Search

AbstractObjectivesMethodsResultsConclusionsDetermine if long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) can be successfully and safely administered in the hospital with minimal sublingual buprenorphine lead-in and potentially improve follow-up engagement in care.We performed a retrospective case series of 46 patients who received LAIB while hospitalized at a safety-net community hospital. We abstracted demographic information, details about substance use disorder treatment history, in-hospital buprenorphine initiation methods and follow-up data from inpatient and outpatient electronic medical records.In total, 46 hospitalized patients received LAIB during the study period. The majority of our patients were older Black adults with Medicaid who self-reported intranasal heroin use. A low-dose buprenorphine initiation protocol was used most commonly, either in sublingual or intravenous form, with only two cases of precipitated withdrawal occurring during the buprenorphine initiation process and no cases of precipitated withdrawal after the administration of LAIB. 87% (40) of the patients received LAIB after receiving either sublingual or IV buprenorphine for fewer than the recommended seven days. Of the 46 hospitalized patients who received LAIB, 23 (50%) attended a follow-up addiction medicine appointment within 30 days of discharge.Hospital administration of LAIB could play an important role in retention in care after hospital discharge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by Siu Fai Li and Ethan Cowan to a letter to the editor about their article "Gender Trends in Emergency Medicine Publications" is presented.

Objectives: Determine if long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) can be successfully and safely administered in the hospital with minimal sublingual buprenorphine lead-in and potentially improve follow-up engagement in care., Methods: We performed a retrospective case series of 46 patients who received LAIB while hospitalized at a safety-net community hospital. We abstracted demographic information, details about substance use disorder treatment history, in-hospital buprenorphine initiation methods and follow-up data from inpatient and outpatient electronic medical records., Results: In total, 46 hospitalized patients received LAIB during the study period. The majority of our patients were older Black adults with Medicaid who self-reported intranasal heroin use. A low-dose buprenorphine initiation protocol was used most commonly, either in sublingual or intravenous form, with only two cases of precipitated withdrawal occurring during the buprenorphine initiation process and no cases of precipitated withdrawal after the administration of LAIB. 87% (40) of the patients received LAIB after receiving either sublingual or IV buprenorphine for fewer than the recommended seven days. Of the 46 hospitalized patients who received LAIB, 23 (50%) attended a follow-up addiction medicine appointment within 30 days of discharge., Conclusions: Hospital administration of LAIB could play an important role in retention in care after hospital discharge.

Importance: In US emergency departments (EDs), empiric antibiotic treatment for gonorrhea (GC) and chlamydia (CT) is common due to the unavailability of immediate test results. Evidence suggests sex-based disparities in treatment practices, with females potentially receiving less empiric treatment than males., Objective: To investigate sex differences in empiric antibiotic treatment for GC and CT in EDs, comparing practices to subsequent laboratory-confirmed results., Design Setting and Participants: This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies from US EDs reporting GC/CT testing and empiric antibiotic treatment from January 2010 to February 2021. A total of 1,644 articles were screened, with 17 studies (n = 31,062 patients) meeting inclusion criteria., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were GC/CT test positivity, empiric antibiotic treatment rates, and discordance between treatment and test results, stratified by sex. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model., Results: Overall GC/CT positivity was 14% (95% CI, 11%-16%): 11% (95% CI, 8%-14%) in females and 25% (95% CI, 23%-26%) in males. Empiric antibiotic treatment was administered in 46% (95% CI, 38%-55%) of cases: 31% (95% CI, 24%-37%) in females and 73% (95% CI, 65%-80%) in males. Among patients without a laboratory-confirmed infection, 38% (95% CI, 30%-47%) received treatment: 27% (95% CI, 20%-34%) of females and 64% (95% CI, 55%-73%) of males. Conversely, 39% (95% CI, 31%-48%) of patients with laboratory-confirmed infections were not treated: 52% (95% CI, 46%-57%) of females and 15% (95% CI, 12%-17%) of males., Conclusions and Relevance: There is significant discordance between ED empiric antibiotic treatment and laboratory-confirmed results, with notable sex-based disparities. Females were 3.5 times more likely than males to miss treatment despite confirmed infection. These findings highlight the need for improved strategies to reduce sex-based disparities and enhance empiric treatment accuracy for GC/CT in ED settings., Key Points: Question: Are there sex-based differences in empiric antibiotic treatment for gonorrhea and chlamydia in US emergency departments (EDs), and how do these practices compare to laboratory-confirmed results? Findings: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 studies with 31,062 patients, females were significantly less likely than males to receive empiric antibiotic treatment for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Additionally, 39% of patients with a laboratory-confirmed infection were not empirically treated, with females 3.5 times more likely to miss treatment than males. Meaning: The findings indicate significant sex disparities in ED empiric antibiotic treatment for sexually transmitted infections, underscoring the need for improved strategies to ensure equitable and accurate treatment across sexes.

Introduction: Previous studies have shown that substantial percentages of emergency department (ED) patients in the USA recommended for HIV or hepatitis C (HCV) decline testing. Evidence-based and cost-effective interventions to improve HIV/HCV testing uptake are needed, particularly for people who inject drugs (PWIDs) (currently or formerly), who comprise a group at higher risk for these infections. We developed a brief persuasive health communication intervention (PHCI) designed to convince ED patients who had declined HIV/HCV testing to agree to be tested. In this investigation, we will determine if the PHCI is more efficacious in convincing ED patients to be tested for HIV/HCV when delivered by a video or in person, and whether efficacy is similar among individuals who currently, previously or never injected drugs., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a multisite, randomised controlled trial comparing PHCIs delivered by video versus in person by a health educator to determine which delivery method convinces more ED patients who had declined HIV/HCV testing instead to be tested. We will stratify randomisation by PWID status (current, former or never/non-PWID) to permit analyses comparing the PHCI delivery method by injection-drug use history. We will also perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the interventions compared with current practice, examining the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between the two interventions for the ED population overall and within individual strata of PWID. As an exploratory analysis, we will assess if a PHCI video with captions confers increased or decreased acceptance of HIV/HCV testing, as compared with a PHCI video without captions., Ethics and Dissemination: The study protocol has been approved by the institutional review board of the Icahn School of Medicine. The results will be disseminated at international conferences and in peer-reviewed publications., Trial Registration Number: NCT05968573., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: It is possible that adult ED patients consider their hepatitis C virus (HCV) risk factor history when deciding whether to accept HCV screening. To help address this question, we examined whether self-reporting any HCV risk was more common among ED patients who agreed than who declined HCV screening. Among ED patients who agreed to HCV screening, we also assessed if self-reporting any HCV risk was more common among those whose HCV antibody (Ab) and HCV viral load (VL) test results were positive., Methods: This study was conducted among adult patients ≥18 years old participating in a universal, ED-based HCV screening programme in New York City between 22 January 2019 and 9 April 2020. Participants were surveyed about their HCV risk factors. Differences in the frequencies of self-reporting any HCV risk were compared according to HCV screening acceptance and by HCV Ab and VL status., Results: Of the 4658 ED patients surveyed, 2846 (61%) accepted and 1812 (39%) declined HCV screening. Among these participants, 38% reported at least one HCV risk factor, most commonly injection drug use. Self-reporting any HCV risk was not more common among those who accepted versus declined HCV screening (40% vs 37%, p<0.7) but was more common among those with HCV Ab positive versus negative test results (36% vs 6%, p<0.001) and HCV VL positive versus negative results (95% vs 5%, p<0.001)., Conclusion: HCV risk factors were self-reported by more than one-third of ED patients but were not more commonly present among those who accepted HCV screening., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)