Outcomes of an Emergency Department Program to Identify and Link Patients at Increased Risk for Acquiring HIV Infection to Outpatient HIV Prevention Services: The HIV PreventED Program

BACKGROUND

Emergency departments (EDs) provide care to patients at increased risk for acquiring HIV, and for many of them, the ED serves as their sole point of entry into the healthcare system. We implemented the HIV PreventED Program to increase access to HIV prevention services for ED patients.

SETTING

ED in Oakland, CA with an annual census of 57,000 visits.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study evaluated the first 9 months of the HIV PreventED Program. In this program, a navigator surveyed adult ED patients who tested HIV negative to determine their risk for acquiring HIV infection, incorporating HIV prevention counseling into their assessments. Patients at higher risk for acquiring HIV were referred to outpatient prevention services, if interested. The primary outcome measure was the number and proportion of ED patients at higher risk for acquiring HIV who followed up for outpatient prevention services.

RESULTS

In this study, 1233 patients who tested HIV negative were assessed by the navigator and received ED-based HIV prevention counseling. Of these, 193 (15.7%) were identified at higher risk and offered an outpatient referral for prevention services, of which 104 accepted (53.9%), 23 (11.9%) attended the referral, and 13 (6.7%) were prescribed preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The median time to linkage was 28 days (interquartile range 15-41 days).

CONCLUSION

A navigator focused on providing ED-based HIV prevention counseling and linkage to outpatient services is feasible. Strategies to more efficiently identify ED patients at higher risk for HIV acquisition, such as automated identification of risk data from the electronic health record, and policies to improve follow-up and the receipt of PrEP, such as same-day PrEP initiation, should be prospectively evaluated.

A Systematic Review of HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Implementation in U.S. Emergency Departments: Patient Screening, Prescribing, and Linkage to Care

In the pursuit of ending the HIV epidemic, U.S. emergency departments (EDs) have emerged as a valuable setting to increase HIV testing and linkage to care. There is limited data available, however, describing the incorporation of HIV prevention initiatives in U.S. EDs. Over the last decade, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has significantly changed the HIV prevention landscape globally and very little is known about the provision of PrEP in U.S. EDs. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed quantitative studies and conference abstracts spanning July 2012 - October 2022. Of 433 citations, 11 articles and 13 abstracts meet our inclusion criteria, representing 18 unique studies addressing PrEP screening, prescribing, and/or linkage to PrEP care.Most studies describe screening processes to identify PrEP-eligible patients (n = 17); most studies leveraged a patient's STI history as initial PrEP eligibility screening criteria. Fewer studies describe PrEP prescribing (n = 2) and/or linkage to PrEP care (n = 8).Findings from this systematic review highlight the potential for U.S. EDs to increase PrEP uptake among individuals at risk for HIV infection. Despite a growing number of studies exploring processes for incorporating PrEP into the ED setting, such studies are small-scale and time limited. Models providing prescribing PrEP in the ED show higher initiation rates than post-discharge engagement models. Electronic health record (EHR)-based HIV screening is valuable, but post-ED linkage rates are low. Our findings emphasize the need to establish best practices for initiating and supporting prevention effective PrEP use in the ED setting.

Communicable Disease Screening and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prevention in the Emergency Department

Emergency departments (ED) provide care to populations with high rates of communicable diseases, like HIV, hepatitis C virus, and syphilis. For many patients, the ED is their sole entry point into the healthcare system and they do not routinely access screening and prevention services elsewhere. As such, the ED can serve an important public health role through communicable disease identification, treatment, and prevention. In this article, we examine national recommendations, peer-reviewed literature, and expert consensus to provide cutting edge strategies for implementing communicable infectious disease screening and prevention programs into routine ED care.

Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Screening in Emergency Departments: Results From the Pragmatic Randomized HIV Testing Using Enhanced Screening Techniques in Emergency Departments Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Identification of HIV remains a critical health priority for which emergency departments (EDs) are a central focus. The comparative cost-effectiveness of various HIV screening strategies in EDs remains largely unknown. The goal of this study was to compare programmatic costs and cost-effectiveness of nontargeted and 2 forms of targeted opt-out HIV screening in EDs using results from a multicenter, pragmatic randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

