Prevalence of Hepatitis B Virus Exposure in the Veterans Health Administration and Association With Military-Related Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Military veterans have been reported to have higher odds of hepatitis B virus (HBV) exposure after adjustment for demographic factors, family income, and birthplace. It is not clear whether military-related exposures are associated with risk of HBV exposure in veterans. METHODS: A random sample of veterans receiving care from 1998 through 2000 in the national Veterans' Health Administration system completed a risk factor survey and underwent phlebotomy analysis (N = 1146). Stored serum samples were reanalyzed to determine prevalence of HBV exposure (core antibody positive), infection (surface antigen or DNA positive), and immunity (surface antibody positive, surface antigen negative, and core antibody negative). Associations between military-related risk factors and HBV exposure were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: The prevalence values for infection, exposure, and immunity were 0.7% (95% CI, 0.3-1.5), 13.6% (95% CI, 11.5-16.1), and 6.2% (95% CI, 4.7-8.2), respectively. Evidence of HBV exposure was highest among respondents with traditional risk factors (such as drug use or high-risk sexual practices). More than half the individuals with HBV exposure (53%) reported no history of traditional risk factors; of these, 59.5% reported a history of combat exposure. After adjustment for demographic and traditional risk factors, service in a combat zone (adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.01-2.41) and being wounded in combat (adjusted odds ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.04-3.08) were associated independently with exposure to HBV. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of US military veterans, we found the prevalence of exposure to HBV to be highest among veterans with traditional risk factors but also independently related to military combat or being wounded in combat. Studies are needed to determine whether veterans with combat exposure before the era of universal vaccination should be screened for HBV exposure.

The Vietnam Era Twin Registry: a quarter century of progress.

Now celebrating its 26th year of existence, the Vietnam Era Twin Registry continues to be one of the largest national samples of adult twins in the United States. The Registry twin member population is composed of 7,369 US male-male twin pair Veterans (14,738 total individuals) who served on active duty in the military during the Vietnam conflict (1964-1975). The Registry also maintains a register, data repository, and a biospecimen repository. Details on the operations of the Registry are described, as well as an overview of specific studies. Registry maintenance activities are also described, including the updating of contact information and vital status. Future plans include expanding the biospecimen repository and obtaining input from twins about study methods and diseases and conditions they would like to see investigated.

Elevated prevalence of hepatitis C infection in users of United States veterans medical centers.

Several studies suggest veterans have a higher prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection than nonveterans, possibly because of military exposures. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of anti-hepatitis C antibody and evaluate factors associated with infection among users of Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. Using a two-staged cluster sample, 1288 of 3863 randomly selected veterans completed a survey and underwent home-based phlebotomy for serological testing. Administrative and clinical data were used to correct the prevalence estimate for nonparticipation. The prevalence of antihepatitis C antibody among serology participants was 4.0% (95% CI, 2.6%-5.5%). The estimated prevalence in the population of Veterans Affairs medical center users was 5.4% (95% CI, 3.3%-7.5%) after correction for sociodemographic and clinical differences between participants and nonparticipants. Significant predictors of seropositivity included demographic factors, period of military service (e.g., Vietnam era), prior diagnoses, health care use, and lifestyle factors. At least one traditional risk factor (transfusion or intravenous drug use) was reported by 30.2% of all subjects. Among those testing positive for hepatitis C antibody, 78% either had a transfusion or had used injection drugs. Adjusting for injection drug use and nonparticipation, seropositivity was associated with tattoos and incarceration. Military-related exposures were not found to be associated with infection in the adjusted analysis. In conclusion, the prevalence of hepatitis C in these subjects exceeds the estimate from the general US population by more than 2-fold, likely reflecting more exposure to traditional risk factors among these veterans.

Using alcohol screening results and treatment history to assess the severity of at-risk drinking in Veterans Affairs primary care patients.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers need practical methods for managing patients who screen positive for at-risk drinking. We evaluated whether scores on brief alcohol screening questionnaires and patient reports of prior alcohol treatment reflect the severity of recent problems due to drinking. METHODS: Veterans Affairs general medicine outpatients who screened positive for at-risk drinking were mailed questionnaires that included the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and a question about prior alcohol treatment or participation in Alcoholics Anonymous ("previously treated"). AUDIT questions 4 through 10 were used to measure past-year problems due to drinking (PYPD). Cross-sectional analyses compared the prevalence of PYPD and mean Past-Year AUDIT Symptom Scores (0-28 points) among at-risk drinkers with varying scores on the CAGE (0-4) and AUDIT-C (0-12) and varying treatment histories. RESULTS: Of 7861 male at-risk drinkers who completed questionnaires, 33.9% reported PYPD. AUDIT-C scores were more strongly associated with Past-Year AUDIT Symptom Scores than the CAGE (p < 0.0005). The prevalence of PYPD increased from 33% to 46% over the range of positive CAGE scores but from 29% to 77% over the range of positive AUDIT-C scores. Among subgroups of at-risk drinkers with the same screening scores, patients who reported prior treatment were more likely than never-treated at-risk drinkers to report PYPD and had higher mean Past-Year AUDIT Symptom Scores (p < 0.0005). We propose a simple method of risk-stratifying patients using AUDIT-C scores and alcohol treatment histories. CONCLUSIONS: AUDIT-C scores combined with one question about prior alcohol treatment can help estimate the severity of PYPD among male Veterans Affairs outpatients.

