Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
JAMA Psychiatry ; 81(4): 396-405, 2024 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38198145

ABSTRACT

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic reportedly increased behavioral health needs and impacted treatment access. Objective: To assess changes in incident prescriptions dispensed for medications commonly used to treat depression, anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and opioid use disorder (OUD), before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cross-sectional study using comprehensive, population-level, nationally projected data from IQVIA National Prescription Audit on incident prescriptions (prescriptions dispensed to patients with no prior dispensing from the same drug class in the previous 12 months) dispensed for antidepressants, benzodiazepines, Schedule II (C-II) stimulants, nonstimulant medications for ADHD, and buprenorphine-containing medication for OUD (MOUD), from US outpatient pharmacies. Data were analyzed from April 2018 to March 2022. Exposure: Incident prescriptions by drug class (by prescriber specialty, patient age, and sex) and drug. Main Outcomes and Measures: Interrupted time-series analysis to compare changes in trends in the monthly incident prescriptions dispensed by drug class and percentage changes in aggregate incident prescriptions dispensed between April 2018 and March 2022. Results: Incident prescriptions dispensed for the 5 drug classes changed from 51 500 321 before the COVID-19 pandemic to 54 000 169 during the pandemic. The largest unadjusted percentage increase in incident prescriptions by prescriber specialty was among nurse practitioners across all drug classes ranging from 7% (from 1 811 376 to 1 944 852; benzodiazepines) to 78% (from 157 578 to 280 925; buprenorphine MOUD), whereas for patient age and sex, the largest increases were within C-II stimulants and nonstimulant ADHD drugs among patients aged 20 to 39 years (30% [from 1 887 017 to 2 455 706] and 81% [from 255 053 to 461 017], respectively) and female patients (25% [from 2 352 095 to 2 942 604] and 59% [from 395 678 to 630 678], respectively). Trends for C-II stimulants and nonstimulant ADHD drugs (slope change: 4007 prescriptions per month; 95% CI, 1592-6422 and 1120 prescriptions per month; 95% CI, 706-1533, respectively) significantly changed during the pandemic, exceeding prepandemic trends after an initial drop at the onset of the pandemic (level changes: -50 044 prescriptions; 95% CI, -80 202 to -19 886 and -12 876 prescriptions; 95% CI, -17 756 to -7996, respectively). Although buprenorphine MOUD dropped significantly (level change: -2915 prescriptions; 95% CI, -5513 to -318), trends did not significantly change for buprenorphine MOUD, antidepressants, or benzodiazepines. Conclusions and Relevance: Incident use of many behavioral health medications remained relatively stable during the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, whereas ADHD medications, notably C-II stimulants, sharply increased. Additional research is needed to differentiate increases due to unmet need vs overprescribing, highlighting the need for further ADHD guideline development to define treatment appropriateness.


Subject(s)
Buprenorphine , COVID-19 , Central Nervous System Stimulants , Opioid-Related Disorders , Humans , Female , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Prescriptions , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , Central Nervous System Stimulants/therapeutic use , Benzodiazepines , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Buprenorphine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Drug Prescriptions
2.
Contraception ; 117: 67-72, 2023 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36243128

