus interactions and to develop new and/or optimized treatment strategies for persons with HIV and opioid use disorder.

Acceptance of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) referral among a sample of PrEP-eligible emergency department patients.

OBJECTIVE: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PreP) reduces the rate of HIV transmission in high-risk groups. Emergency departments (EDs) frequently encounter patients at risk for HIV acquisition who are eligible for PrEP. ED HIV screening programs have prioritized testing and linkage to care for patients who test positive, but fail to refer HIV-negative patients to PrEP clinicians. Our objective was to estimate referral acceptance to a PrEP clinician among a sample of at-risk ED patients. METHODS: This single-center cross-sectional study electronically queried a prospectively acquired dataset of survey responses from a sample of patients presenting to an urban academic ED from March 2019 to February 2020. Patients completed a risk assessment as part of the HIV screening program. PrEP eligibility was based off survey responses in accordance with 2017 CDC PrEP eligibility criteria. Identified PrEP-eligible patients completed a PrEP questionnaire. The primary outcome was the proportion of PrEP-eligible patients who accepted referral to a PrEP clinician during their ED encounter. We secondarily report patient participant characteristics including the proportion of PrEP-eligible patients who were aware of and were knowledgeable about PrEP as a method to prevent transmission of HIV. RESULTS: In total, 360 patients completed a PrEP questionnaire, of which 287 (80%) were not currently taking PrEP and eligible for PrEP referral. 57% were males, with 41% Black/African American. Of the 287 eligible for PrEP, 61 (21.3%, 95% CI: 16.8-26.5) indicated awareness of PrEP, of which, 49 (80.3%, 95% CI: 67.8-89.0) demonstrated accurate knowledge of PrEP. PrEP referral was offered to 238 (82.9%, 95% CI: 78.0-87.0) patients, of which, 76 (31.9%, 95% CI: 26.1-38.3) accepted. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one third of PrEP-eligible ED patients accepted PrEP referral during their ED encounter, demonstrating an opportunity for increased PrEP education and intentional referral for eligible patients. Variability in PrEP acceptability by demographic and risk subgroup may be an important consideration in efforts to expand PrEP utilization.

Models for Implementing Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine With Referral for Ongoing Medication Treatment at Emergency Department Discharge in Diverse Academic Centers.

There has been a substantial rise in the number of publications and training opportunities on the care and treatment of emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder over the past several years. The American College of Emergency Physicians recently published recommendations for providing buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorder, but barriers to implementing this clinical practice remain. We describe the models for implementing ED-initiated buprenorphine at 4 diverse urban, academic medical centers across the country as part of a federally funded effort termed "Project ED Health." These 4 sites successfully implemented unique ED-initiated buprenorphine programs as part of a comparison of implementation facilitation to traditional educational dissemination on the uptake of ED-initiated buprenorphine. Each site describes the elements central to the ED process, including screening, treatment initiation, referral, and follow-up, while harnessing organizational characteristics, including ED culture. Finally, we discuss common facilitators to program success, including information technology and electronic medical record integration, hospital-level support, strong connections with outpatient partners, and quality improvement processes.

Patient Pain Experiences and the Emergency Department Encounter: A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Legislation, practice recommendations, and the likely link between therapeutic opioid exposure and iatrogenic opioid use disorder (OUD) have led to reduced opioid prescribing. The effects of this change on unrelieved pain and the overdose crisis are not well-characterized. AIM: We explored emergency department (ED) patients' beliefs and experiences involving pain and emergency care to inform the development of future psychosocial interventions that balance the need for acute pain management with risks from opioid exposure. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted after discharge from an urban, academic Level 1 trauma center ED from September 2020 to May 2021 with 18 adult patients presenting with acute pain. After transcription of audio recording, common themes were identified using framework analysis. Thematic hierarchy was validated with Pearson correlation coefficients for cluster analysis of word similarity. RESULTS: Of the 18 participants, most were Black (n = 11, 61%) and male (n = 12, 66.7%). Analysis identified one overarching theme: locus of control with an emergency pain encounter. Four themes were identified surrounding internal and external influences on pain management: (1) accessing healthcare for acute pain; (2) managing the pain after discharge; (3) seeking opioids: self-medicating and misuse; and (4) opioid crisis makes people in pain suffer. CONCLUSIONS: Patients discharged from the ED reported unrelieved pain, factors that influence their pain management, and an ability to seek opioids from non-medical sources. There is a significant disconnect between patients and providers in terms of priorities in pain management and the importance of individualized care.