This economic evaluation was nested in the HIV Testing Using Enhanced Screening Techniques in Emergency Departments (TESTED) trial, a multicenter pragmatic clinical trial of different ED-based HIV screening strategies conducted from April 2014 through January 2016. Patients aged 16 years or older, with normal mental status and not critically ill, or not known to be living with HIV were randomized to 1 of 3 HIV opt-out screening approaches, including nontargeted, enhanced targeted, or traditional targeted, across 4 urban EDs in the United States. Each screening method was fully integrated into routine emergency care. Direct programmatic costs were determined using actual trial results, and time-motion assessment was used to estimate personnel activity costs. The primary outcome was newly diagnosed HIV. Total annualized ED programmatic costs by screening approach were calculated using dollars adjusted to 2023 as were costs per patient newly diagnosed with HIV. One-way and multiway sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The trial randomized 76,561 patient visits, resulting in 14,405 completed HIV tests, and 24 (0.2%) new diagnoses. Total annualized new diagnoses were 12.9, and total annualized costs for nontargeted, enhanced targeted, and traditional targeted screening were $111,861, $88,629, and $70,599, respectively. Within screening methods, costs per new HIV diagnoses were $20,809, $23,554, and $18,762, respectively. Enhanced targeted screening incurred higher costs but with similar annualized new cases detected compared with traditional targeted screening. Nontargeted screening yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,586 when compared with traditional targeted screening. Results were most sensitive to HIV prevalence and costs of HIV tests.

CONCLUSION

Nontargeted HIV screening was more costly than targeted screening largely due to an increased number of HIV tests performed. Each HIV screening strategy had similar within-strategy costs per new HIV diagnosis with traditional targeted screening yielding the lowest cost per new diagnosis. For settings with budget constraints or very low HIV prevalences, the traditional targeted approach may be preferred; however, given only a slightly higher cost per new HIV diagnosis, ED settings looking to detect the most new cases may prefer nontargeted screening.

Implementing a Rapid Antiretroviral Therapy Program Using Starter Packs for Emergency Department Patients Diagnosed With HIV Infection

Background

Emergency departments (ED) have been identified as essential partners in the national plan to end the HIV epidemic. The initiation of rapid antiretroviral therapy (ART) may be an important strategy to minimize the treatment barriers faced by many ED patients diagnosed with HIV.

Methods

We describe the implementation and outcomes of a protocol to provide rapid ART by using starter packs for eligible ED patients testing HIV antigen/antibody (Ag/Ab) reactive. Eligible patients were not pregnant, were unlikely to have a false-positive Ag/Ab test result, were discharged home, were ART naive, had acceptable liver and renal function, lacked symptoms of an opportunistic infection, and were judged to be a good candidate.

Results

During the 1-year study period, 10 606 HIV tests were performed, and 106 patients were HIV Ag/Ab reactive and assessed for ED rapid ART eligibility. Thirty-one patients (29.2%) were eligible for ED rapid ART; 26 (24.5%) were offered it; and 25 accepted and were provided starter packs for an overall ED rapid ART treatment rate of 23.6%. Two patients receiving ED rapid ART were confirmed to be HIV negative. Patients provided ED rapid ART were more likely to follow up by 30 days (82.6% vs 50.0%, P = .01) than patients not provided ED rapid ART. The 6-month incidence of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome was 4.3% among the 23 patients who were HIV positive and receiving ED rapid ART.

Conclusions

The initiation of ED rapid ART for patients testing HIV Ag/Ab reactive is feasible, well accepted, and safe and may be an important facilitator of linkage to care.

The Determining Effective Testing in Emergency Departments and Care Coordination on Treatment Outcomes (DETECT) for Hepatitis C (Hep C) Linkage-to-Care Trial: rationale and design of an emergency department-based randomized clinical trial of linkage-to-care strategies for hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C (HCV) poses a major public health problem in the USA. While early identification is a critical priority, subsequent linkage to a treatment specialist is a crucial step that bridges diagnosed patients to treatment, cure, and prevention of ongoing transmission. Emergency departments (EDs) serve as an important clinical setting for HCV screening, although optimal methods of linkage-to-care for HCV-diagnosed individuals remain unknown. In this article, we describe the rationale and design of The Determining Effective Testing in Emergency Departments and Care Coordination on Treatment Outcomes (DETECT) for Hepatitis C (Hep C) Linkage-to-Care Trial.

METHODS

The DETECT Hep C Linkage-to-Care Trial will be a single-center prospective comparative effectiveness randomized two-arm parallel-group superiority trial to test the effectiveness of linkage navigation and clinician referral among ED patients identified with untreated HCV with a primary hypothesis that linkage navigation plus clinician referral is superior to clinician referral alone when using treatment initiation as the primary outcome. Participants will be enrolled in the ED at Denver Health Medical Center (Denver, CO), an urban, safety-net hospital with approximately 75,000 annual adult ED visits. This trial was designed to enroll a maximum of 280 HCV RNA-positive participants with one planned interim analysis based on methods by O'Brien and Fleming. This trial will further inform the evaluation of cost effectiveness, disparities, and social determinants of health in linkage-to-care, treatment, and disease progression.