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE(S): To understand how contraception method use differed between women prescribed and not prescribed medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) among commercially-insured and Medicaid-insured women. STUDY DESIGN: IBM Watson Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database and the Multi-State Medicaid database were used to calculate the (1) crude prevalence, and (2) adjusted odds ratios (adjusted for demographic characteristics) of using long-acting reversible or short-acting hormonal contraception methods or female sterilization compared with none of these methods (no method) in 2018 by MOUD status among women with OUD, aged 20 to 49 years, with continuous health insurance coverage through commercial insurance or Medicaid for ≥6 years. Claims data was used to define contraception use. Fisher exact test or χ2 test with a P-value ≤ 0.0001, based on the Holm-Bonferroni method, and 95% confidence intervals were used to determine statistically significant differences for prevalence estimates and adjusted odds ratios, respectively. RESULTS: Only 41% of commercially-insured and Medicaid-insured women with OUD were prescribed MOUD. Medicaid-insured women with OUD prescribed MOUD had a significantly lower crude prevalence of using no method (71.1% vs 79.0%) and higher odds of using female sterilization (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI: 1.06-1.67 vs no method) than those not prescribed MOUD. Among commercially-insured women there were no differences in contraceptive use by MOUD status and 66% used no method. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with ≥ 6 years of continuous insurance coverage, contraceptive use differed by MOUD status and insurance. Prescribing MOUD for women with OUD can be improved to ensure quality care. IMPLICATIONS: Only two in five women with OUD had evidence of being prescribed MOUD, and majority did not use prescription contraception or female sterilization. Our findings support opportunities to improve prescribing for MOUD and integrate contraception and MOUD services to improve clinical care among women with OUD.


Subject(s)
Opioid-Related Disorders , United States , Female , Humans , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Medicaid , Contraception , Contraceptive Agents/therapeutic use , Prescriptions
3.
Indian J Anaesth ; 67(12): 1036-1050, 2023 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38343676

ABSTRACT

Background and Aims: Neurolytic splanchnic nerve block (NSNB) is practised in intractable abdominal pain secondary to intra-abdominal malignancies. This review evaluated the efficacy of NSNB. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published from January 2001 to October 2023. Two independent reviewers extracted the data from the included studies. The quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2), and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for cohort studies. Results: Fourteen articles (4 RCTs, 3 non-randomised prospective, and 7 retrospectives) were included. Ten articles were quantitatively assessed and demonstrated significant pain relief at 1 week (standardised mean difference (SMD): 3.46 [2.09, 4.83], P < 0.001, I2 = 95%), 2 weeks (SMD: 4.45 [2.61, 6.29], P < 0.001, I2 = 95%), 4 weeks (SMD: 3.35 [2.23, 4.47], P < 0.001, I2 = 97%), 8 weeks (SMD: 3.7 [2.71, 4.7], P < 0.001, I2 = 86%), 12 weeks (SMD: 4.01 [2.66, 5.36], P < 0.001, I2 = 95%), and 24 weeks (SMD: 2.54 [1.71,3.37], P < 0.001, I2 = 84%). Daily narcotic consumption and quality of life (QOL) significantly improved post neurolysis, but survival rates showed controversial results. Significant heterogeneity was reported, and sub-group analysis revealed a moderate level of variability [I2 = 47.3%] pertaining to study design as a source of heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Pro GDT recommendation for the primary objective was 'high' for the analysis of RCTs and 'very low' evidence quality for observational studies. Only transient minor complications were reported. Conclusion: NSNB appears to be an efficacious technique that provides substantial pain relief, reduces opioid consumption, and ameliorates QOL.

4.
Indian J Anaesth ; 66(7): 485-497, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36111102

ABSTRACT

Background and Aims: Cryoneurolysis, a neuroablative technique, is used in the event of failure of conservative treatment in chronic pain conditions. To date, no systematic review has been published to demonstrate its effectiveness in managing chronic non-cancer pain. Therefore, this review was done to ascertain the efficacy of cryoneurolysis and describe its role in chronic non-cancer pain management. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases for articles published between January 2011 and September 2021. Two independent reviewers extracted the data from the included studies. Assessment of risk of bias of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was done using RevMan 5.4.1 software and Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for non-randomised studies. Results: Ten studies enroling a total of 425 patients were included in the qualitative analysis. Eight studies were assessed quantitatively. RCTs were found only for cervicogenic headache and knee osteoarthritis management. The rest of the included studies were prospective non-controlled and retrospective studies. A significant pain reduction was seen at seven-day [Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) 1.77 (1.07, 2.46)], P < 0.00001, I2 = 79%), one-month (SMD 3.26 [2.60, 3.92], P < 0.00001, I2 = 45%), three-month (SMD 2.58 [1.46, 3.70], P < 0.00001, I2 = 93%), six-month (SMD 2.38 [0.97, 3.79], P = 0.001, I2 = 86%) follow-ups. Improved disability and no serious complications were noted. Conclusion: Cryoneurolysis appeared to be effective in pain alleviation in refractory painful conditions for up to six months. It is safe and well-tolerated with an excellent safety profile but the quality of evidence is limited by substantial heterogeneity between trials. Therefore, more comparative clinical trials on a larger sample size are needed to provide more concrete evidence.

