ABSTRACT
This study aimed to describe patterns of use and attitudes towards a broad variety of substances for improving academic performance at a New Zealand university. 685 students (from 1800 invited) completed an online questionnaire (38% response rate). They were asked about their lifetime and current substance use for improving academic performance, as well as their reasons for use, attitudes and perceptions of: caffeine, alcohol, dietary supplements, prescription stimulants, other prescription substances, and illicit substances. 80% (95% CI: 76.3, 82.5) reported ever using any substance to help improve academic performance, mainly to stay awake and improve concentration. Caffeine (70%, 95% CI: 66.3, 73.3) and dietary supplements (32%, 95% CI: 28.3, 35.5) were most commonly used. 4% (95% CI: 2.7, 5.9) reported use of prescription stimulants, mostly methylphenidate, and another 4% (95% CI: 2.7, 5.9) reported using illicit substances for improving academic performance. Users of prescription stimulants were more likely than non-users to believe that they were safe, morally acceptable, and that they should be available legally for enhancing academic performance. We close with discussions on broadening the focus of substances for improving academic performance in public health debates. Further qualitative research from small countries is also needed to move towards a place-based approach for clarifying ethical implications, inform policy in universities, and understand how injustices are created through the use of and ability to purchase different substances.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In ischemic stroke, intravenous tenecteplase is noninferior to alteplase in selected patients and has some practical advantages. Several stroke centers in New Zealand changed to routine off-label intravenous tenecteplase due to improved early recanalization in large vessel occlusion, inconsistent access to thrombectomy within stroke networks, and for consistency in treatment protocols between patients with and without large vessel occlusion. We report the feasibility and safety outcomes in tenecteplase-treated patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients thrombolyzed with intravenous tenecteplase at 1 comprehensive and 2 regional stroke centers from July 14, 2018, to February 29, 2020. We report the baseline clinical characteristics, rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and angioedema. These were then compared with patient outcomes with those treated with intravenous alteplase at 2 other comprehensive stroke centers. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression models were performed assessing the association of tenecteplase with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and independent outcome (modified Rankin Scale score, 0-2) at day 90. RESULTS: There were 165 patients treated with tenecteplase and 254 with alteplase. Age (75 versus 74 years), sex (56% versus 60% male), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (8 versus 10), median door-to-needle times (47 versus 48 minutes), or onset-to-needle time (129 versus 130 minutes) were similar between the groups. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 3 (1.8% [95% CI, 0.4-5.3]) tenecteplase patients compared with 7 (2.7% [95% CI, 1.1-5.7]) alteplase patients (P=0.75). There were no differences between tenecteplase and alteplase in the rates of angioedema (4 [2.4%; 95% CI, 0.7-6.2] versus 1 [0.4%; 95% CI, 0.01-2.2], P=0.08) or 90-day functional independence (100 [61%] versus 140 [57%], P=0.47), respectively. In mixed-effects logistic regression models, there was no significant association between thrombolytic choice and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (odds ratio tenecteplase, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.14-2.80], P=0.53) or functional independence (odds ratio tenecteplase, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.74-1.95], P=0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of tenecteplase for stroke thrombolysis was feasible and had comparable safety profile and outcome to alteplase.