DISCUSSION

When complete, the DETECT Hep C Linkage-to-Care Trial will significantly inform how best to perform linkage-to-care among ED patients identified with HCV.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04026867 Original date: July 1, 2019 URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04026867.

The Determining Effective Testing in Emergency Departments and Care Coordination on Treatment Outcomes (DETECT) for Hepatitis C (Hep C) Screening Trial: rationale and design of a multi-center pragmatic randomized clinical trial of hepatitis C screening in emergency departments

Background

Early identification of HCV is a critical health priority, especially now that treatment options are available to limit further transmission and provide cure before long-term sequelae develop. Emergency departments (EDs) are important clinical settings for HCV screening given that EDs serve many at-risk patients who do not access other forms of healthcare. In this article, we describe the rationale and design of The Determining Effective Testing in Emergency Departments and Care Coordination on Treatment Outcomes (DETECT) for Hepatitis C (Hep C) Screening Trial.

Methods

The DETECT Hep C Screening Trial is a multi-center prospective pragmatic randomized two-arm parallel-group superiority trial to test the comparative effectiveness of nontargeted and targeted HCV screening in the ED with a primary hypothesis that nontargeted screening is superior to targeted screening when identifying newly diagnosed HCV. This trial will be performed in the EDs at Denver Health Medical Center (Denver, CO), Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, MD), and the University of Mississippi Medical Center (Jackson, MS), sites representing approximately 225,000 annual adult visits, and designed using the PRECIS-2 framework for pragmatic trials. When complete, we will have enrolled a minimum of 125,000 randomized patient visits and have performed 13,965 HCV tests. In Denver, the Screening Trial will serve as a conduit for a distinct randomized comparative effectiveness trial to evaluate linkage-to-HCV care strategies. All sites will further contribute to embedded observational studies to assess cost effectiveness, disparities, and social determinants of health in screening, linkage-to-care, and treatment for HCV.

Discussion

When complete, The DETECT Hep C Screening Trial will represent the largest ED-based pragmatic clinical trial to date and all studies, in aggregate, will significantly inform how to best perform ED-based HCV screening.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04003454. Registered on 1 July 2019.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06265-1.

Clinical Utility of the Signal-to-Cutoff Ratio of Reactive HIV Antigen/Antibody Screening Tests in Guiding Emergency Physician Management

BACKGROUND

The signal-to-cutoff (S/CO) ratio of the HIV antigen/antibody test may help immediately to differentiate true-positive results from false-positive results, which may be particularly useful in time-sensitive circumstances, such as when providing emergency department (ED) care.

SETTING

Seven US EDs with HIV screening programs using HIV antigen/antibody assays.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study of existing data correlated S/CO ratios with confirmed HIV status. Test characteristics at predetermined S/CO ratios and the S/CO ratio with the best performance by receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 1035 patients with a reactive HIV antigen/antibody test, 232 (22.4%) were confirmed HIV-negative and 803 (77.6%) were confirmed HIV-positive. Of the 803 patients, 713 (88.8%) experienced chronic infections and 90 (11.2%) experienced acute infections. S/CO ratios were greater for HIV-positive (median 539.2) than for HIV-negative patients (median 1.93) (P < 0.001) and lower for acute infection (median 22.8) than for chronic infection (median 605.7) (P < 0.001). All patients with an S/CO ratio < 1.58 (n = 93) were HIV-negative (NPV 100%), and nearly all with an S/CO ≥ 20.7 (n = 760) (optimal level by ROC analysis) were HIV-positive (PPV 98.6%). Of patients with S/CO values between 1.58 and 20.7 (n = 182), 29.7% were HIV-positive.

CONCLUSIONS

The S/CO ratio may be used in real time to classify most ED patients as almost certain to be either HIV-positive or HIV-negative long before nucleic acid confirmatory testing is available. When combined with clinical judgment, this could guide preliminary result disclosure and management.

Development of a 2-step algorithm to identify emergency department patients for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis

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.

Comparison of HIV Screening Strategies in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The National HIV Strategic Plan for the US recommends HIV screening in emergency departments (EDs). The most effective approach to ED-based HIV screening remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare strategies for HIV screening when integrated into usual ED practice.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial included patients visiting EDs at 4 US urban hospitals between April 2014 and January 2016. Patients included were ages 16 years or older, not critically ill or mentally altered, not known to have an HIV positive status, and with an anticipated length of stay 30 minutes or longer. Data were analyzed through March 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Consecutive patients underwent concealed randomization to either nontargeted screening, enhanced targeted screening using a quantitative HIV risk prediction tool, or traditional targeted screening as adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Screening was integrated into clinical practice using opt-out consent and fourth-generation antigen-antibody assays.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

New HIV diagnoses using intention-to-treat analysis, absolute differences, and risk ratios (RRs).

