Emergency Department Bridge Model and Health Services Use Among Patients With Opioid Use Disorder.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the effectiveness of bridge clinics as transitional care programs for people with opioid use disorder in emergency departments (EDs). We assessed the effect of bridge clinic referral on health services use among patients with opioid use disorder identified in the ED. METHODS: We used data for individuals aged 18 years and over with active opioid use disorder and no history of medication for opioid use disorder who were administered medication for opioid use disorder while in the ED between January 2013 and August 2022. Bridge clinic referrals started in January 2021. Eligible patients after this date comprised the intervention group. The usual care group included eligible patients before bridge clinic implementation, who were a 1:1 propensity score matched to intervention patients. We estimated risk differences and 95% confidence limits for linkage to long-term care, ED use, and inpatient admission within 120 days of the index ED visit. RESULTS: Our study population comprised 928 observations after matching. Patients referred to the bridge clinic had a higher risk of linkage to long-term care (risk differences=25%; 95% confidence limits: 20%, 30%), higher risk of ED use (risk differences=7.5%, 95% confidence limits: 1.6%, 13%), and lower risk of inpatient admission (risk differences= -1.9%, 95% confidence limits: -5.9%, 2.1%). Inpatient admission increased among patients with serious mental illness but decreased among patients without serious mental illness. CONCLUSION: Our overall results suggest that bridge clinic referral increases linkage to long-term care. Nevertheless, qualitatively different effects on inpatient admission between patients with and without serious mental illness warrant consideration of unmet needs among patients with serious mental illness.

Racial/ethnic distribution of graduates from doctorate and masters epidemiology degree programs in the United States, 2008 to 2018.

PURPOSE: To identify trends in racial and ethnic diversity of epidemiology graduate degree recipients in the United States between academic years 2008 and 2018. METHODS: National-level data from the National Center for Education Statistics was analyzed to assess the change in proportions of epidemiology degrees conferred to each racial/ethnic group - American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; Black or African American; Hispanic or Latino; White; and two or more races- over two time periods, Fall 2007- Spring 2012 (Period 1) and Fall 2012 - Spring 2018 (Period 2). RESULTS: During Period 13,837 epidemiology graduate degrees were conferred, and 6960 in Period 2. Within race/ethnicity groups, there was a statistically significant increase in graduate epidemiology degrees awarded over the two time periods to students of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and to students reporting two or more races. The proportion of degrees awarded to non-White students in aggregate increased by 4.7 percentage points, from 33.5% to 38.2%, while awards to White students decreased by the same amount. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the racial/ethnic diversity of epidemiology graduates in the United States increased between 2008 and 2018, however, further efforts are needed to increase awards within some racial minority subgroups.

The data-collection on adverse effects of anti-HIV drugs (D:A:D) model for predicting cardiovascular events: External validation in a diverse cohort of people living with HIV.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the external validity of the Data-collection on Adverse Effects of Anti-HIV Drugs (D:A:D) model for predicting cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk among people living with HIV (PLWH). We aimed to evaluate the performance of the updated D:A:D model for 5-year CVD risk in a diverse group of PLWH engaged in HIV care. METHODS: We used data from an institutional HIV registry, which includes PLWH engaged in care at a safety-net HIV clinic. Eligible individuals had a baseline clinical encounter between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014, with follow-up through to 31 December 2019. We estimated 5-year predicted risks of CVD as a function of the prognostic index and baseline survival of the D:A:D model, which were used to assess model discrimination (C-index), calibration and net benefit. RESULTS: Our evaluable population comprised 1029 PLWH, of whom 30% were female, 50% were non-Hispanic black, and median age was 45 years. The C-index was 0.70 [95% confidence limits (CL): 0.64-0.75]. The predicted 5-year CVD risk was 3.0% and the observed 5-year risk was 8.9% (expected/observed ratio = 0.33, 95% CL: 0.26-0.54). The model had a greater net benefit than treating all or treating none at a risk threshold of 10%. CONCLUSIONS: The D:A:D model was miscalibrated for CVD risk among PLWH engaged in HIV care at an urban safety-net HIV clinic, which may be related to differences in case-mix and baseline CVD risk. Nevertheless, the HIV D:A:D model may be useful for decisions about CVD intervention for high-risk patients.

Brief Report: HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Prescribing in an Urban Safety-Net Health System.

INTRODUCTION: Safety-net health systems are key settings for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) implementation, but little evidence is available about the frequency of PrEP prescribing in safety-net settings. We assessed PrEP prescribing among people with indications for PrEP at an urban safety-net health system that serves a county designated as an Ending the HIV Epidemic priority jurisdiction. METHODS: We identified adults (aged 18 years or older) who engaged in primary care between January 2015 and December 2019 and had a documented indication for PrEP. PrEP indications included the presence of a behavioral or sexual risk factor of HIV acquisition or a positive bacterial sexually transmitted infection at the index visit. PrEP prescribing was defined as the proportion of patients with indications for PrEP who received a new prescription for PrEP. We estimated the cumulative incidence of PrEP prescription with corresponding 95% confidence limits (CL). RESULTS: Our study population comprised 2957 individuals, of whom 58% was aged younger than 45 years, 56% was women, 67% was racial or ethnic minorities, and 60% was uninsured or provided care as part of a hospital-based managed care plan for individuals without insurance. We identified 41 individuals who were prescribed PrEP. The cumulative incidence of PrEP prescribing within 1 year of the first documented PrEP indication was 1.3% (95% CL: 0.91% to 1.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest extremely low frequency of PrEP prescribing among people with indications for PrEP in an urban safety-net health system. Strategies are needed to improve PrEP implementation in high-priority populations and safety-net settings.

Knowledge needs for implementing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among primary care providers in a safety-net health system.

Safety-net health systems are a primary source of care for socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals who may be eligible for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and are priority groups under the Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative. Nevertheless, little evidence is available about barriers to PrEP implementation in safety-net settings. We aimed to assess the association between PrEP knowledge and prescribing practices, and to ascertain unmet knowledge needs to implement PrEP. In 2019, we surveyed primary care providers (PCPs) in a safety-net health system that serves an EHE priority jurisdiction located in North Texas. Our questionnaire ascertained self-reported prescribing practices, knowledge, and training needs related to PrEP. We used penalized logistic regression to estimate odds ratio (OR) and 95% posterior limits (PL) for the association between provider self-rated knowledge of PrEP and PrEP prescribing. Our study population comprised 62 primary care providers, of whom 61% were female, 60% were non-Hispanic White, 76% were physicians (76%), 57% had ≥ 10 years of practice experience, 45% reported low self-rated PrEP knowledge, and 35% prescribed PrEP in the past year. Providers with low PrEP knowledge had 69% lower odds of prescribing PrEP within the past year (OR = 0.31, 95% PL: 0.12, 0.82). Eligibility for PrEP, side effects and adherence concerns were key unmet knowledge needs. Our findings suggest that low provider PrEP knowledge may be a barrier to PrEP prescribing among safety-net PCPs. Our results provide insight about specific educational needs of PCPs in a safety-net health system, which are amenable to educational intervention.