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.

Communicable Disease Screening and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prevention in the Emergency Department.

Emergency departments (ED) provide care to populations with high rates of communicable diseases, like HIV, hepatitis C virus, and syphilis. For many patients, the ED is their sole entry point into the healthcare system and they do not routinely access screening and prevention services elsewhere. As such, the ED can serve an important public health role through communicable disease identification, treatment, and prevention. In this article, we examine national recommendations, peer-reviewed literature, and expert consensus to provide cutting edge strategies for implementing communicable infectious disease screening and prevention programs into routine ED care.

A Systematic Review of HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Implementation in U.S. Emergency Departments: Patient Screening, Prescribing, and Linkage to Care.

In the pursuit of ending the HIV epidemic, U.S. emergency departments (EDs) have emerged as a valuable setting to increase HIV testing and linkage to care. There is limited data available, however, describing the incorporation of HIV prevention initiatives in U.S. EDs. Over the last decade, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has significantly changed the HIV prevention landscape globally and very little is known about the provision of PrEP in U.S. EDs. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed quantitative studies and conference abstracts spanning July 2012 - October 2022. Of 433 citations, 11 articles and 13 abstracts meet our inclusion criteria, representing 18 unique studies addressing PrEP screening, prescribing, and/or linkage to PrEP care.Most studies describe screening processes to identify PrEP-eligible patients (n = 17); most studies leveraged a patient's STI history as initial PrEP eligibility screening criteria. Fewer studies describe PrEP prescribing (n = 2) and/or linkage to PrEP care (n = 8).Findings from this systematic review highlight the potential for U.S. EDs to increase PrEP uptake among individuals at risk for HIV infection. Despite a growing number of studies exploring processes for incorporating PrEP into the ED setting, such studies are small-scale and time limited. Models providing prescribing PrEP in the ED show higher initiation rates than post-discharge engagement models. Electronic health record (EHR)-based HIV screening is valuable, but post-ED linkage rates are low. Our findings emphasize the need to establish best practices for initiating and supporting prevention effective PrEP use in the ED setting.

Implementing a Rapid Antiretroviral Therapy Program Using Starter Packs for Emergency Department Patients Diagnosed With HIV Infection.

Background: Emergency departments (ED) have been identified as essential partners in the national plan to end the HIV epidemic. The initiation of rapid antiretroviral therapy (ART) may be an important strategy to minimize the treatment barriers faced by many ED patients diagnosed with HIV. Methods: We describe the implementation and outcomes of a protocol to provide rapid ART by using starter packs for eligible ED patients testing HIV antigen/antibody (Ag/Ab) reactive. Eligible patients were not pregnant, were unlikely to have a false-positive Ag/Ab test result, were discharged home, were ART naive, had acceptable liver and renal function, lacked symptoms of an opportunistic infection, and were judged to be a good candidate. Results: During the 1-year study period, 10 606 HIV tests were performed, and 106 patients were HIV Ag/Ab reactive and assessed for ED rapid ART eligibility. Thirty-one patients (29.2%) were eligible for ED rapid ART; 26 (24.5%) were offered it; and 25 accepted and were provided starter packs for an overall ED rapid ART treatment rate of 23.6%. Two patients receiving ED rapid ART were confirmed to be HIV negative. Patients provided ED rapid ART were more likely to follow up by 30 days (82.6% vs 50.0%, P = .01) than patients not provided ED rapid ART. The 6-month incidence of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome was 4.3% among the 23 patients who were HIV positive and receiving ED rapid ART. Conclusions: The initiation of ED rapid ART for patients testing HIV Ag/Ab reactive is feasible, well accepted, and safe and may be an important facilitator of linkage to care.

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.

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.