RESULTS

A total of 76 561 patient visits were randomized; median (interquartile range) age was 40 (28-54) years, 34 807 patients (51.2%) were women, and 26 776 (39.4%) were Black, 22 131 (32.6%) non-Hispanic White, and 14 542 (21.4%) Hispanic. A total of 25 469 were randomized to nontargeted screening; 25 453, enhanced targeted screening; and 25 639, traditional targeted screening. Of the nontargeted group, 6744 participants (26.5%) completed testing and 10 (0.15%) were newly diagnosed; of the enhanced targeted group, 13 883 participants (54.5%) met risk criteria, 4488 (32.3%) completed testing, and 7 (0.16%) were newly diagnosed; and of the traditional targeted group, 7099 participants (27.7%) met risk criteria, 3173 (44.7%) completed testing, and 7 (0.22%) were newly diagnosed. When compared with nontargeted screening, targeted strategies were not associated with a higher rate of new diagnoses (enhanced targeted and traditional targeted combined: difference, -0.01%; 95% CI, -0.04% to 0.02%; RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.56; P = .38; and enhanced targeted only: difference, -0.01%; 95% CI, -0.04% to 0.02%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.84; P = .47).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Targeted HIV screening was not superior to nontargeted HIV screening in the ED. Nontargeted screening resulted in significantly more tests performed, although all strategies identified relatively low numbers of new HIV diagnoses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01781949.

Racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 disease burden & mortality among emergency department patients in a safety net health system

Background

We sought to examine racial and ethnic disparities in test positivity rate and mortality among emergency department (ED) patients tested for COVID-19 within an integrated public health system in Northern California.

Methods

In this retrospective study we analyzed data from patients seen at three EDs and tested for COVID-19 between April 6 through May 4, 2020. The primary outcome was the test positivity rate by race and ethnicity, and the secondary outcome was 30 day in-hospital mortality. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine associations with COVID-19 test positivity.

Results

There were 526 patients tested for COVID-19, of whom 95 (18.1%) tested positive. The mean age of patients tested was 54.2 years, 54.7% were male, and 76.1% had at least one medical comorbidity. Black patients accounted for 40.7% of those tested but 16.8% of the positive tests, and Latinx patients accounted for 26.4% of those tested but 58.9% of the positive tests. The test positivity rate among Latinx patients was 40.3% (56/139) compared with 10.1% (39/387) among non-Latinx patients (p < 0.001). Latinx ethnicity was associated with COVID-19 test positivity (adjusted odds ratio 9.6, 95% confidence interval: 3.5–26.0). Mortality among Black patients was higher than non-Black patients (18.7% vs 1.3%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

We report a significant disparity in COVID-19 adjusted test positivity rate and crude mortality rate among Latinx and Black patients, respectively. Results from ED-based testing can identify racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 testing, test positivity rates, and mortality associated with COVID-19 infection and can be used by health departments to inform policy.

High prevalence of injection drug use and blood-borne viral infections among patients in an urban emergency department

Background

The opioid epidemic has led to an increase in the number of persons who inject drugs, and this population accounts for 12% of new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and 60% of new hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in the United States annually. While persons who inject drugs disproportionately utilize the emergency department (ED), accurate data is lacking on the prevalence and patterns of injection drug use, and prevalence of co-occurring HIV and HCV infections among ED patients.

Objective

The primary outcome was to assess the prevalence of injection drug use and co-occurring HIV and HCV infection among patients presenting to an urban ED.

Methods

This was a cross sectional study conducted at an urban ED, with an annual census of 65,000 visits. A closed-response questionnaire was developed based on publicly available validated surveys to assess patterns of injection drug use and HIV and HCV infection status, and administered by trained research assistants to all registered adult patients during 4-hour blocks of time.

Results

Of the 2,319 eligible patients, 2,200 (94.9%) consented and completed the survey. 241 (11.0%) had ever used injection drugs, 103 (4.7%) currently used injection drugs, and 138 (6.3%) formerly used injection drugs. White patients age 25 to 34 years and white patients age 55 to 64 years had the highest prevalence of current (25.6%) and former (27.1%) injection drug use, respectively. Persons who use injection drugs had a higher prevalence of HCV infection (52.7% vs. 3.4%) and HIV infection (6.2% vs. 1.8%) than the rest of the population.

Conclusion

A high prevalence of ED patients report injection drug use, and this population self-reports a high prevalence of HIV and HCV infection. Emergency departments are in a unique position to engage with this population with regards to substance use treatment and linkage to care for HIV and HCV infection.

A Comparative Effectiveness Study of Two Nontargeted HIV and Hepatitis C Virus Screening Algorithms in an Urban Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We compare the effectiveness of 2 nontargeted HIV and hepatitis C virus screening protocols integrated consecutively into care in an urban emergency department: a nurse-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm followed by an automated-laboratory-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm programmed into the electronic health record.

