Background: Syphilis transmission can be prevented by prompt diagnosis and treatment of primary and secondary infection. We evaluated the performance of a point-of-care rapid syphilis treponemal (RST) test in an emergency department (ED) setting. Methods: Between June 2015 and April 2016, men aged 18 to 34 years seeking services in a Detroit ED, and with no history of syphilis, were screened for syphilis with the RST test, rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test, and Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay (TP-PA). A positive reference standard was both a reactive RPR and a reactive TP-PA. We compared test results in self-reported men who have sex with men (MSM) to non-MSM. Results: Among 965 participants, 10.9% of RST tests were reactive in MSM and only 1.5% in non-MSM (P < 0.001). Sensitivity of the RST test was 76.9% and specificity was 99.0% (positive predictive value, 50.0%) compared with the positive reference standard. Three discordant specimens found negative with the RST test but positive with the reference standard had an RPR titer of 1:1, compared with 10 specimens with concordant positive results that had a median RPR titer of 1:16. The RST sensitivity was 50.0% (positive predictive value, 68.4%) compared to the TP-PA test alone. Among men seeking care in an ED, the RST detected 76.9% of participants with a reactive RPR and TP-PA. Conclusions: The RST test detected all of the participants with an RPR titer ≥1:2 but less than 20% of participants with a positive TP-PA and negative RPR. The RST test was useful to detect a high proportion of participants with an active syphilis in an urban ED.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) youth are disproportionately affected by HIV, and young transgender women (YTW) are especially impacted. The purpose of this small demonstration project was to measure pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adherence in a community-based clinic for LGBTQ youth in which PrEP services are integrated with gender-affirming care. Of the 50 enrolled participants, 38 had a serum drug assay performed after three or more months and 26% of those had laboratory evidence of highly protective levels of medication. Low adherence highlights the need for culturally tailored follow-up efforts and assistance with the structural barriers to health experienced by LGBTQ youth, especially YTW.

Background: Vaccine hesitancy is the next great barrier for public health. Arab Americans are a rapidly growing demographic in the United States with limited information on the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy. We therefore sought to study the attitudes towards the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine amongst Arab American health professionals living in the United States. Methods: This was a cross sectional study utilizing an anonymous online survey. The survey was distributed via e-mail to National Arab American Medical Association members and Arab-American Center for Economic and Social Services healthcare employees. Respondents were considered vaccine hesitant if they selected responses other than a willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Results: A total of 4000 surveys were sent via e-mail from 28 December 2020 to 31 January 2021, and 513 responses were received. The highest group of respondents were between the ages of 18–29 years and physicians constituted 48% of the respondents. On multivariable analysis, we found that respondents who had declined an influenza vaccine in the preceding 5 years (p < 0.001) and allied health professionals (medical assistants, hospital administrators, case managers, researchers, scribes, pharmacists, dieticians and social workers) were more likely to be vaccine hesitant (p = 0.025). In addition, respondents earning over $150,000 US dollars annually were less likely to be vaccine hesitant and this finding was significant on multivariable analysis (p = 0.011). Conclusions: Vaccine hesitancy among health care providers could have substantial impact on vaccine attitudes of the general population, and such data may help inform vaccine advocacy efforts.

e18527 Background: The underrepresentation of minority populations in research violates principles of distributive justice, slows scientific progress, and exacerbates health disparities. Henry Ford Cancer Institute (HFCI) is one of 20 sites offering clinical trials in Michigan and currently participates in 1300 trials. The rate of cancer cases at HFCI is 78% in whites and 21.9% in Blacks/African Americans (B/AA). However, analysis of cancer clinical trials conducted at HFCI showed participation rates to be 2.66% in B/AA and 90.28% in whites. Diverse attempts by HFCI to improve participation of B/AA in clinical trials have yielded limited success. The Participatory Action for Access to Clinical Trials (PAACT) project is using a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to design/adapt, pilot, and evaluate interventions which address cancer clinical trial participation barriers among B/AA. Methods: PAACT uses a 5-step approach: 1. Establish a steering committee (SC) in partnership with the Detroit Urban Research Center, which has a strong history of implementing CBPR programs in Detroit. 2. Conduct a scoping review to evaluate evidence-based strategies and interventions used to engage B/AA communities in clinical trials. 3. Conduct qualitative and quantitative research with members of B/AA community, cancer survivors/patients, and HFCI providers. 4. Engage stakeholders in the interpretation and translation of data to inform intervention strategies. 5. Pilot the intervention(s) to assess B/AA individuals’ behavioral intentions to enroll and participate in cancer clinical trials, and health care providers’ intentions to engage in change processes. Results: We have conducted 13 SC meetings, co-facilitated by a community, academic and health system partner. The SC has been actively engaged in all aspects of the project. Through the scoping review, we identified five categories of recruitment and retention strategies. We have conducted 13 focus groups with 100 participants, 7 provider interviews, and administered 1 survey to HFCI staff. Data from the focus groups has provided information on respondents’ clinical trial knowledge and systemic, socio-cultural, and economic barriers to trial participation. Data from the provider interviews has provided information on experience with clinical trial recruitment and recommendations for improving participation among B/AA community members. Conclusions: Through CBPR, PAACT actively engages B/AA community members, survivors/patients, healthcare providers, and researchers in the process to develop/adapt, implement, and evaluate strategies to better inform communities and patients about cancer clinical trials. The long-term goal of this project is to implement changes in both the community and the health care system thereby increase levels of participation in clinical trials among B/AA.

No abstract