Prior differences in previous trauma exposure primarily drive the observed racial/ethnic differences in posttrauma depression and anxiety following a recent trauma

BACKGROUND

Racial and ethnic groups in the USA differ in the prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Recent research however has not observed consistent racial/ethnic differences in posttraumatic stress in the early aftermath of trauma, suggesting that such differences in chronic PTSD rates may be related to differences in recovery over time.

METHODS

As part of the multisite, longitudinal AURORA study, we investigated racial/ethnic differences in PTSD and related outcomes within 3 months after trauma. Participants (n = 930) were recruited from emergency departments across the USA and provided periodic (2 weeks, 8 weeks, and 3 months after trauma) self-report assessments of PTSD, depression, dissociation, anxiety, and resilience. Linear models were completed to investigate racial/ethnic differences in posttraumatic dysfunction with subsequent follow-up models assessing potential effects of prior life stressors.

RESULTS

Racial/ethnic groups did not differ in symptoms over time; however, Black participants showed reduced posttraumatic depression and anxiety symptoms overall compared to Hispanic participants and White participants. Racial/ethnic differences were not attenuated after accounting for differences in sociodemographic factors. However, racial/ethnic differences in depression and anxiety were no longer significant after accounting for greater prior trauma exposure and childhood emotional abuse in White participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The present findings suggest prior differences in previous trauma exposure partially mediate the observed racial/ethnic differences in posttraumatic depression and anxiety symptoms following a recent trauma. Our findings further demonstrate that racial/ethnic groups show similar rates of symptom recovery over time. Future work utilizing longer time-scale data is needed to elucidate potential racial/ethnic differences in long-term symptom trajectories.

Adequacy of testing, empiric treatment, and referral for adult male emergency department patients with possible chlamydia and/or gonorrhoea urethritis

This study evaluated the adequacy of testing, empiric treatment and referral for further evaluation of adult male emergency department (ED) patients with possible chlamydia and/or gonorrhoea urethritis. Of 968 adult male ED patients, 84% were tested for chlamydia and gonorrhoea, 16% for HIV and 27% for syphilis; 92% received empiric treatment for chlamydia and gonorrhoea and 71% were referred for further evaluation; of those tested, 29% were infected with chlamydia, gonorrhoea or both; and 3% of those tested had a positive syphilis test. The results of logistic regression modelling indicated that testing, treatment and referral were not related to a history of sexual contact with someone known to have a sexually transmitted disease or to the patient's ultimate diagnosis of a laboratory-confirmed infection. Compliance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for chlamydia and gonorrhoea testing and treatment regimens was high, but was poor for HIV testing. More explicit guidance from CDC regarding syphilis testing and referral for further evaluation is needed.

Human immunodeficiency virus postexposure prophylaxis for adolescents and children