METHODS

This was a before-after comparative effectiveness cohort study. All patients aged 18 to 75 years who received treatment during 5-month periods were eligible for participation. The main outcome measures were the number of patients screened and the number with newly diagnosed HIV and hepatitis C virus infection.

RESULTS

Of the eligible patients, 6,736 (33.9%) completed HIV screening during the automated-laboratory-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm, whereas 4,121 (19.6%) completed HIV screening during the nurse-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm (difference 14.3%; 95% confidence interval 13.4% to 15.1%); and 6,972 (35.1%) completed hepatitis C virus screening during the automated-laboratory-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm, whereas 2,968 (14.2%) completed hepatitis C virus screening during the nurse-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm (difference 20.9%; 95% confidence interval 20.1% to 21.7%). More patients had newly diagnosed HIV (23 versus 17) and hepatitis C virus infection (101 versus 29) during the automated-laboratory-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm than the nurse-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm. Results were more often available before discharge (HIV 87.2% versus 65.1%; hepatitis C virus 90.0% versus 65.4%) and fewer patients underwent repeated screening (HIV 1.6% versus 5.8%; hepatitis C virus 1.3% versus 4.5%) during the automated-laboratory-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm than the nurse-order HIV/hepatitis C virus screening algorithm.

CONCLUSION

An electronic health record algorithm that automatically links HIV/hepatitis C virus screening to laboratory ordering for adult patients is more effective than a nurse-driven protocol. With widespread use of electronic health record systems, this model can be easily replicated and should be considered the standard for future programs.

Acute HIV Discovered During Routine HIV Screening With HIV Antigen-Antibody Combination Tests in 9 US Emergency Departments

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Newer combination HIV antigen-antibody tests allow detection of HIV sooner after infection than previous antibody-only immunoassays because, in addition to HIV-1 and -2 antibodies, they detect the HIV-1 p24 antigen, which appears before antibodies develop. We determine the yield of screening with HIV antigen-antibody tests and clinical presentations for new diagnoses of acute and established HIV infection across US emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 9 EDs in 6 cities with HIV screening programs that integrated laboratory-based antigen-antibody tests between November 1, 2012, and December 31, 2015. Unique patients with newly diagnosed HIV infection were identified and classified as having either acute HIV infection or established HIV infection. Acute HIV infection was defined as a repeatedly reactive antigen-antibody test result, a negative HIV-1/HIV-2 antibody differentiation assay, or Western blot result, but detectable HIV ribonucleic acid (RNA); established HIV infection was defined as a repeatedly reactive antigen-antibody test result and a positive HIV-1/HIV-2 antibody differentiation assay or Western blot result. The primary outcomes were the number of new HIV diagnoses and proportion of patients with laboratory-defined acute HIV infection. Secondary outcomes compared reason for visit and the clinical presentation of acute HIV infection.

RESULTS

In total, 214,524 patients were screened for HIV and 839 (0.4%) received a new diagnosis, of which 122 (14.5%) were acute HIV infection and 717 (85.5%) were established HIV infection. Compared with patients with established HIV infection, those with acute HIV infection were younger, had higher RNA and CD4 counts, and were more likely to have viral syndrome (41.8% versus 6.5%) or fever (14.3% versus 3.4%) as their reason for visit. Most patients with acute HIV infection displayed symptoms attributable to acute infection (median symptom count 5 [interquartile range 3 to 6]), with fever often accompanied by greater than or equal to 3 other symptoms (60.7%).

CONCLUSION

ED screening using antigen-antibody tests identifies previously undiagnosed HIV infection at proportions that exceed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's screening threshold, with the added yield of identifying acute HIV infection in approximately 15% of patients with a new diagnosis. Patients with acute HIV infection often seek ED care for symptoms related to seroconversion.

Hepatitis C Virus Screening and Emergency Department Length of Stay

BACKGROUND

Recent studies demonstrate high rates of previously undiagnosed hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among patients screened in urban emergency departments (ED). Experts caution, however, that public health interventions, such as screening for infectious diseases, must not interfere with the primary mission of EDs to provide timely acute care. Increases in ED length of stay (LOS) have been associated with decreased quality of ED care.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we assess the influence of an integrated HCV screening protocol on ED LOS.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study analyzing timestamp data for all discharged patients over a 1-year period. The primary outcome compared the median LOS in minutes between patients who completed HCV screening and those who did not. Further analysis compared LOS for HCV screening by whether or not complete blood count (CBC) testing was conducted.

