Search

Background Many people at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) utilize the emergency department (ED) for evaluation and treatment of STI-related complaints. Syphilis testing rates in the ED have historically been low. Following the implementation of a joint ED and Infectious Disease (ID) multidisciplinary quality improvement initiative designed to increase syphilis testing in this setting, we sought to evaluate the demographics and clinical outcomes for patients diagnosed with early syphilis in the ED. Methods A retrospective chart review of patients with positive syphilis test results from ED encounters at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center East Hospital between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2021 was performed. Demographic and clinical information was obtained for patients diagnosed with early syphilis (primary, secondary or early latent syphilis). Results Since 2019, we have observed a significant increase early syphilis cases identified in our ED despite stable rates of testing (Figure 1). There were 55 cases of early syphilis, 3 with neurosyphilis (NS) at the time of diagnosis (Figure 2). Most cases were men (38/55; 69%), Black/African American (44/55; 80%), and symptomatic (48/55; 87%). Nine of 55 patients (16%) had HIV co-infection, 2 were new diagnoses at time of syphilis diagnosis. Most patients (44/55; 80%) completed appropriate treatment. Of the symptomatic patients, 17/45 (37%) received presumptive treatment in the ED (3 cases of NS excluded). Of those who received treatment after discharge from the ED, the median time to treatment completion was 3 days (range 0-30), with 11/24 (46%) returning to the ED for treatment. Figure 1.Figure 2. Conclusion As a result of a collaborative ED/ID STI testing initiative established at our institution, we have observed a significant increase in the number of symptomatic early syphilis cases identified in our ED between 2019 and 2021, with most patients completing treatment in a timely manner. This data show that the ED is an important and feasible setting for syphilis diagnosis and treatment when appropriate support systems are in place, including established communications with ID colleagues. Disclosures Carlos Malvestutto, MD MPH, Gilead Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|Viiv Healthcare: Advisor/Consultant Susan L. Koletar, MD, Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support.

The SRTR maintains the liver-simulated allocation model (LSAM), a tool for estimating the impact of changes to liver allocation policy. Integral to LSAM is a model that predicts the decision to accept or decline a liver for transplant. LSAM implicitly assumes these decisions are made identically for adult and pediatric liver transplant (LT) candidates, which has not been previously validated. We applied LSAM's decision-making models to SRTR offer data from 2013 to 2016 to determine its efficacy for adult (≥18) and pediatric (

Recent changes to liver allocation replaced donor service areas with circles as the geographic unit of allocation. Circle-based allocation might increase the number of transplantation centers and candidates required to place a liver, thereby increasing the logistical burden of making and responding to offers on organ procurement organizations and transplantation centers. Circle-based allocation might also increase distribution time and cold ischemia time (CIT), particularly in densely populated areas of the country, thereby decreasing allocation efficiency. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data from 2019 to 2021, we evaluated the number of transplantation centers and candidates required to place livers in the precircles and postcircles eras, nationally and by donor region. Compared with the precircles era, livers were offered to more candidates (5 vs. 9; p 0.001) and centers (3 vs. 5; p 0.001) before being accepted; more centers were involved in the match run by offer number 50 (9 vs. 14; p 0.001); CIT increased by 0.2 h (5.9 h vs. 6.1 h; p 0.001); and distribution time increased by 2.0 h (30.6 h vs. 32.6 h; p 0.001). Increased burden varied geographically by donor region; livers recovered in Region 9 were offered to many more candidates (4 vs. 12; p 0.001) and centers (3 vs. 8; p 0.001) before being accepted, resulting in the largest increase in CIT (5.4 h vs. 6.0 h; p 0.001). Circle-based allocation is associated with increased logistical burdens that are geographically heterogeneous. Continuous distribution systems will have to be carefully designed to avoid exacerbating this problem.

The United States (U.S.) Department of Health and Human Services is interested in increasing geographical equity in access to liver transplant. The geographical disparity in the U.S. is fundamentally an outcome of variation in the organ supply to patient demand (s/d) ratios across the country (which cannot be treated as a single unit due to its size). To design a fairer system, we develop a nonlinear integer programming model that allocates the organ supply in order to maximize the minimum s/d ratios across all transplant centers. We design circular donation regions that are able to address the issues raised in legal challenges to earlier organ distribution frameworks. This allows us to reformulate our model as a set-partitioning problem. Our policy can be viewed as a heterogeneous donor circle policy, where the integer program optimizes the radius of the circle around each donation location. Compared to the current policy, which has fixed radius circles around donation locations, the heterogeneous donor circle policy greatly improves both the worst s/d ratio and the range between the maximum and minimum s/d ratios. We found that with the fixed radius policy of 500 nautical miles (NM), the s/d ratio ranges from 0.37 to 0.84 at transplant centers, while with the heterogeneous circle policy capped at a maximum radius of 500 NM, the s/d ratio ranges from 0.55 to 0.60, closely matching the national s/d ratio average of 0.5983. Our model matches the supply and demand in a more equitable fashion than existing policies and has a significant potential to improve the liver transplantation landscape.

BACKGROUND: The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) has been established as a reliable indicator of short-term survival in patients with end-stage liver disease. The current version (MELDNa), consisting of INR and serum bilirubin, creatinine, and sodium, has been used to determine organ allocation priorities for liver transplantation in the United States (US). The objective was to optimize MELD further by taking into account additional variables and updating coefficients with contemporary data. METHODS: All candidates registered on the liver transplant waitlist in the US national registry from Jan 2016 – Dec 2018 were included. Uni- and multivariable Cox models were developed to predict survival up to 90 days after waitlist registration. Model fit was tested using the concordance statistic and reclassification, and the liver simulated allocation model (LSAM) was used to estimate the impact of replacing MELDNa with the new model. RESULTS: The final multivariable model was characterized by (1) additional variables of female sex and serum albumin, (2) interactions between bilirubin and sodium and between albumin and creatinine, and (3) an upper bound for creatinine at 3.0mg/dL. The final model (MELD 3.0, henceforth), had better discrimination than MELDNa (concordance statistic 0.869 versus 0.862, p

Acuity circles (AC), the new liver allocation system, was implemented on February 4, 2020. Difference-in-differences analyses estimated the effect of AC on adjusted deceased donor transplant and offer rates across Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) categories and types of exception statuses. The offer rates were the number of first offers, top 5 offers, and top 10 offers on the match run per person-year. Each analysis adjusted for candidate characteristics and only used active candidate time on the waiting list. The before-AC period was February 4, 2019, to February 3, 2020, and the after-AC period was February 4, 2020, to February 3, 2021. Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 and PELD/MELD scores 33 to 36 had higher transplant rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 after AC compared with before AC (transplant rate ratios: PELD/MELD scores 29-32, 2.34 3.324.71 ; PELD/MELD scores 33-36, 1.70 2.513.71 ). Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 or higher had higher offer rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28, and candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 had the largest difference (offer rate ratios [ORR]: first offers, 2.77 3.955.63 ; top 5 offers, 3.90 4.394.95 ; top 10 offers, 4.85 5.305.80 ). Candidates with exceptions had lower offer rates than candidates without exceptions for offers in the top 5 (ORR: hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC], 0.68 0.770.88 ; non-HCC, 0.73 0.810.89 ) and top 10 (ORR: HCC, 0.59 0.650.71 ; non-HCC, 0.69 0.750.81 ). Recipients with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 and an HCC exception received a larger proportion of donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors after AC than before AC, although the differences in the liver donor risk index were comparatively small. Thus, candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 34 and no exceptions had better access to transplant after AC, and donor quality did not notably change beyond the proportion of DCD donors.