Development of a 2-step algorithm to identify emergency department patients for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Expanded access to HIV PrEP is a central pillar of the "Ending the HIV Epidemic" initiative. Identification of PrEP eligible individuals in EDs remains understudied. Our goal was to estimate the accuracy of the Denver HIV Risk Score (DHRS), a quantitative HIV risk tool, for determining PrEP eligibility, and to incorporate it into a novel screening algorithm to optimize sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: We performed a prospective cross-sectional study in two urban EDs. Patients were eligible if ≥18 years of age and without HIV. Research staff collected individual HIV risk, components of the DHRS, and PrEP eligibility per 2017 CDC guidelines. Accuracy estimates were calculated for the DHRS alone and the DHRS plus additional PrEP-specific questions. RESULTS: 1002 patients were enrolled with a median age of 39 years; 54.8% were male, 29.5% Black/non-Hispanic, and 22.5% Hispanic. Overall, 119 (11.9%, 95% CI: 9.9%-14.0%) were PrEP eligible; 5% endorsed history of sex with a partner at higher risk for HIV or condomless sex with multiple partners, 4% an STI, and 2% sharing IDU equipment. A DHRS ≥25 had a sensitivity of 92.4% (95% CI: 86.1%-96.5%) and a specificity of 17.2% (95% CI: 14.8%-19.9%) for PrEP eligibility. A 2-step algorithm, "DHRS-PrEP", beginning with a DHRS ≥25, followed by a step with questions specific to IDU, STI, and sexual partners improved the specificity to 100% (95% CI: 99.6%-100%). CONCLUSIONS: Among a heterogeneous ED sample, a substantial proportion was identified as PrEP eligible, and a 2-step algorithm had high sensitivity and specificity for identifying PrEP-eligible patients.

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.

HIV Risk and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Eligibility Among Emergency Department Patients.

Our objective was to estimate the prevalence of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) eligibility, characterize self-perceived and quantified human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk, and assess PrEP knowledge and receptiveness of initiating PrEP among emergency department (ED) patients. We performed an IRB-approved cross-sectional study from two urban EDs. Patients were eligible if ≥18 years of age and not known to have HIV. Research staff obtained verbal consent and used a structured 29-item instrument to assess HIV risk, PrEP eligibility based on 2017 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, and general PrEP knowledge among unselected and enriched patient samples, the latter informed by the Denver HIV Risk Score (DHRS). We enrolled 1002 patients with a median age of 39 years; 54.8% were male, 30.9% White/non-Hispanic, 29.5% Black/non-Hispanic, and 22.5% Hispanic. In the full cohort, 119 [11.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 9.9-14.0%] were PrEP eligible, and among the unselected cohort, 36 (7.1%, 95% CI: 5.1-9.8%) were PrEP eligible. Using the DHRS, 100 patients were considered "high risk" with 32 (32.0%) reporting zero perceived risk. Correlation between the DHRS and self-perceived HIV risk was low (r = 0.13). Of the full cohort, 203 (20.3%) had heard of PrEP, and of these, 33 (16.3%) were PrEP eligible with 25 (75.8%) willing to start PrEP immediately. Yet, of the 119 patients who were PrEP eligible, only 34 (28.6%) had heard of PrEP. In summary, among a heterogeneous ED population, there was discordance in self-perceived and quantified HIV risk. HIV PrEP eligibility was ∼7% with the highest eligibility among those identified as DHRS "high risk." A significant opportunity exists to identify and initiate PrEP among ED patients.

Racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 disease burden & mortality among emergency department patients in a safety net health system.

BACKGROUND: We sought to examine racial and ethnic disparities in test positivity rate and mortality among emergency department (ED) patients tested for COVID-19 within an integrated public health system in Northern California. METHODS: In this retrospective study we analyzed data from patients seen at three EDs and tested for COVID-19 between April 6 through May 4, 2020. The primary outcome was the test positivity rate by race and ethnicity, and the secondary outcome was 30 day in-hospital mortality. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine associations with COVID-19 test positivity. RESULTS: There were 526 patients tested for COVID-19, of whom 95 (18.1%) tested positive. The mean age of patients tested was 54.2 years, 54.7% were male, and 76.1% had at least one medical comorbidity. Black patients accounted for 40.7% of those tested but 16.8% of the positive tests, and Latinx patients accounted for 26.4% of those tested but 58.9% of the positive tests. The test positivity rate among Latinx patients was 40.3% (56/139) compared with 10.1% (39/387) among non-Latinx patients (p < 0.001). Latinx ethnicity was associated with COVID-19 test positivity (adjusted odds ratio 9.6, 95% confidence interval: 3.5-26.0). Mortality among Black patients was higher than non-Black patients (18.7% vs 1.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We report a significant disparity in COVID-19 adjusted test positivity rate and crude mortality rate among Latinx and Black patients, respectively. Results from ED-based testing can identify racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 testing, test positivity rates, and mortality associated with COVID-19 infection and can be used by health departments to inform policy.

