Search

Clinical trials provide evidence that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prevents HIV acquisition including through sharing of injection equipment among people who inject drugs (PWID). However, uptake among many populations at risk for HIV has been slow, particularly among PWID. We examined data from the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance (NHBS) from San Francisco in 2022 to measure PrEP uptake and identify factors associated with PrEP awareness among PWID. Of 479 PWID with HIV-negative or unknown HIV status, 54.9% were aware of PrEP, 5.9% had discussed PrEP with a healthcare provider, and 1.5% had used PrEP in the past year. Lack of PrEP awareness was associated with being age 50 years and older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.40, 95% CI 0.27–0.60), being men who have sex with women (vs. men who have sex with men, aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24–0.92), having a disability (aOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35–0.95), using heroin as their most frequently injected drug (aOR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.34–0.78), not having tested for HIV, HCV, or an STD in the past year (aOR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28–0.64), and not having access to new sterile needles in the past year (aOR 0.28, 95%CI 0.08–1.00). We found negligible change in the awareness and uptake of PrEP among PWID since previously measured in NHBS in 2018. Low PrEP use among PWID may be addressed by increasing provider discussion of PrEP with their PWID patients and clients during routine care, expanding testing for injection-related infections among PWID, and integrating PrEP access into harm reduction programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution. Methods: Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs. Results: 298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031). Conclusions: Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]