5.
Public Health Rep ; 137(4): 672-678, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35510756

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) assessed whether increases in the SARS-CoV-2 test positivity rate among pregnant people at labor and delivery (L&D) could signal increases in SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in the general Illinois population earlier than current state metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six birthing hospitals universally testing for SARS-CoV-2 at L&D voluntarily submitted data from June 21, 2020 through January 23, 2021, to IDPH. Hospitals reported the daily number of people who delivered, SARS-CoV-2 tests, and test results as well as symptom status. We compared the test positivity rate at L&D with the test positivity rate of the general population and the number of hospital admissions for COVID-19-like illness by quantifying correlations in trends and identifying a lead time. RESULTS: Of 26 633 reported pregnant people who delivered, 96.8% (n = 25 772) were tested for SARS-CoV-2. The overall test positivity rate was 2.4% (n = 615); 77.7% (n = 478) were asymptomatic. In Chicago, the only region with a sufficient sample size for analysis, the test positivity rate at L&D (peak of 5% on December 7, 2020) was lower and more stable than the test positivity rate of the general population (peak of 14% on November 13, 2020) and lagged hospital admissions for COVID-19-like illness (peak of 118 on November 15, 2020) and the test positivity rate of the general population by about 10 days (Pearson correlation = 0.73 and 0.75, respectively). PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Trends in the test positivity rate at L&D did not provide an earlier signal of increases in Illinois's SARS-CoV-2 prevalence than current state metrics did. Nonetheless, the role of universal testing protocols in identifying asymptomatic infection is important for clinical decision making and patient education about infection prevention and control.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Pregnancy , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Korean J Anesthesiol ; 75(1): 12-24, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34592806

ABSTRACT

Cervicogenic headache (CeH) is caused by the disorder of the cervical spine and its anatomical structures. Patients who fail to respond to conservative therapies can undergo interventional treatment. The purpose of this review is to describe the various interventions and compare their relative efficacies. Although a few reviews have been published focusing on individual interventions, reviewing studies on other available treatments and establishing the most efficacious approach is still necessary. We performed a systematic review of studies available on the various interventions for CeH. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for literature published between January 2001 and March 2021. Based on the inclusion criteria, 23 articles were included. Two reviewers independently extracted the data from the studies and summarized them in a table. Eleven of twenty-three studies evaluated the effect of radiofrequency ablation (RFA), 5 evaluated occipital nerve blocks, 2 each for facet joint injections and deep cervical plexus blocks, and 1 study each evaluated atlantoaxial (AA) joint injections, cervical epidural injection, and cryoneurolysis. Most of the studies reported pain reduction except 2 studies on RFA. In conclusion, based on the available literature, occipital nerve blocks, cervical facet joint injection, AA joint injection, deep cervical plexus block, cervical epidural injection may be reasonable options in refractory cases of CeH. RFA was found to have favorable long-term outcomes, while better safety has been reported with pulsed therapy. However, our review revealed only limited evidence, and more randomized controlled trials are needed to provide more conclusive evidence.


