ty building; few impacted health. Recommending common early phase logic model pathways may facilitate downstream success.Introduction Needle and syringe programs and opioid agonist therapy are essential for harm reduction among people who inject drugs. Few studies assess their combined potential in preventing hepatitis C virus infection. No studies have assessed whether they perform similarly among individuals at risk of primary and recurrent infection. This study aimed to estimate the rates of hepatitis C virus acquisition according to harm reduction coverage among hepatitis C virus-naive and previously infected people who inject drugs in Montreal, Canada. Methods This prospective cohort study involved regular interviews and hepatitis C antibody and RNA testing (data collection 2010-2017, analysis 2018). Opioid agonist therapy coverage was defined by current dose high (≥60 mg/day methadone, ≥16 mg buprenorphine), low, or none. Complete needle and syringe program coverage was defined as exclusively reporting safe needle and syringe sources (past 6 or 3 months). Combined coverage was defined as full (high-dose agonist/complete needle/syringe coverage), minimal (low-dose agonist/incomplete needle/syringe coverage), and partial (remaining combinations). Cox regression models were fit. Results A total of 106 events were observed over 1,183.1 person-years for primary and recurrent incidence rates of 10.6 (95% CI=8.0, 13.8) and 7.6 (95% CI=5.6, 9.9) per 100 years, respectively. High-dose opioid agonist therapy was associated with a 77% reduction in hepatitis C virus acquisition (hazard ratio=0.23, 95% CI=0.10, 0.50) compared with not receiving opioid agonist therapy. Needle and syringe coverage was not associated with infection rates. Estimates considering their combination reflected opioid agonist therapy coverage. Associations were similar among hepatitis C virus-naive and previously infected people who inject drugs. Conclusions High-dose opioid agonist therapy seems particularly important to reduce drug-related harms among hepatitis C virus-naive and previously infected people who inject drugs in Montreal.Introduction The objectives of this study were to investigate an association between the risk of patient falls and self-reported hearing loss and to examine whether self-reported hearing loss with versus without hearing aids predicts patient falls in an inpatient setting. Methods This retrospective cohort analysis was conducted in 2018 in a large, urban, academic medical center. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/i-bet-762.html Participants included unique inpatients (N=52,805) of adults aged >18 years between February 1, 2017, and February 1, 2018. Outcome measures were falls in the inpatient setting and hearing loss with versus without hearing aids as predictors for patient falls. Results Self-reported hearing loss was associated with falls in the inpatient setting (OR=1.74, 95% CI=1.46, 2.07, p less then 1.43 × 10-9). Among patients with hearing impairment, a lack of hearing aids increased the risk for falls in the inpatient setting (OR=2.70, 95% CI=1.64, 4.69, p less then 1.41 × 10-5). After accounting for the risk of fall using the Morse Fall Scale (which does not include hearing impairment) and controlling for age and sex, patients with hearing loss and no hearing aids were significantly more likely to fall (OR=2.44, 95% CI=1.002, 5.654, p less then 0.042), but patients with hearing loss who did have hearing aids were not significantly more likely to fall (p less then 0.889). Hearing loss together with the Morse Fall Scale better predicted falls than the Morse Fall Scale alone (p less then 0.017). Conclusions In the inpatient setting, there was a positive association between hearing loss and falls. However, among patients with hearing loss, only those without hearing aids were significantly more likely to fall, accounting for the Morse Fall Scale score and demographics characteristics. These findings support adding hearing loss as a modifiable risk factor in risk assessment tools for falls and exploring the use of amplification devices as an intervention.Introduction The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that, during 1999-2008, people born in 1945-1965 (the baby boomer generation) represented approximately 75% of people infected with hepatitis C virus and 73% of hepatitis C virus-associated deaths and are at greatest risk for hepatocellular carcinoma and liver disease. In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended one-time hepatitis C virus screening for people born during 1945-1965. In addition, New York State enacted a Hepatitis C Virus Testing Law in 2014. This analysis assesses the impacts of the 2012 recommendation and 2014 New York State Testing Law on hepatitis C virus screening rates among New York City Medicaid-enrolled recipients born during 1945-1965. Methods The eligible population was determined quarterly as the number of Medicaid recipients continuously enrolled for 12 months with neither a prior hepatitis C virus diagnosis nor antibody test since 2005. Quarterly screening rates during 2010-2017 were examined using interrupted time series analysis. Data were analyzed in 2018-2019. Results In 2010-2017, the highest screening rate occurred in the quarter immediately after the law (33.64 per 1,000 Medicaid recipients). There was no change in screening rates after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation and a significant increase after the New York State Law, which was not sustained. Conclusions Hepatitis C virus screening rates increased in the quarter after the 2014 New York State Hepatitis C Virus Testing Law became effective. Additional efforts are needed to screen baby boomers and people who were recently infected with hepatitis C virus related to opioid use.Introduction Both medication and surgical interventions can be used to treat obesity, yet their use and effectiveness in routine clinical practice are not clear. This study sought to characterize the prevalence and management of patients with obesity within a large U.S. academic medical center. Methods All patients aged ≥18 years who were seen in a primary care clinic within the Duke Health System between 2013 and 2016 were included. Patients were categorized according to baseline BMI as underweight or normal weight ( less then 25 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), Class I obesity (30-34.9 kg/m2), Class II obesity (35-39.9 kg/m2), and Class III obesity (≥40 kg/m2). Baseline characteristics and use of weight loss medication were assessed by BMI category. Predicted change in BMI was modeled over 3 years. All data were analyzed between 2017 and 2018. Results Of the 173,462 included patients, most were overweight (32%) or obese (40%). Overall, less then 1% (n=295) of obese patients were prescribed medication for weight loss or underwent bariatric surgery within the 3-year study period.