Value of Packaged Testing for Sexually Transmitted Infections for Persons who Inject Drugs Hospitalized With Serious Injection-Related Infections

Interventions aimed at increasing syphilis screening among non-pregnant individuals in healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Syphilis remains a pressing public health concern with potential severe morbidity if left untreated. To improve syphilis screening, targeted interventions are crucial, especially in at-risk populations. This systematic review synthesises studies that compare syphilis screening in the presence and absence of an intervention. A systematic search of four databases was conducted (Medline, Embase, Cinahl and Scopus). The primary outcomes evaluated included syphilis screening, re-screening and detection rates. Findings were synthesised narratively. Where multiple studies were clinically heterogenous, a pooled odds ratio was calculated. Twenty-four studies were included. A variety of interventions showed promise including clinician alerts, which increased syphilis screening rate (OR range, 1.25-1.45) and patient SMS reminders that mostly improved re-screening/re-attendance rates (OR range, 0.93-4.4). Coupling syphilis serology with routine HIV monitoring increased the proportion of HIV-positive individuals undergoing both tests. However, pooling three studies with this intervention using the outcome of syphilis detection rate yielded inconclusive results (pooled OR 1.722 [95% CI 0.721-2.723], I 2 =24.8%, P =0.264). The introduction of hospital-based packaged testing for screening high-risk individuals is unique given hospitals are not typical locations for public health initiatives. Nurse-led clinics and clinician incentives were successful strategies. Including syphilis screening with other existing programs has potential to increase screening rates (OR range, 1.06-2.08), but requires further investigation. Technology-driven interventions produced cost-effective, feasible and positive outcomes. Challenges were evident in achieving guideline-recommended screening frequencies for men who have sex with men, indicating the need for multifaceted approaches. Wider application of these interventions may improve syphilis screening and detection rates.

National HIV and HCV Screening Rates for Hospitalized People who Use Drugs Are Suboptimal and Heterogeneous Across 11 US Hospitals

Background

To end the HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) epidemics, people who use drugs (PWUD) need more opportunities for testing. While inpatient hospitalizations are an essential opportunity to test people who use drugs (PWUD) for HIV and HCV, there is limited research on rates of inpatient testing for HIV and HCV among PWUD.

Methods

Eleven hospital sites were included in the study. Each site created a cohort of inpatient encounters associated with injection drug use. From these cohorts, we collected data on HCV and HIV testing rates and HIV testing consent policies from 65 276 PWUD hospitalizations.

Results

Hospitals had average screening rates of 40% for HIV and 32% for HCV, with widespread heterogeneity in screening rates across facilities. State consent laws and opt-out testing policies were not associated with statistically significant differences in HIV screening rates. On average, hospitals that reflexed HCV viral load testing on HCV antibody testing did not have statistically significant differences in HCV viral load testing rates. We found suboptimal testing rates during inpatient encounters for PWUD. As treatment (HIV) and cure (HCV) are necessary to end these epidemics, we need to prioritize understanding and overcoming barriers to testing.

Drug preparation, injection-related infections, and harm reduction practices among a national sample of individuals entering treatment for opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

The rise in injection drug use in the USA has led to an increase in injection site infections. We performed a national survey of people who use drugs to evaluate common drug use preparation, harm reduction practices, and experiences with injection site infections.

METHODS

A survey was disseminated to members of the Survey of Key Informants' Patients Program from 2021 to 2022 and distributed to patients 18 years or older newly entering one of 68 substance use disorder treatment programs across the USA with a primary diagnosis of an opioid use disorder. Participants were surveyed about practices when preparing and using drugs, along with self-reported infections and drug use complications.

RESULTS

1289 participants responded to the survey. Sexually transmitted infections were common, with 37.6% reporting ever having had any sexually transmitted infection. Injection-associated infections had affected 63.4% of participants who had ever used injection drugs. Many respondents reported not seeking professional medical assistance for infection management, including 29% draining abscesses without seeking medical care and 22.8% obtaining antibiotics through non-healthcare sources. Non-sterile injection practices included sharing needles with others who were febrile or ill (18%), using needles previously used to drain wounds/abscesses (9.9%) for subsequent injection drug use, and licking needles (21.2%).