Subject(s)
Nerve Block , Post-Traumatic Headache , Zygapophyseal Joint , Cervical Vertebrae , Humans , Injections, Intra-Articular , Post-Traumatic Headache/surgery , Zygapophyseal Joint/surgery
7.
Matern Child Health J ; 26(2): 217-223, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34761313

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The considerable volume of infections from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has made it challenging for health departments to collect complete data for national disease reporting. We sought to examine sensitivity of the COVID-19 case report form (CRF) pregnancy field by comparing CRF data to the gold standard of CRF data linked to birth and fetal death certificates. DESCRIPTION: CRFs for women aged 15-44 years with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were linked to birth and fetal death certificates for pregnancies completed during January 1-December 31, 2020 in Illinois and Tennessee. Among linked records, pregnancy was considered confirmed for women with a SARS-CoV-2 specimen collection date on or prior to the delivery date. Sensitivity of the COVID-19 CRF pregnancy field was calculated by dividing the number of confirmed pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection with pregnancy indicated on the CRF by the number of confirmed pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection. ASSESSMENT: Among 4276 (Illinois) and 2070 (Tennessee) CRFs that linked with a birth or fetal death certificate, CRF pregnancy field sensitivity was 45.3% and 42.1%, respectively. In both states, sensitivity varied significantly by maternal race/ethnicity, insurance, trimester of prenatal care entry, month of specimen collection, and trimester of specimen collection. Sensitivity also varied by maternal education in Illinois but not in Tennessee. CONCLUSION: Sensitivity of the COVID-19 CRF pregnancy field varied by state and demographic factors. To more accurately assess outcomes for pregnant women, jurisdictions might consider utilizing additional data sources and linkages to obtain pregnancy status.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Female , Fetal Death , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Tennessee/epidemiology
8.
Obstet Gynecol ; 136(6): 1195-1203, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33156198

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of pregnancies that meet the low-risk criteria for planned home births and describe geographic and maternal characteristics of home births compared with hospital births. METHODS: Data from the 2016-2018 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), a survey among women with recent live births, and linked birth certificate variables were used to calculate the prevalence of home births that were considered low-risk. We defined low-risk pregnancy as a term (between 37 and 42 weeks of gestation), singleton gestation with a birth weight within the 10th-90th percentile mean for gestational age (as a proxy for estimated fetal size appropriate for gestational age), without prepregnancy or gestational diabetes or hypertension, and no vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). We also calculated the prevalence of home and hospital births by site and maternal characteristics. Weighted prevalence estimates are presented with 95% CIs to identify differences. RESULTS: The prevalence of home births was 1.1% (unweighted n=1,034), ranging from 0.1% (Alabama) to 2.6% (Montana); 64.9% of the pregnancies were low-risk. Among the 35.1% high-risk home births, 39.5% of neonates were large for gestational age, 20.5% of neonates were small for gestational age, 17.1% of the women had diabetes, 16.9% of the women had hypertension, 10.6% of the deliveries were VBACs, and 10.1% of the deliveries were preterm. A significantly higher percentage of women with home births than hospital births were non-Hispanic White (83.9% vs 56.5%), aged 35 years or older (24.0% vs 18.1%), with less than a high school-level of education (24.6% vs 12.2%), and reported no health insurance (27.0% vs 1.9%). A significantly lower percentage of women with home births than hospital births initiated prenatal visits in the first trimester (66.9% vs 87.1%), attended a postpartum visit (80.1% vs 90.0%), and most often laid their infants on their backs for sleep (59.3% vs 79.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the risk profile, geographic distribution, and characteristics of women with home births can guide efforts around safe birthing practices.


Subject(s)
Home Childbirth/trends , Prenatal Care/statistics & numerical data , Vaginal Birth after Cesarean/trends , Adolescent , Adult , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Educational Status , Female , Gestational Age , Home Childbirth/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced/epidemiology , Infant, Newborn , Insurance, Health/statistics & numerical data , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications/epidemiology , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Prevalence , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , United States/epidemiology , Vaginal Birth after Cesarean/statistics & numerical data , White People/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
9.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(29): 951-955, 2020 Jul 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32701936