The TWEAK is weak for alcohol screening among female Veterans Affairs outpatients.

BACKGROUND: The optimal brief questionnaire for alcohol screening among female patients has not yet been identified. This study compared the performance of the TWEAK (tolerance, worried, eye-opener, amnesia, cutdown), the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and the AUDIT Consumption (AUDIT-C) as self-administered screening tests for hazardous drinking and/or active alcohol abuse or dependence among female Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatients. METHODS: Women were included in the study if they received care at VA Puget Sound and completed both a self-administered survey containing the AUDIT and TWEAK screening questionnaires and subsequent in-person interviews with the Alcohol Use Disorders and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule. Sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and areas under Receiver Operating Characteristic curves were computed for each screening questionnaire compared with two interview-based comparison standards: (1) active DSM-IV alcohol abuse or dependence and (2) hazardous drinking and/or active DSM-IV alcohol abuse or dependence, the more appropriate target for primary care screening. RESULTS: Of 393 women who completed screening questionnaires and interviews, 39 (9.9%) met diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence, and 89 (22.7%) met criteria for hazardous drinking or alcohol abuse or dependence. The TWEAK had relatively low sensitivities (0.62 and 0.44) but adequate specificities (0.86 and 0.89) for both interview-based comparison standards, even at its lowest cut-point (>/=1). The AUDIT and AUDIT-C were superior, with the following areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for active alcohol abuse or dependence and hazardous drinking and/or active alcohol abuse or dependence, respectively: AUDIT, 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.85-0.95] and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.91); AUDIT-C, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.94); and TWEAK, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.66-0.86) and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: The TWEAK has low sensitivity as an alcohol-screening questionnaire among female VA outpatients and should be evaluated further before being used in other female primary care populations. The three-item AUDIT-C was the optimal brief alcohol-screening questionnaire in this study.

Two brief alcohol-screening tests From the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): validation in a female Veterans Affairs patient population.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians need a brief alcohol questionnaire that identifies hazardous drinking and alcohol use disorders. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) questions 1 through 3 (AUDIT-C), and AUDIT question 3 alone are effective alcohol-screening tests in male Veterans Affairs (VA) patients, but have not been validated in women. METHODS: Female VA patients (n = 393) completed self-administered questionnaires, including the 10-item AUDIT and a previously proposed modification to AUDIT question 3 with a sex-specific threshold for binge drinking (>/=4 drinks/occasion), and in-person interviews with the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule. The AUDIT-C, AUDIT question 3 alone, and the 10-item AUDIT were each evaluated with and without the sex-specific binge question and compared with past-year hazardous drinking (>7 drinks/week or >/=4 drinks/occasion) and/or active Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition alcohol abuse or dependence, based on interviews. RESULTS: Eighty-nine women (22.6%) met interview criteria for past-year hazardous drinking and/or active alcohol abuse or dependence. Standard and sex-specific AUDIT-Cs were sensitive (0.81 and 0.84, respectively) and specific (0.86 and 0.85, respectively). Their areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were equivalent (0.91, and 0.92, respectively) and slightly higher than for the standard 10-item AUDIT (0.87). A single, sex-specific question about binge drinking (modified AUDIT question 3) had a sensitivity of 0.69 and specificity of 0.94, whereas the standard AUDIT question 3 was specific (0.96) but relatively insensitive (0.45). CONCLUSIONS: The standard and sex-specific AUDIT-Cs are effective screening tests for past-year hazardous drinking and/or active alcohol abuse or dependence in female patients in a VA study.

Alcohol-related discussions during general medicine appointments of male VA patients who screen positive for at-risk drinking.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes primary care discussions with patients who screened positive for at-risk drinking. In addition, discussions about alcohol use from 2 clinic firms, one with a provider-prompting intervention, are compared. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analyses of audiotaped appointments collected over 6 months. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Male patients in a VA general medicine clinic were eligible if they screened positive for at-risk drinking and had a general medicine appointment with a consenting provider during the study period. Participating patients ( N = 47) and providers ( N = 17) were enrolled in 1 of 2 firms in the clinic (Intervention or Control) and were blinded to the study focus. INTERVENTION: Intervention providers received patient-specific results of positive alcohol-screening tests at each visit. MEASURES AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 68 visits taped, 39 (57.4%) included any mention of alcohol. Patient and provider utterances during discussions about alcohol use were coded using Motivational Interviewing Skills Codes. Providers contributed 58% of utterances during alcohol-related discussions with most coded as questions (24%), information giving (23%), or facilitation (34%). Advice, reflective listening, and supportive or affirming statements occurred infrequently (5%, 3%, and 5%, of provider utterances respectively). Providers offered alcohol-related advice during 21% of visits. Sixteen percent of patient utterances reflected "resistance" to change and 12% reflected readiness to change. On average, Intervention providers were more likely to discuss alcohol use than Control providers (82.4% vs 39.6% of visits; P =.026). CONCLUSIONS: During discussions about alcohol, general medicine providers asked questions and offered information, but usually did not give explicit alcohol-related advice. Discussions about alcohol occurred more often when providers were prompted.