Patients' Perspectives on Emergency Department COVID-19 Vaccination and Vaccination Messaging Through Randomized Vignettes.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency departments (EDs) could play an important role in the COVID-19 pandemic response by reaching patients who would otherwise not seek vaccination in the community. Prior to expanding COVID-19 vaccination to the acute care setting, we assessed ED patients' COVID-19 vaccine status, perspectives, and hypothetical receptivity to ED-based vaccination. METHODS: From January 11 through March 31, 2021, we conducted a multisite (Albany Medical Center, Boston Medical Center, Buffalo General Hospital, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, and Upstate Medical Center), cross-sectional survey of ED patients, with embedded randomization for participants to receive 1 of 4 vignette vaccination messages (simple opt-in message, recommendation by the hospital, community-oriented message, and acknowledgment of vaccine hesitancy). Main outcomes included COVID-19 vaccination status, prior intention to be vaccinated, and receptivity to randomized hypothetical vignette messages. RESULTS: Of 610 participants, 122 (20.0%) were vaccinated, 234 (38.4%) had prior intent to be vaccinated, 111 (18.2%) were unsure as to prior intent, and 143 (23.4%) had no prior intent to be vaccinated. Vaccine hesitancy (participants who were vaccine unsure or did not intend to receive the vaccine) was associated with the following: age <45 years, female, non-Hispanic Black, no primary health care, and no prior influenza vaccination. Overall, 364 of 565 (64.4%; 95% CI, 60.3%-68.4%) were willing to accept a hypothetical vaccination in the ED. Among participants with prior vaccine hesitancy, a simple opt-in message resulted in the highest acceptance rates to hypothetical vaccination (39.7%; 95% CI, 27.6%-52.8%). CONCLUSIONS: EDs have appropriate patient populations to initiate COVID-19 vaccination programs as a supplement to community efforts. A simple opt-in approach may offer the best messaging to reach vaccine-hesitant ED patients.

The Determining Effective Testing in Emergency Departments and Care Coordination on Treatment Outcomes (DETECT) for Hepatitis C (Hep C) Screening Trial: rationale and design of a multi-center pragmatic randomized clinical trial of hepatitis C screening in emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of HCV is a critical health priority, especially now that treatment options are available to limit further transmission and provide cure before long-term sequelae develop. Emergency departments (EDs) are important clinical settings for HCV screening given that EDs serve many at-risk patients who do not access other forms of healthcare. In this article, we describe the rationale and design of The Determining Effective Testing in Emergency Departments and Care Coordination on Treatment Outcomes (DETECT) for Hepatitis C (Hep C) Screening Trial. METHODS: The DETECT Hep C Screening Trial is a multi-center prospective pragmatic randomized two-arm parallel-group superiority trial to test the comparative effectiveness of nontargeted and targeted HCV screening in the ED with a primary hypothesis that nontargeted screening is superior to targeted screening when identifying newly diagnosed HCV. This trial will be performed in the EDs at Denver Health Medical Center (Denver, CO), Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, MD), and the University of Mississippi Medical Center (Jackson, MS), sites representing approximately 225,000 annual adult visits, and designed using the PRECIS-2 framework for pragmatic trials. When complete, we will have enrolled a minimum of 125,000 randomized patient visits and have performed 13,965 HCV tests. In Denver, the Screening Trial will serve as a conduit for a distinct randomized comparative effectiveness trial to evaluate linkage-to-HCV care strategies. All sites will further contribute to embedded observational studies to assess cost effectiveness, disparities, and social determinants of health in screening, linkage-to-care, and treatment for HCV. DISCUSSION: When complete, The DETECT Hep C Screening Trial will represent the largest ED-based pragmatic clinical trial to date and all studies, in aggregate, will significantly inform how to best perform ED-based HCV screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04003454 . Registered on 1 July 2019.

Clinical Utility of the Signal-to-Cutoff Ratio of Reactive HIV Antigen/Antibody Screening Tests in Guiding Emergency Physician Management.

BACKGROUND: The signal-to-cutoff (S/CO) ratio of the HIV antigen/antibody test may help immediately to differentiate true-positive results from false-positive results, which may be particularly useful in time-sensitive circumstances, such as when providing emergency department (ED) care. SETTING: Seven US EDs with HIV screening programs using HIV antigen/antibody assays. METHODS: This cross-sectional study of existing data correlated S/CO ratios with confirmed HIV status. Test characteristics at predetermined S/CO ratios and the S/CO ratio with the best performance by receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve were calculated. RESULTS: Of 1035 patients with a reactive HIV antigen/antibody test, 232 (22.4%) were confirmed HIV-negative and 803 (77.6%) were confirmed HIV-positive. Of the 803 patients, 713 (88.8%) experienced chronic infections and 90 (11.2%) experienced acute infections. S/CO ratios were greater for HIV-positive (median 539.2) than for HIV-negative patients (median 1.93) (P < 0.001) and lower for acute infection (median 22.8) than for chronic infection (median 605.7) (P < 0.001). All patients with an S/CO ratio < 1.58 (n = 93) were HIV-negative (NPV 100%), and nearly all with an S/CO ≥ 20.7 (n = 760) (optimal level by ROC analysis) were HIV-positive (PPV 98.6%). Of patients with S/CO values between 1.58 and 20.7 (n = 182), 29.7% were HIV-positive. CONCLUSIONS: The S/CO ratio may be used in real time to classify most ED patients as almost certain to be either HIV-positive or HIV-negative long before nucleic acid confirmatory testing is available. When combined with clinical judgment, this could guide preliminary result disclosure and management.