High prevalence of injection drug use and blood-borne viral infections among patients in an urban emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic has led to an increase in the number of persons who inject drugs, and this population accounts for 12% of new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and 60% of new hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in the United States annually. While persons who inject drugs disproportionately utilize the emergency department (ED), accurate data is lacking on the prevalence and patterns of injection drug use, and prevalence of co-occurring HIV and HCV infections among ED patients. OBJECTIVE: The primary outcome was to assess the prevalence of injection drug use and co-occurring HIV and HCV infection among patients presenting to an urban ED. METHODS: This was a cross sectional study conducted at an urban ED, with an annual census of 65,000 visits. A closed-response questionnaire was developed based on publicly available validated surveys to assess patterns of injection drug use and HIV and HCV infection status, and administered by trained research assistants to all registered adult patients during 4-hour blocks of time. RESULTS: Of the 2,319 eligible patients, 2,200 (94.9%) consented and completed the survey. 241 (11.0%) had ever used injection drugs, 103 (4.7%) currently used injection drugs, and 138 (6.3%) formerly used injection drugs. White patients age 25 to 34 years and white patients age 55 to 64 years had the highest prevalence of current (25.6%) and former (27.1%) injection drug use, respectively. Persons who use injection drugs had a higher prevalence of HCV infection (52.7% vs. 3.4%) and HIV infection (6.2% vs. 1.8%) than the rest of the population. CONCLUSION: A high prevalence of ED patients report injection drug use, and this population self-reports a high prevalence of HIV and HCV infection. Emergency departments are in a unique position to engage with this population with regards to substance use treatment and linkage to care for HIV and HCV infection.

High Prevalence of Hepatitis C Infection Among Adult Patients at Four Urban Emergency Departments - Birmingham, Oakland, Baltimore, and Boston, 2015-2017.

Identifying persons with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has become an urgent public health challenge because of increasing HCV-related morbidity and mortality, low rates of awareness among infected persons, and the advent of curative therapies (1). Since 2012, CDC has recommended testing of all persons born during 1945-1965 (baby boomers) for identification of chronic HCV infection (1); urban emergency departments (EDs) are well positioned venues for detecting HCV infection among these persons. The United States has witnessed an unprecedented opioid overdose epidemic since 2013 that derives primarily from commonly injected illicit opioids (e.g., heroin and fentanyl) (2). This injection drug use behavior has led to an increase in HCV infections among persons who inject drugs and heightened concern about increases in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and HCV infection within communities disproportionately affected by the opioid crisis (3,4). However, targeted strategies for identifying HCV infection among persons who inject drugs is challenging (5,6). During 2015-2016, EDs at the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Highland Hospital, Oakland, California; Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland; and Boston University Medical Center, Massachusetts, adopted opt-out (i.e., patients can implicitly accept or explicitly decline testing), universal hepatitis C screening for all adult patients. ED staff members offered HCV antibody (anti-HCV) screening to patients who were unaware of their status.* During similar observation periods at each site, ED staff members tested 14,252 patients and identified an overall 9.2% prevalence of positive results for anti-HCV among the adult patient population. Among the 1945-1965 birth cohort, prevalence of positive results for anti-HCV (13.9%) was significantly higher among non-Hispanic blacks (blacks) (16.0%) than among non-Hispanic whites (whites) (12.2%) (p<0.001). Among persons born after 1965, overall prevalence of positive results for anti-HCV was 6.7% and was significantly higher among whites (15.3%) than among blacks (3.2%) (p<0.001). These findings highlight age-associated differences in racial/ethnic prevalences and the potential for ED venues and opt-out, universal testing strategies to improve HCV infection awareness and surveillance for hard-to-reach populations. This opt-out, universal testing approach is supported by new recommendations for hepatitis C screening at least once in a lifetime for all adults aged ≥18 years, except in settings where the prevalence of positive results for HCV infection is <0.1% (7).