RESULTS

Of 69,639 visits, 2,864 (4%) had HCV screening tests completed and 272 (9.5%) were antibody positive. The median LOS for visits that included HCV screening was greater than visits that did not include screening (151 versus 119 minutes, P < 0.001). Among the subset of visits in which CBC testing was conducted, there was no significant difference in median LOS between visits that also included HCV screening and those that did not (240 versus 242 minutes, P = 0.68).

CONCLUSION

Integrated HCV screening modestly prolongs ED LOS. However, among patients undergoing other blood tests, screening had no effect on LOS. Programs may consider routinely offering HCV screening to patients who are undergoing laboratory testing.

High-impact hepatitis C virus testing for injection drug users in an urban ED

OBJECTIVES

We implemented the "High-Impact Testing for Injection Drug Users", or the "HIT IDU" initiative, an emergency physician (EP)-based hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing program. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of this clinical protocol.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational pilot study. The HIT IDU initiative encouraged EPs to integrate targeted HCV testing into care, with an emphasis on screening all people who inject drugs (PWID). Physicians selected the primary indication for HCV testing from a drop-down menu integrated into the electronic ordering process. The primary outcome was the absolute number and overall proportion of EP-based HCV antibody positive tests, further stratified by the indication for testing.

RESULTS

Over the 3-month study period, 14,253 unique patients were evaluated, and EPs tested 155 patients for HCV (1.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9%-1.2%), of which 40 (26%, 95% CI, 19%-33%) were HCV antibody positive. The proportion of HCV antibody positivity by testing indication was as follows: PWID 47% (34/73; 95% CI, 35%-59%), patient requested test 10% (4/40; 95% CI, 3%-24%), confirm patient report 67% (2/3; 95% CI, 9%-99%), liver disease of uncertain etiology 0% (0/3; 95% CI, 0%-71%), and other 0% (0/36; 95% CI, 0%-10%). There were 22 patients chronically infected, 19 had a follow-up appointment arranged, 3 attended their follow-up appointment, and 1 patient was treated at 1 year of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the overall number of EP-based HCV tests performed was low, high rates of infection were identified, particularly among PWID. There were significant challenges with linkage to care.

Patient Understanding of HIV and Hepatitis C Testing in an Emergency Department with an Integrated Program

INTRODUCTION

We implemented triage nurse rapid HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening, in parallel with physician diagnostic testing, in our urban emergency department (ED).

METHODS

A 2-month cross-sectional survey was performed to determine the proportion of patients who correctly reported being tested for HIV and HCV.

RESULTS

A total of 492 patients were surveyed. Fifty-one (70%) of the 73 patients who reported being HIV tested and 372 (89%) of the 419 patients who reported not being HIV tested were correct. Thirty (60%) of the 50 patients who reported being HCV tested and 416 (94%) of the 442 patients who reported not being HCV tested were correct.

CONCLUSION

Although most ED patients correctly reported whether testing was performed, there were many who did not. Although ED screening programs for HIV and HCV serve as an important venue for screening, strategies to improve communication require attention.

Results of a Rapid Hepatitis C Virus Screening and Diagnostic Testing Program in an Urban Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We describe the results of an emergency department (ED) hepatitis C virus testing program that integrated birth cohort screening and screening of patients with a history of injection drug use, as well as physician diagnostic testing, according to national guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data collected as part of clinical care. The primary outcome was the hepatitis C virus prevalence among tested patients. We evaluated factors associated with testing positive with logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 26,639 unique adults aged 18 years or older and presenting to the ED during the 6-month study, 2,581 (9.7%) completed hepatitis C virus screening (2,028) or diagnostic testing (553), of whom 267 were antibody positive (10.3% prevalence). Factors associated with testing positive for hepatitis C virus included injection drug use (38.4% prevalence; odds ratio [OR] 10.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.5 to 15.5), homeless (25.5% prevalence; OR 3.1; 95% CI 1.5 to 6.8), diagnostic testing (14.8% prevalence; OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.7 to 3.9), birth cohort (13.7% prevalence; OR 3.6; 95% CI 2.4 to 5.3), and male sex (12.4% prevalence; OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 2.0). Of the 267 patients testing positive for hepatitis C virus antibody, 137 (51%) had documentation of result disclosure and 180 (67%) had confirmatory ribonucleic acid testing performed, of whom 126 (70%) had a positive result. Follow-up appointments at the hepatitis C virus clinic were arranged for 57 of the 126 (45%) patients with confirmed positive results, of which 30 attended.

CONCLUSION

This ED screening and diagnostic testing program found a high prevalence of hepatitis C virus antibody positivity across all groups. Challenges encountered with hepatitis C virus screening included result disclosure, confirmatory testing, and linkage to care. Our results warrant continued efforts to develop and evaluate policies for ED-based hepatitis C virus screening.