Children and adolescents are at risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Transmission occurs through perinatal exposures, injecting drug use, consensual and nonconsensual sex, needle-stick and sharp injuries, and possibly some unusual contacts. Youth engaging in high-risk sexual activities are especially endangered. Half of the estimated worldwide 5.3 million new HIV infections occur in adolescents and young adults aged 15 to 24. Of 20 000 known new adult and adolescent cases in the United States, 25% involve 13- to 21-year-olds. More than 1.4 million children worldwide (aged 15 and younger) are believed to be infected, and >1640 new cases are diagnosed daily. Of the 432 000 people reported to be living with HIV or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in the United States, 5575 are children under 13. HIV postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) is a form of secondary HIV prevention that may reduce the incidence of HIV infections. HIV PEP is commonly conceived of as 2 types: occupational and nonoccupational. Occupational HIV PEP is an accepted form of therapy for health care workers exposed to HIV through their jobs. A landmark study of healthcare workers concluded that occupational HIV PEP may be efficacious. Well-established US national guidelines for occupational HIV PEP exist for this at-risk population. Nonoccupational HIV PEP includes all other forms of HIV PEP, such as that given after sexual assault and consensual sex, injecting drug use, and needle-stick and sharp injuries in non-health care persons. Pediatric HIV PEP is typically the nonoccupational type. The efficacy of nonoccupational HIV PEP is unknown. The presumed efficacy is based on a collection of animal and human data concerning occupational, perinatal, and nonoccupational exposures to HIV. In contrast to occupational HIV PEP, there are no national US guidelines for nonoccupational HIV PEP, and few recommendations are available for its use for adolescents and children. Regardless of this absence, there is encouraging evidence supporting the value of HIV PEP in its various forms in pediatrics. Although unproven, the presumed mechanism for HIV PEP comes from animal and human work suggesting that shortly after an exposure to HIV, a window period exists during which the viral load is small enough to be controlled by the body's immune system. Antiretroviral medications given during this period may help to diminish or end viral replication, thereby reducing the viral inoculum to a more potentially manageable target for the host's defenses. HIV PEP is accepted practice in the perinatal setting and for health care workers with occupational injuries. The medical literature supports prescribing HIV PEP after community needle-stick and sharp injuries and after sexual assault from sources known or likely to be HIV-infected. HIV PEP after consensual unprotected intercourse between HIV sero-opposite partners has had growing use in the adult population, and can probably be utilized for children and adolescents. There is less documented experience and support for HIV PEP after consensual unprotected intercourse between partners of unknown HIV status, after prolonged or multiple episodes of sexual abuse from an assailant of unknown HIV status, after bites, and after the sharing of personal hygiene items or exposure to wounds of HIV-infected individuals. There are no formal guidelines for HIV PEP in adolescents and children. A few groups have commented on its provision in pediatrics, and some preliminary studies have been released. Our article provides a discussion of the data available on HIV transmission and HIV PEP in pediatrics. In our article, we propose an HIV PEP approach for adolescents and children. We recommend a stratified regimen, based on the work of Gerberding and Katz and other authors, that attempts to match seroconversion risk with an appropriate number of medications, while taking into account adverse side-effects and the amount of information that is typically available upon initial presentation. Twice daily regimens should be used when possible, and may improve compliance. HIV PEP should be administered within 1 hour of exposure. We strongly recommend that physicians trained in this form of therapy review the indications for HIV PEP within 72 hours of its provision. We advocate that due diligence in determining level of risk and appropriateness of drug selection be conducted as soon as possible after an exposure has occurred. When such information is not immediately available, we recommend the rapid treatment using the maximum level of care followed by careful investigation and reconsideration in follow-up or whenever possible. HIV PEP may be initiated provisionally after an exposure and then discontinued if the exposure source is confirmed to not be HIV-infected. In most cases, consultations with the experts in HIV care can occur after the rapid start of therapy. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Nonoccupational HIV postexposure prophylaxis: a new role for the emergency department

Despite numerous primary prevention campaigns, new cases of HIV infection are occurring at high rates. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) after possible HIV exposures from sexual encounters or injection drug use may prove to be a worthwhile means of reducing HIV infection. Although there are no studies that directly demonstrate its efficacy, indirect support comes from animal and human studies. Multiple animal studies have shown that antiretroviral medications can reduce simian immunodeficiency virus infections if given early and for a prolonged period. A study of health care workers suggests that zidovudine taken after needlestick injuries can dramatically reduce HIV seroconversion. Zidovudine and nevirapine use recently showed great reductions in perinatal HIV transmission. Studies of dendritic and T-cell processing of simian immunodeficiency virus and HIV indicate that antiretroviral medications taken soon after a viral exposure may terminate viral replication. Regimens of 2 or 3 antiretroviral medications have been suggested as prophylactic measures after certain exposures. Even though limited experience exists with these populations, HIV PEP is most likely safe in pregnancy and for children. Emergency departments are encouraged to anticipate the probable demands for nonoccupational HIV PEP by establishing protocols for its rapid provision and ensuring proper follow-up care.