A Comparative Effectiveness Study of Two Nontargeted HIV and Hepatitis C Virus Screening Algorithms in an Urban Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compare the effectiveness of 2 nontargeted HIV and hepatitis C virus screening protocols integrated consecutively into care in an urban emergency department: a nurse-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm followed by an automated-laboratory-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm programmed into the electronic health record. METHODS: This was a before-after comparative effectiveness cohort study. All patients aged 18 to 75 years who received treatment during 5-month periods were eligible for participation. The main outcome measures were the number of patients screened and the number with newly diagnosed HIV and hepatitis C virus infection. RESULTS: Of the eligible patients, 6,736 (33.9%) completed HIV screening during the automated-laboratory-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm, whereas 4,121 (19.6%) completed HIV screening during the nurse-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm (difference 14.3%; 95% confidence interval 13.4% to 15.1%); and 6,972 (35.1%) completed hepatitis C virus screening during the automated-laboratory-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm, whereas 2,968 (14.2%) completed hepatitis C virus screening during the nurse-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm (difference 20.9%; 95% confidence interval 20.1% to 21.7%). More patients had newly diagnosed HIV (23 versus 17) and hepatitis C virus infection (101 versus 29) during the automated-laboratory-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm than the nurse-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm. Results were more often available before discharge (HIV 87.2% versus 65.1%; hepatitis C virus 90.0% versus 65.4%) and fewer patients underwent repeated screening (HIV 1.6% versus 5.8%; hepatitis C virus 1.3% versus 4.5%) during the automated-laboratory-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm than the nurse-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm. CONCLUSION: An electronic health record algorithm that automatically links HIV/hepatitis C virus screening to laboratory ordering for adult patients is more effective than a nurse-driven protocol. With widespread use of electronic health record systems, this model can be easily replicated and should be considered the standard for future programs.

Acute HIV Discovered During Routine HIV Screening With HIV Antigen-Antibody Combination Tests in 9 US Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Newer combination HIV antigen-antibody tests allow detection of HIV sooner after infection than previous antibody-only immunoassays because, in addition to HIV-1 and -2 antibodies, they detect the HIV-1 p24 antigen, which appears before antibodies develop. We determine the yield of screening with HIV antigen-antibody tests and clinical presentations for new diagnoses of acute and established HIV infection across US emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 9 EDs in 6 cities with HIV screening programs that integrated laboratory-based antigen-antibody tests between November 1, 2012, and December 31, 2015. Unique patients with newly diagnosed HIV infection were identified and classified as having either acute HIV infection or established HIV infection. Acute HIV infection was defined as a repeatedly reactive antigen-antibody test result, a negative HIV-1/HIV-2 antibody differentiation assay, or Western blot result, but detectable HIV ribonucleic acid (RNA); established HIV infection was defined as a repeatedly reactive antigen-antibody test result and a positive HIV-1/HIV-2 antibody differentiation assay or Western blot result. The primary outcomes were the number of new HIV diagnoses and proportion of patients with laboratory-defined acute HIV infection. Secondary outcomes compared reason for visit and the clinical presentation of acute HIV infection. RESULTS: In total, 214,524 patients were screened for HIV and 839 (0.4%) received a new diagnosis, of which 122 (14.5%) were acute HIV infection and 717 (85.5%) were established HIV infection. Compared with patients with established HIV infection, those with acute HIV infection were younger, had higher RNA and CD4 counts, and were more likely to have viral syndrome (41.8% versus 6.5%) or fever (14.3% versus 3.4%) as their reason for visit. Most patients with acute HIV infection displayed symptoms attributable to acute infection (median symptom count 5 [interquartile range 3 to 6]), with fever often accompanied by greater than or equal to 3 other symptoms (60.7%). CONCLUSION: ED screening using antigen-antibody tests identifies previously undiagnosed HIV infection at proportions that exceed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's screening threshold, with the added yield of identifying acute HIV infection in approximately 15% of patients with a new diagnosis. Patients with acute HIV infection often seek ED care for symptoms related to seroconversion.

Continuum of Care for Hepatitis C Virus Among Patients Diagnosed in the Emergency Department Setting.