Understanding patient acceptance and refusal of HIV testing in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Despite high rates of patient satisfaction with emergency department (ED) HIV testing, acceptance varies widely. It is thought that patients who decline may be at higher risk for HIV infection, thus we sought to better understand patient acceptance and refusal of ED HIV testing.

METHODS

In-depth interviews with fifty ED patients (28 accepters and 22 decliners of HIV testing) in three ED HIV testing programs that serve vulnerable urban populations in northern California.

RESULTS

Many factors influenced the decision to accept ED HIV testing, including curiosity, reassurance of negative status, convenience, and opportunity. Similarly, a number of factors influenced the decision to decline HIV testing, including having been tested recently, the perception of being at low risk for HIV infection due to monogamy, abstinence or condom use, and wanting to focus on the medical reason for the ED visit. Both accepters and decliners viewed ED HIV testing favorably and nearly all participants felt comfortable with the testing experience, including the absence of counseling. While many participants who declined an ED HIV test had logical reasons, some participants also made clear that they would prefer not to know their HIV status rather than face psychosocial consequences such as loss of trust in a relationship or disclosure of status in hospital or public health records.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing for HIV in the ED as for any other health problem reduces barriers to testing for some but not all patients. Patients who decline ED HIV testing may have rational reasons, but there are some patients who avoid HIV testing because of psychosocial ramifications. While ED HIV testing is generally acceptable, more targeted approaches to testing are necessary for this subgroup.

HIV screening in an urban emergency department: comparison of screening using an opt-in versus an opt-out approach

OBJECTIVE

We compare outcomes of opt-in and opt-out HIV screening approaches in an urban emergency department.

METHODS

This was a 1-year prospective observational study comparing 2 6-month screening approaches. Eligibility for opt-in and opt-out screening was identical: aged 15 years or older, medically stable, and able to complete general consent. During the opt-in phase, triage nurses referred patients to HIV testers stationed at triage, who obtained separate opt-in written consent and performed rapid oral fluid tests. During the opt-out phase, registration staff conducted integrated opt-out consent and then referred patients to HIV testers. We assessed the proportion of potentially eligible patients who were offered screening (screening offer rate), the proportion offered screening who accepted (screening acceptance rate), the proportion who accepted screening and subsequently completed testing (test completion rate), and the proportion of potentially eligible patients who completed testing (overall screening rate) during each phase.

RESULTS

For the opt-in versus the opt-out phases, respectively, there were 23,236 potentially eligible patients versus 26,757, screening offer rate was 27.9% versus 75.8% (P<.001), screening acceptance rate was 62.7% versus 30.9% (P<.001), test completion rate was 99.8% versus 74.6% (P<.001), and overall screening rate was 17.4% versus 17.5% (P = .90).

CONCLUSION

A significantly higher proportion of patients were offered HIV screening with an opt-out approach at registration. However, this was offset by much higher screening acceptance and test completion rates with the opt-in approach at triage. Overall screening rates with the 2 approaches were nearly identical.

2009 US emergency department HIV testing practices

OBJECTIVES

We characterize HIV testing practices and programs in US emergency departments (EDs) in 2009.

METHODS

A national Web-based survey of members of the National ED HIV Testing Consortium, participants in the 2007 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-sponsored ED HIV Testing Workshops, all US academic EDs, and a weighted random sample of US community EDs with snowball sampling to recruit additional testing sites was conducted. Data collected included geographic location, estimated seroprevalence, indications for testing, method of consent, weekly number of tests, funding, and costs.

RESULTS

Of 619 sites surveyed, 338 (54.6%) responded. A total of 277 (82.0%) reported conducting any HIV testing, and 75 (22.2%) reported systematic HIV testing programs, operationally defined as having testing or screening organized at the departmental or institutional level. systematic HIV testing programs were concentrated in the Northeast, at high-volume urban EDs, and in regions with higher HIV/AIDS prevalence. Most systematic HIV testing programs had existed for less than or equal to 3 years, and nearly one third reported using an opt-out approach for consent. Among systematic HIV testing programs, the number of patients tested ranged from less than 1 to 2,100 tests per week. Overall, universal screening was the most commonly reported screening method reported overall, and rates of HIV positivity were consistently above the CDC threshold of 0.1%.

CONCLUSION

The number of EDs conducting HIV testing has grown substantially since release of the 2006 CDC HIV testing recommendations. Although many EDs have systematic HIV testing programs, the majority do not. Ongoing surveillance will be required to quantify the evolution of ED-based HIV testing and the factors that facilitate or impede expanded translation.

