Search

Healthcare providers whom people see regularly (e.g., primary care providers [PCPs]) are likely to interact with individuals at risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). However, most PCPs report never prescribing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a medication that prevents HIV infection. This study examined the association between having a regular healthcare provider and PrEP use among men who have sex with men (MSM). We analyzed health survey data from Black (n = 151) and White (n = 113) MSM in Atlanta, GA using log binomial regressions. Among Black MSM, the proportion who used PrEP was nearly three times higher for those with a regular provider compared to those without one (aPR 2.58; 95% CI: 0.96, 6.93). Conversely, the proportion of White MSM who used PrEP was slightly lower among those with a regular provider (aPR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.36, 1.27). Findings suggest having a regular provider may be more strongly associated with PrEP among Black MSM., Author(s): Eleanor W. Garlow [sup.1] , Udodirim N. Onwubiko [sup.1] , David P. Holland [sup.1] [sup.2] [sup.3] , Allison T. Chamberlain [sup.1] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.189967.8, 0000 0001 0941 6502, [...]

Background: Primary care providers are regarded as trustworthy sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines. Although primary care practices often provide information about common medical and public health topics on their practice websites, little is known about whether they also provide information about COVID-19 vaccines on their practice websites. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and correlates of COVID-19 vaccine information on family medicine practices' website home pages in the United States. Methods: We used the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid National Provider Identifier records to create a sampling frame of all family medicine providers based in the United States, from which we constructed a nationally representative random sample of 964 family medicine providers. Between September 20 and October 8, 2021, we manually examined the practice websites of these providers and extracted data on the availability of COVID-19 vaccine information, and we implemented a 10% cross-review quality control measure to resolve discordances in data abstraction. We estimated the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine information on practice websites and website home pages and used Poisson regression with robust error variances to estimate crude and adjusted prevalence ratios for correlates of COVID-19 vaccine information, including practice size, practice region, university affiliation, and presence of information about seasonal influenza vaccines. Additionally, we performed sensitivity analyses to account for multiple comparisons. Results: Of the 964 included family medicine practices, most (n=509, 52.8%) had =10 distinct locations, were unaffiliated with a university (n=838, 87.2%), and mentioned seasonal influenza vaccines on their websites (n=540, 56.1%). In total, 550 (57.1%) practices mentioned COVID-19 vaccines on their practices' website home page, specifically, and 726 (75.3%) mentioned COVID-19 vaccines anywhere on their practice website. As practice size increased, the likelihood of finding COVID-19 vaccine information on the home page increased (n=66, 27.7% among single-location practices, n=114, 52.5% among practices with 2-9 locations, n=66, 56.4% among practices with 10-19 locations, and n=304, 77.6% among practices with 20 or more locations, P<.001 for trend). Compared to clinics in the Northeast, those in the West and Midwest United States had a similar prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine information on website home pages, but clinics in the south had a lower prevalence (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.8, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.0; P=.02). Our results were largely unchanged in sensitivity analyses accounting for multiple comparisons. Conclusions: Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, primary care practitioners who promote and provide vaccines should strongly consider utilizing their existing practice websites to share COVID-19 vaccine information. These existing platforms have the potential to serve as an extension of providers' influence on established and prospective patients who search the internet for information about COVID-19 vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the willingness to discuss and be screened for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in pharmacies among MSM. Methods: Led by Georgia's Fulton County Board of Health, this study surveyed individuals who attended 2 Atlanta-based Gay Pride events in 2018. This analysis was limited to those who identified as men who have sex with men (MSM) who were not HIV positive and reported never using PrEP. Multivariable regression was used to determine the correlates of willingness to discuss and be screened for PrEP in-pharmacy. Results: Most (69%) were willing to discuss PrEP with pharmacy staff and 61.35% were willing to be screened for PrEP in-pharmacy. Those who were interested in PrEP were significantly more willing to discuss PrEP in-pharmacy compared to those not interested in PrEP (prevalence ratio [PR]: 1.65; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.11-2.48). Race was not associated with willingness to discuss PrEP with pharmacy staff. However, black MSM (BMSM) were less willing to be screened in pharmacies than white MSM, until we accounted for interest in PrEP (PR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.09-1.48). Discussion: Pharmacies may be an optimal setting to expand PrEP access to reach racial minorities who have the highest need but are not being reached. Pharmacy-based PrEP discussions and screening could improve awareness of HIV status and increase PrEP knowledge and uptake. Future studies should determine optimal pharmacy conditions under which PrEP screening and uptake are acceptable for BMSM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Among inpatients, peer-comparison of prescribing metrics is challenging due to variation in patient-mix and prescribing by multiple providers daily. We established risk-adjusted provider-specific antibiotic prescribing metrics to allow peer-comparisons among hospitalists., Methods: Using clinical and billing data from inpatient encounters discharged from the Hospital Medicine Service between January 2020 through June 2021 at four acute care hospitals, we calculated bimonthly (every two months) days of therapy (DOT) for antibiotics attributed to specific providers based on patient billing dates. Ten patient-mix characteristics, including demographics, infectious disease diagnoses, and noninfectious comorbidities were considered as potential predictors of antibiotic prescribing. Using linear mixed models, we identified risk-adjusted models predicting the prescribing of three antibiotic groups: broad spectrum hospital-onset (BSHO), broad-spectrum community-acquired (BSCA), and anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (Anti-MRSA) antibiotics. Provider-specific observed-to-expected ratios (OERs) were calculated to describe provider-level antibiotic prescribing trends over time., Results: Predictors of antibiotic prescribing varied for the three antibiotic groups across the four hospitals, commonly selected predictors included sepsis, COVID-19, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, malignancy, and age >65 years. OERs varied within each hospital, with medians of approximately 1 and a 75th percentile of approximately 1.25. The median OER demonstrated a downward trend for the Anti-MRSA group at two hospitals but remained relatively stable elsewhere. Instances of heightened antibiotic prescribing (OER >1.25) were identified in approximately 25% of the observed time-points across all four hospitals., Conclusion: Our findings indicate provider-specific benchmarking among inpatient providers is achievable and has potential utility as a valuable tool for inpatient stewardship efforts., Competing Interests: None., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Objective: We evaluated the impact of test-order frequency per diarrheal episodes on Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) incidence estimates in a sample of hospitals at 2 CDC Emerging Infections Program (EIP) sites., Design: Observational survey., Setting: Inpatients at 5 acute-care hospitals in Rochester, New York, and Atlanta, Georgia, during two 10-workday periods in 2020 and 2021., Outcomes: We calculated diarrhea incidence, testing frequency, and CDI positivity (defined as any positive NAAT test) across strata. Predictors of CDI testing and positivity were assessed using modified Poisson regression. Population estimates of incidence using modified Emerging Infections Program methodology were compared between sites using the Mantel-Hanzel summary rate ratio., Results: Surveillance of 38,365 patient days identified 860 diarrhea cases from 107 patient-care units mapped to 26 unique NHSN defined location types. Incidence of diarrhea was 22.4 of 1,000 patient days (medians, 25.8 for Rochester and 16.2 for Atlanta; P < .01). Similar proportions of diarrhea cases were hospital onset (66%) at both sites. Overall, 35% of patients with diarrhea were tested for CDI, but this differed by site: 21% in Rochester and 49% in Atlanta ( P < .01). Regression models identified location type (ie, oncology or critical care) and laxative use predictive of CDI test ordering. Adjusting for these factors, CDI testing was 49% less likely in Rochester than Atlanta (adjusted rate ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.63). Population estimates in Rochester had a 38% lower incidence of CDI than Atlanta (summary rate ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.54-0.71)., Conclusion: Accounting for patient-specific factors that influence CDI test ordering, differences in testing practices between sites remain and likely contribute to regional differences in surveillance estimates.