BACKGROUND.: Urban emergency departments (EDs) seem to be able to detect new hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections at a high rate, but it is unknown the extent to which individuals screened in the ED can progress to treatment and cure. We evaluate the HCV Continuum of Care for patients identified with HCV in 2 urban EDs, and consider the results in the context of outcomes from ambulatory screening venues where 2%-10% of chronically infected patients are treated. METHODS.: This is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 2 ED HCV screening programs. Patients who screened HCV antibody reactive between 1 May and 31 October 2014 were followed for up to 18 months. The main outcome was the absolute number and proportion of eligible patients who completed each stage of the HCV Continuum of Care. RESULTS.: A total of 3704 ED patients were estimated to have undiagnosed HCV infection, and screening identified 532 (14.4%) HCV antibody-reactive patients. Of the 532 HCV antibody-reactive patients, 435 completed viral load testing (82%), of whom 301 (69%) were chronically infected. Of the 301 chronically infected patients, 158 had follow-up arranged (52%), of whom 97 attended their appointment (61%). Of these 97, 24 began treatment (25%), and 19 of these 24 achieved sustained virological response (79%). CONCLUSIONS.: Urban EDs serve patients with poor access to preventive care services who have a high prevalence of HCV infection. Because ED patients identified with HCV infection can progress to treatment and cure with rates comparable to ambulatory care settings, implementation of ED HCV screening should be expanded.

Hepatitis C Virus Screening and Emergency Department Length of Stay.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies demonstrate high rates of previously undiagnosed hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among patients screened in urban emergency departments (ED). Experts caution, however, that public health interventions, such as screening for infectious diseases, must not interfere with the primary mission of EDs to provide timely acute care. Increases in ED length of stay (LOS) have been associated with decreased quality of ED care. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we assess the influence of an integrated HCV screening protocol on ED LOS. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study analyzing timestamp data for all discharged patients over a 1-year period. The primary outcome compared the median LOS in minutes between patients who completed HCV screening and those who did not. Further analysis compared LOS for HCV screening by whether or not complete blood count (CBC) testing was conducted. RESULTS: Of 69,639 visits, 2,864 (4%) had HCV screening tests completed and 272 (9.5%) were antibody positive. The median LOS for visits that included HCV screening was greater than visits that did not include screening (151 versus 119 minutes, P < 0.001). Among the subset of visits in which CBC testing was conducted, there was no significant difference in median LOS between visits that also included HCV screening and those that did not (240 versus 242 minutes, P = 0.68). CONCLUSION: Integrated HCV screening modestly prolongs ED LOS. However, among patients undergoing other blood tests, screening had no effect on LOS. Programs may consider routinely offering HCV screening to patients who are undergoing laboratory testing.

High-impact hepatitis C virus testing for injection drug users in an urban ED.

OBJECTIVES: We implemented the "High-Impact Testing for Injection Drug Users", or the "HIT IDU" initiative, an emergency physician (EP)-based hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing program. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of this clinical protocol. METHODS: This was a prospective observational pilot study. The HIT IDU initiative encouraged EPs to integrate targeted HCV testing into care, with an emphasis on screening all people who inject drugs (PWID). Physicians selected the primary indication for HCV testing from a drop-down menu integrated into the electronic ordering process. The primary outcome was the absolute number and overall proportion of EP-based HCV antibody positive tests, further stratified by the indication for testing. RESULTS: Over the 3-month study period, 14,253 unique patients were evaluated, and EPs tested 155 patients for HCV (1.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9%-1.2%), of which 40 (26%, 95% CI, 19%-33%) were HCV antibody positive. The proportion of HCV antibody positivity by testing indication was as follows: PWID 47% (34/73; 95% CI, 35%-59%), patient requested test 10% (4/40; 95% CI, 3%-24%), confirm patient report 67% (2/3; 95% CI, 9%-99%), liver disease of uncertain etiology 0% (0/3; 95% CI, 0%-71%), and other 0% (0/36; 95% CI, 0%-10%). There were 22 patients chronically infected, 19 had a follow-up appointment arranged, 3 attended their follow-up appointment, and 1 patient was treated at 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall number of EP-based HCV tests performed was low, high rates of infection were identified, particularly among PWID. There were significant challenges with linkage to care.