Operational methods of HIV testing in emergency departments: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Casual review of existing literature reveals a multitude of individualized approaches to emergency department (ED) HIV testing. Cataloging the operational options of each approach could assist translation by disseminating existing knowledge, endorsing variability as a means to address testing barriers, and laying a foundation for future work in the area of operational models and outcomes investigation. The objective of this study is to provide a detailed account of the various models and operational constructs that have been described for performing HIV testing in EDs.

METHODS

Systematic review of PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the Web of Science through February 6, 2009 was performed. Three investigators independently reviewed all potential abstracts and identified all studies that met the following criteria for inclusion: original research, performance of HIV testing in an ED in the United States, description of operational methods, and reporting of specific testing outcomes. Each study was independently assessed and data from each were abstracted with standardized instruments. Summary and pooled descriptive statistics were reported by using recently published nomenclature and definitions for ED HIV testing.

RESULTS

The primary search yielded 947 potential studies, of which 25 (3%) were included in the final analysis. Of the 25 included studies, 13 (52%) reported results using nontargeted screening as the only patient selection method. Most programs reported using voluntary, opt-in consent and separate, signed consent forms. A variety of assays and communication methods were used, but relatively limited outcomes data were reported.

CONCLUSION

Currently, limited evidence exists to inform HIV testing practices in EDs. There appears to be recent progression toward the use of rapid assays and nontargeted patient selection methods, with the rate at which reports are published in the peer-reviewed literature increasing. Additional research will be required, including controlled clinical trials, more structured program evaluation, and a focus on an expanded profile of outcome measures, to further improve our understanding of which HIV testing methods are most effective in the ED.

Emergency department HIV screening with rapid tests: a cost comparison of alternative models

Although previous studies have shown that HIV screening in emergency departments (EDs) is feasible, the costs and outcomes of alternative methods of implementing ED screening have not been examined. We compared the costs and outcomes of a model that used the hospital's ED staff to conduct screening, a supplemental staff model that used non-ED staff hired to conduct screening and a hypothetical hybrid model that combined aspects of both approaches. We developed a decision analytic model to estimate the cost per HIV-infected patient identified using alternative ED testing models. The cost per new HIV infection identified was $3,319, $2,084 and $1,850 under the supplemental, existing staff and hybrid models, respectively. Assuming an annual ED census of 50,000 patients, the existing staff model identified 29 more HIV infections than the supplemental model and the hybrid model identified 76 more infections than the existing staff model. Our findings suggest that a hybrid model should be favored over either a supplemental staff or existing staff model in terms of cost per outcome achieved.

Emergency department staff satisfaction with rapid human immunodeficiency virus testing

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to determine staff satisfaction with an emergency department (ED) rapid human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing program.

METHODS

A survey was conducted in an urban ED that has provided rapid HIV testing (routine screening and physician-initiated testing) since August 2007. From May 1, 2008, to August 31, 2008, the survey was administered to all ED staff involved with HIV testing. The primary outcome was satisfaction, and secondary outcomes were the staff attitudes toward the program.

RESULTS

Surveys were administered to 215 of the 217 staff members, and 207 surveys were returned (96% response rate); 201 surveys had complete data available for analysis. The response rate by staffing type was as follows: physicians 64/64 (100%), nurses 124/134 (93%), and registration staff 16/19 (84%). The majority of ED staff (99%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 95% to 100%) were satisfied with the HIV testing program. Physicians, however, rated the program more favorably than nurses or registration staff. Most staff members agreed that HIV testing improved overall care (93%; 95% CI = 89% to 96%) and felt that HIV testing did not interfere with their ability to provide care (82%; 95% CI = 76% to 87%). The majority of staff perceived that patients were satisfied with the procedures for obtaining consent (73%; 95% CI = 67% to 79%) and with the way HIV testing was performed (83%; 95% CI = 77% to 87%).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency department staff satisfaction and overall attitudes with the HIV testing program is high. ED staff does not appear to be a barrier to program implementation.

Nomenclature and definitions for emergency department human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing: report from the 2007 conference of the National Emergency Department HIV Testing Consortium

Early diagnosis of persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) through diagnostic testing and screening is a critical priority for individual and public health. Emergency departments (EDs) have an important role in this effort. As EDs gain experience in HIV testing, it is increasingly apparent that implementing testing is conceptually and operationally complex. A wide variety of HIV testing practice and research models have emerged, each reflecting adaptations to site-specific factors and the needs of local populations. The diversity and complexity inherent in nascent ED HIV testing practice and research are associated with the risk that findings will not be described according to a common lexicon. This article presents a comprehensive set of terms and definitions that can be used to describe ED-based HIV testing programs, developed by consensus opinion from the inaugural meeting of the National ED HIV Testing Consortium. These definitions are designed to facilitate discussion, increase comparability of future reports, and potentially accelerate wider implementation of ED HIV testing.