Validating the danger of vehicular protective devices and bowel injury

IntroductionProtective devices such as seat belts and airbags have improved the safety of motor vehicle occupants, but limited data suggest they may be associated with increased blunt bowel (small bowel or colon) injuries (BI). Unfortunately, this risk is unquantified.MethodsWe analyzed the National Trauma Data Bank (2017-2019) using ICD-10 codes to identify adult motor vehicle occupants with BI who underwent surgical repair. We used logistic regression modeling to compare the risk of undergoing surgical repair for BI after using a protective device.ResultsOf 2,848,592 injured patients, 475,546 (16.7%) were motor vehicle occupants. Only 1.2% (n = 5627/475,546) of patients underwent a bowel repair or resection. Using a seat belt only was associated with an adjusted OR of 2.09 (95% CI 1.91, 2.28) for undergoing a bowel repair/resection when adjusting for Injury Severity Score (ISS) and age. Airbag deployment without a seat belt had an adjusted OR of 1.46 (95% CI 1.31, 1.62), while both devices combined conferred an OR of 3.27 (95% CI 3.02, 3.54). However, using a seat belt was protective against death with an OR of 0.50 (95% CI 0.48, 0.53), adjusted for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Score, and ISS.ConclusionSeat belts and airbags are essential public health safety interventions and protect against death in motor vehicle-associated injuries. However, patients involved in MVCs with airbag deployment or while wearing a seat belt are at an increased risk of bowel injury requiring surgery compared to unrestrained patients, despite these events being relatively uncommon.     

Peer outreach point-of-care testing as a bridge to hepatitis C care for people who inject drugs in Toronto,Canada

BackgroundPeople who inject drugs have high rates of hepatitis C (HCV) and yet many remain undiagnosed and untreated. HCV treatment guidelines and elimination strategies recommend task-shifting to expand where, and by whom, HCV testing and care is delivered.MethodsA randomized controlled trial design was used to evaluate if point-of-care (POC) HCV antibody testing by peer outreach workers outside of health and social service spaces would improve engagement in HCV care. People with a lifetime history of injection drug use without prior knowledge of HCV antibody status were randomized to receive HCV outreach plus either POC or referral to community-based HCV program for testing as usual. The study was co-designed by people with lived experience of HCV.Results920 people were approached to participate over 14 weeks. After refusals, withdrawals and removal of duplicates, there were 380 study participants. Outreach took place primarily in public spaces (66%) such as parks, coffee shops and apartment lobbies. Participants reported very high rates of poverty, housing instability and recent injection drug use. Despite being at high risk for HCV, 61% had no history or knowledge of past HCV testing (n = 230). Of those who received a POC test 77/195 (39%) were positive for HCV antibodies. There was no change in rates of engagement in HCV care among those who received the POC (n = 6; 3%) compared to those who did not (n = 5; 3%).ConclusionPeer outreach workers were able to efficiently reach a marginalized group of individuals who had a high HCV antibody prevalence and low rates of prior HCV testing. This improved participants’ knowledge of their HCV antibody status, but that knowledge in itself did not lead to any change in participant's subsequent engagement in HCV care. Future work is required to evaluate strategies such as incentives or peer navigators to improve linkage to HCV care after diagnosis.