Search

Introduction: The incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STI) increased in the United States between 2017-2021. There is limited data describing STI co-testing practices and the prevalence of STI co-infections in emergency departments (ED). In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of co-testing and co-infection of HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV), syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, in a large, academic ED. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective cross-sectional study of ED patients tested for HIV, HCV, syphilis, gonorrhea or chlamydia between November 27, 2018-May 26, 2019. In 2018, the study institution implemented an ED-based infectious diseases screening program in which any patient being tested for gonorrhea/chlamydia was eligible for opt-out syphilis screening, and any patient 18-64 years who was having blood drawn for any clinical purpose was eligible for opt-out HIV andHCV screening. We analyzed data from all ED patients ≥13 years who had undergone STI testing. The outcomes of interest included prevalence of STI testing/co-testing and the prevalence of STI infection/co-infection. We describe data with simple descriptive statistics. Results: During the study period there were 30,767 ED encounters for patients ≥13 years (mean age: 43 ± 14 years, 52% female), and 7,866 (26%) were tested for at least one of HIV, HCV, syphilis, gonorrhea, or chlamydia. We observed the following testing frequencies (and prevalence of infection): HCV, 7,539 (5.0%); HIV, 7,359 (0.9%); gonorrhea, 574 (6.1%); chlamydia, 574 (9.8%); and syphilis, 420 (10.5%). Infectious etiologies with universal testing protocols (HIV and HCV) made up the majority of STI testing. In patients with syphilis, co-infection with chlamydia (21%, 9/44) and HIV (9%, 4/44) was high. In patients with gonorrhea, co-infection with chlamydia (23%, 8/35) and syphilis (9%, 3/35) was high, and in patients with chlamydia, co-infection with syphilis (16%, 9/56) and gonorrhea (14%, 8/56) was high. Patients with HCV had low co-infection proportions (<2%). Conclusion: Prevalence of STI co-testing was low among patients with clinical suspicion for STIs; however, co-infection prevalence was high in several co-infection pairings. Future efforts are needed to improve STI co-testing rates among high-risk individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: New evidence suggests that emergency department (ED)-based infectious diseases screening programs have utility. We aimed to compare clinic-based and ED-based hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening programs within a single health system, to identify key differences in HCV antibody (Ab) positivity and chronic HCV, as well as population demographics. Methods: In the clinic-based program, adults in the birth cohort (born 1945-1965) were screened for HCV. In the ED-based program, non-targeted HCV screening of all adults was conducted. We included patients screened between June 2019--June 2020. Patients were screened for anti-HCV Ab, and positive results were followed by HCV viral load (VL) testing. Our primary outcomes were seroprevalence of HCV Ab and HCV VL. Results: There were 1,296 and 12,778 patients screened for HCV in the clinics and the ED, respectively. In the clinic setting, 13 patients (1%) screened positive for HCV Ab and nine (69%) completed VL testing, which was positive in one patient (11%). In the ED, 1,053 patients (8%) screened positive for HCV Ab and 847 (80%) underwent reflex VL testing, which was positive in 381 patients (45%). In an ED birth cohort sub-analysis, Hepatitis C virus Ab seroprevalence was 15% (675/4521). Conclusion: In this study of patients in a single healthcare system, ED-based HCV screening was higher yield than clinic-based screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In 2019 the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released draft guidelines recommending universal hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening for individuals aged 18-79. We aimed to assess the efficacy of an emergency department-based HCV screening program, by comparing screening practices before and after its implementation. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of two temporally matched, 11-month study periods, corresponding to before and after the implementation of a best practice advisory (BPA). Patients were screened for anti-HCV antibody (Ab), and positive results were followed by HCV viral load (VL) testing. The primary implementation outcome was ED testing volume (number of tests performed/month). The primary screening outcomes were the seroprevalence of anti-HCV Ab and HCV VL. We describe data with simple descriptive statistics. Results: The median age of patients was similar between periods (pre: 50 years [interquartile range [IQR] 34-62], post: 47 years [IQR 33-59]). Patients screened were more likely to be males in the pre-BPA period (Male, pre: 60%, post: 49%). During the pre-BPA study period, a total of 69,604 patients were seen in the ED, and 218 unique patients were screened for HCV (mean 19.8 tests/month). During the post-BPA study period, a total of 68,225 patients were seen in the ED, and 14,981 unique patients were screened for HCV (mean 1361.9 tests/month). Anti-HCV Ab seroprevalence was 23% (51/218) and 9% (1340/14,981) in the pre-BPA and post-BPA periods, respectively. In the pre-BPA period, six patients with a positive anti-HCV Ab level had follow-up VL testing (detectable in three). In the post-BPA period, reflex VL testing was performed in most patients (91%, 1225/1,340), and there were 563 patients with detectable VLs, indicating active infection. Conclusion: Our study shows that using a universal BPA-driven screening protocol can dramatically increase the number of patients screened for HCV and increase the number of new HCV diagnoses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]