CONCLUSION

Patients entering treatment for opioid use disorder reported a high burden of infectious diseases. A number of easily-modifiable high risk behaviors for developing injection-related infections were identified. Efforts are needed to disseminate targeted harm reduction education to PWID on how to reduce their risks for injection-related infections.

Fixing a Hole: a retrospective cohort study evaluating HAV, HBV, tetanus screening, and vaccination during hospitalization in persons who use substances

Background

Rates of serious injection-related infections in persons who use drugs have increased. Resulting admissions are an opportunity for screening and vaccination of preventable infections such as hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and tetanus.

Design and methods

We conducted a retrospective review of adults with documented substance use admitted for bacterial infection between July 2015 and March 2020. We evaluated HAV, HBV, and tetanus vaccination status at admission, along with screening for HAV and HBV infection and immunity. We identified the proportion of patients at risk for infection who received HAV, HBV, and tetanus vaccines during admission and patient-level factors associated with vaccination.

Results

We identified 280 patients who met our inclusion criteria. Of the 198 (70.7%) patients at risk for HAV, infectious disease providers recommended vaccination for 21 (10.6%) and 15 (7.6%) received HAV vaccine. Of the 174 (62.1%) patients at risk for HBV, infectious disease providers recommended vaccination for 32 (18.3%) and 25 (14.4%) received HBV vaccine. A large proportion of patients (31.4%, 88) had no documentation of prior tetanus vaccination, and infectious disease providers recommended tetanus vaccination for three (1.1%) and five patients (1.8%) received a tetanus booster. Infectious disease consult vaccine recommendations were statistically significantly associated with HAV or HBV vaccination prior to discharge.

Conclusion

Over 70% of our population is at risk for one or more of these preventable infections. Efforts are needed to maximize inpatient screening and vaccination for HAV, HBV, and tetanus in patients with barriers to care.

Harm Reduction: A Missing Piece to the Holistic Care of Patients Who Inject Drugs

Background

The rise in injection drug use (IDU) has led to an increase in drug-related infections. Harm reduction is an important strategy for preventing infections among people who inject drugs (PWID). We attempted to evaluate the harm reduction counseling that infectious diseases physicians provide to PWID presenting with infections.

Methods

An electronic survey was distributed to physician members of the Emerging Infections Network to inquire about practices used when caring for patients with IDU-related infections.

Results

In total, 534 ID physicians responded to the survey. Of those, 375 (70%) reported routinely caring for PWID. Most respondents report screening for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and viral hepatitis (98%) and discussing the risk of these infections (87%); 63% prescribe immunization against viral hepatitis, and 45% discuss HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). However, 55% of respondents (n = 205) reported not counseling patients on safer injection strategies. Common reasons for not counseling included limited time and a desire to emphasize antibiotic therapy/medical issues (62%), lack of training (55%), and believing that it would be better addressed by other services (47%). Among respondents who reported counseling PWID, most recommended abstinence from IDU (72%), handwashing and skin cleansing before injection (62%), and safe disposal of needles/drug equipment used before admission (54%).

Conclusions

Almost all ID physicians report screening PWID for HIV and viral hepatitis and discussing the risks of these infections. Despite frequently encountering PWID, fewer than half of ID physicians provide safer injection advice. Opportunities exist to standardize harm reduction education, emphasizing safer injection practices in conjunction with other strategies to prevent infections (eg, HIV PrEP or hepatitis A virus/hepatitis B virus vaccination).

Medical Complications of Injection Drug Use - Part II

Medical Complications of Injection Drug Use - Part IIDuring the past 2 decades, the risk of death, as well as the prevalence of hospitalizations in the United States, has increased substantially among people who inject drugs, mainly because of the opioid epidemic. In Part Two of this two-part review, the authors review complications observed in people who inject drugs and strategies to reduce harm.

