Search

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.

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.

Uncontrolled external hemorrhage is a common cause of preventable death. The Hartford Consensus recommendations presented the concept of a continuum of care, in which police officers should be considered an integral component of the emergency medical response to active shooter incidents. Recent publications have reported individual cases of tourniquet application by police officers. This report analyzed all documented cases of hemorrhage control using tourniquets applied by police officers in a single large metropolitan police department.A retrospective computerized search of all public safety communications center reports and police officer documentation for cases of tourniquet application was conducted by searching for the word "tourniquet." Each case was evaluated for indication and appropriateness using Stop The Bleed criteria for tourniquet placement. In addition, police response time was compared to emergency medical services (EMS) response time in an effort to determine if there was a time difference in response to the bleeding patient that could potentially impact patient outcomes.Forty- three cases were identified over the 6-year period ending in December 2019. The majority of cases involved gunshot wounds and most were civilian victims. Injured police officers accounted for two cases (gunshot wound and dog bite). Review of the officers' narratives indicated that most applications appeared justified using the Stop The Bleed criteria (two cases were questionable if a tourniquet was necessary and one may have been placed in an incorrect location). On average, police arrived 4 minutes sooner than EMS did.Several reports in the literature document the success of police officer application of tourniquets to control limb hemorrhage. Most of the reports involved a small number of case reports. This is the largest case series to date from a single urban police department.

Importance Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Objective To determine whether hydroxychloroquine is an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted at 34 hospitals in the US. Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020, with the last outcome assessment on July 17, 2020. The planned sample size was 510 patients, with interim analyses planned after every 102 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped at the fourth interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 479 patients. Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 8 doses) (n = 242) or placebo (n = 237). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was clinical status 14 days after randomization as assessed with a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from 1 (death) to 7 (discharged from the hospital and able to perform normal activities). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable proportional odds model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) greater than 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with hydroxychloroquine than placebo. The trial included 12 secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality. Results Among 479 patients who were randomized (median age, 57 years; 44.3% female; 37.2% Hispanic/Latinx; 23.4% Black; 20.1% in the intensive care unit; 46.8% receiving supplemental oxygen without positive pressure; 11.5% receiving noninvasive ventilation or nasal high-flow oxygen; and 6.7% receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), 433 (90.4%) completed the primary outcome assessment at 14 days and the remainder had clinical status imputed. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomization was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7 days). Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not significantly differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (median [IQR] score, 6 [4-7] vs 6 [4-7]; aOR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.42]). None of the 12 secondary outcomes were significantly different between groups. At 28 days after randomization, 25 of 241 patients (10.4%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and 25 of 236 (10.6%) in the placebo group had died (absolute difference, −0.2% [95% CI, −5.7% to 5.3%]; aOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.54 to 2.09]). Conclusions and Relevance Among adults hospitalized with respiratory illness from COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve clinical status at day 14. These findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT04332991

A retrospective chart review studied 892 Denver Clostridium difficile cases from 2011 through 2013 with incident stool specimen reported to the state health department. Cases were stratified by epidemiologic classification (HFCO, CO-HCFA or CO-CA) and analyzed for associations with demographic and risk factors.Denver CDI incidence rate increased from 129/100,000 residents in 2011 to 139/100,000 residents in 2013. During the study period, the presence of underlying morbidities and antibiotic exposure increased in all onset types.