ABSTRACT

Opioid use disorder and neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) increased in Massachusetts from 1999 to 2013 (1,2). In response, in 2016, the state passed a law requiring birth hospitals to report the number of newborns who were exposed to controlled substances to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH)* by mandating monthly reporting of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnostic codes related to maternal dependence on opioids (F11.20) or benzodiazepines (F13.20) and to newborns affected by maternal use of drugs of addiction (P04.49) or experiencing withdrawal symptoms from maternal drugs of addiction (P96.1) separately.† MDPH uses these same codes for monthly, real-time crude estimates of NAS and uses P96.1 alone for official NAS state reporting.§ MDPH requested CDC's assistance in evaluating the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of either maternal or newborn codes to identify substance-exposed newborns, and of newborn exposure codes (both exposure [P04.49] or withdrawal [P96.1]) and the newborn code for withdrawal alone (P96.1) to identify infants with NAS cases related to three exposure scenarios: 1) opioids, 2) opioids or benzodiazepines, and 3) any controlled substance. Confirmed diagnoses of substance exposure and NAS abstracted from linked clinical records for 1,123 infants born in 2017 and their birth mothers were considered the diagnostic standard and were compared against hospital-reported ICD-10-CM codes. For identifying substance-exposed newborns across the three exposure scenarios, the newborn exposure codes had higher sensitivity (range = 31%-61%) than did maternal drug dependence codes (range = 16%-41%), but both sets of codes had high PPV (≥74%). For identifying NAS, for all exposure scenarios, the sensitivity for either newborn code (P04.49 or P96.1) was ≥92% and the PPV was ≥64%; for P96.1 alone the sensitivity was ≥79% and the PPV was ≥92% for all scenarios. Whereas ICD-10-CM codes are effective for NAS surveillance in Massachusetts, they should be applied cautiously for substance-exposed newborn surveillance. Surveillance for substance-exposed newborns using ICD-10-CM codes might be improved by increasing the use of validated substance-use screening tools and standardized facility protocols and improving communication between patients and maternal health and infant health care providers.


Subject(s)
International Classification of Diseases , Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome/diagnosis , Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects/diagnosis , Substance-Related Disorders/diagnosis , Adult , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Male , Massachusetts/epidemiology , Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome/epidemiology , Pregnancy , Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects/epidemiology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Substance-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Young Adult
10.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 11(5): 412-417, 2017 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28741903

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Self-collection of nasal swabs could improve the timeliness of influenza virus detection in older adults. OBJECTIVES: Measure the acceptability, adequacy, timeliness, and validity of self-collected nasal swabs among adults >65 years in Thailand. METHODS: Our evaluation consisted of two parts: a one-month study among randomly selected, community-dwelling older adults to simulate community-based surveillance for acute respiratory infections (ARI); and a clinic study of older adults with ARI to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of self-collected nasal swabs for influenza virus infection compared with healthcare worker (HCW)-collected nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs. RESULTS: In the community study, 24% of participants experienced an ARI during the observation period. All (100%) participants with an ARI self-collected nasal swabs within 72 hours of symptom onset of which 92% were considered adequate samples. In the clinic study, 45% of patients with ARI presented within 72 hours of symptom onset. The sensitivity of self-collected nasal swabs for detection of influenza virus infection was 78% (95% CI 40-97) compared to nasopharyngeal and 88% (95% CI 47-100) compared to nasal swabs collected by HCWs. Specificity was 100% (95% CI 97-100) compared to both methods. Self-collection of nasal swabs was found acceptable by 99% of participants in both studies. CONCLUSIONS: Self-collection of nasal swabs was acceptable to older adults in Thailand who were able to take adequate samples. Self-collection of nasal swabs may improve the timeliness of sample collection but lower sensitivity will need to be considered.


Subject(s)
Influenza A virus/isolation & purification , Influenza, Human/virology , Nasopharynx/virology , Specimen Handling/methods , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Male , Nose/virology , Respiratory Tract Infections/diagnosis , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Thailand/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...