Medical Complications of Injection Drug Use - Part I

Medical Complications of Injection Drug Use - Part IDuring the past 2 decades, the risk of death and the prevalence of hospitalizations in the United States have increased substantially among people who inject drugs, in large part because of the opioid epidemic. This article reviews the complications observed in people who inject drugs as well as strategies to reduce harm.

Implementation of a bundle to improve HIV testing during hospitalization for people who inject drugs

Background

Increased HIV testing is essential to ending the HIV epidemic. People who inject drugs (PWID) are among the highest risk for HIV infection. Previous research at Tufts Medical Center identified low HIV testing rates in hospitalized PWID. Our research team aimed to identify and overcome barriers to inpatient HIV screening of PWID using implementation science methods.

Methods

Stakeholders were engaged to gather perspectives on barriers and facilitators of HIV testing. A PWID care bundle was developed and implemented, which included (1) HIV screening; (2) hepatitis A, B, and C testing and vaccination; (3) medications for opioid use disorder; and (4) naloxone prescription. Strategies from all nine Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) clusters guided the implementation plan. Stakeholder feedback was gathered throughout implementation, and implementation outcomes of acceptability and feasibility were assessed.

Results

PWID overall felt comfortable with HIV testing being offered while hospitalized. Clinicians cited that the main barriers to HIV testing were discomfort and confusion around consenting requirements. Many resident physicians surveyed reported that, at times, they forgot HIV testing for PWID. Overall, though, resident physicians felt that the PWID bundle was useful and did not distract from other patient care responsibilities.

Conclusions

Engagement of key stakeholders to increase HIV testing in an inpatient setting led to the implementation of a PWID bundle, which was feasible and acceptable. Bundling evidence-informed care elements for inpatient PWID should be investigated further.

Screening for co-infections in patients with substance use disorders and severe bacterial infections

Background

Patients with substance use disorders admitted for severe bacterial infection are in a prime position to be screened for important co-infections. However, data suggest that standard screening for co-infections in this population during hospital admission can vary in frequency and type of testing.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of patients to evaluate screening for co-infections during admission, followed by a case-control analysis to determine factors associated with lack of any screening.

Results

We identified 280 patients with 320 eligible admissions. Most were male and Caucasian with unstable housing. Only 67 (23.9%) patients had a primary-care provider. About 89% (n = 250) of our cohort were screened for one or more co-infection during their first admission with one patient never screened despite subsequent admissions. Of those screened, the greatest proportion was HIV (219, 81.4% of those without history of HIV), HCV (94, 79.7% of those without a prior positive HCV antibody), syphilis (206, 73.6%), gonorrhea, and chlamydia (47, 16.8%) with new positive tests identified in 60 (21.4%) people. Screening for all five co-infections was only completed in 15 (14.0%) of the 107 patients who had screening indications. Overall, a high proportion of those screened had a new positive test, including three cases of neurosyphilis, highlighting the importance of screening and treatment initiation. One patient was prescribed HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis at discharge and only 37 (34.6%) of those eligible were referred for HCV treatment or follow-up. In multivariable case-control analysis, non-Medicaid insurance (OR 2.8, 95% CI: 1.2-6.6, p = 0.02), use of only 1 substance (OR 2.9, 95% CI: 1.3-6.5, p < 0.01), and no documented screening recommendations by the infectious disease team (OR 3.7, 95% CI: 1.5-8.8, p < 0.01), were statistically significantly associated with lack of screening for any co-infection during hospital admission.

Conclusion

Our data suggest additional interventions are needed to improve inpatient screening for co-infections in this population.

Low Knowledge of HIV PrEP Within a Midwestern US Cohort of Persons who Inject Drugs

We interviewed persons who inject drugs (PWID) to understand perceptions of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV infection. Knowledge of PrEP was poor. Patients felt that PrEP was for sexual intercourse rather than injection drug use, and PWID managed on medications for opioid use disorder felt that they had no need for PrEP.