Overdose Prevention and Naloxone Prescription for Opioid Users in San Francisco

Opiate overdose is a significant cause of mortality among injection drug users (IDUs) in the United States (US). Opiate overdose can be reversed by administering naloxone, an opiate antagonist. Among IDUs, prevalence of witnessing overdose events is high, and the provision of take-home naloxone to IDUs can be an important intervention to reduce the number of overdose fatalities. The Drug Overdose Prevention and Education (DOPE) Project was the first naloxone prescription program (NPP) established in partnership with a county health department (San Francisco Department of Public Health), and is one of the longest running NPPs in the USA. From September 2003 to December 2009, 1,942 individuals were trained and prescribed naloxone through the DOPE Project, of whom 24% returned to receive a naloxone refill, and 11% reported using naloxone during an overdose event. Of 399 overdose events where naloxone was used, participants reported that 89% were reversed. In addition, 83% of participants who reported overdose reversal attributed the reversal to their administration of naloxone, and fewer than 1% reported serious adverse effects. Findings from the DOPE Project add to a growing body of research that suggests that IDUs at high risk of witnessing overdose events are willing to be trained on overdose response strategies and use take-home naloxone during overdose events to prevent deaths

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Conformity to masculine norms and symptom severity among men diagnosed with muscle dysmorphia vs. body dysmorphic disorder.

Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) is associated with severe comorbidity and impairment. Muscle dysmorphia (MD) is a subtype of BDD which has rarely been assessed outside of undergraduate student samples. Further, there are limited data comparing MD to other psychiatric disorders, including BDD. Thus, the aim of the current study is to explore differences in symptom severity and conformity to masculine norms in men diagnosed with BDD or MD. Men from the greater Boston, Massachusetts area completed a one-time assessment, which included clinician-based structured interviews and self-report questionnaires assessing MD symptom severity, BDD symptom severity, and conformity to traditional masculine norms. The sample was N = 30 men (MD: n = 15; BDD: n = 15). Statistically significant medium to large effects emerged with the MD group experiencing greater MD and BDD symptom severity, and positive attitudes towards the use of violence to solve problems. Although not reaching statistical significance, additional medium-to-large effects also emerged with the MD group reporting greater emotional restriction/suppression, heterosexual self-presentation, and desired sexual promiscuity compared to the BDD group. Findings suggest that men diagnosed with MD may experience greater MD/BDD symptom severity and endorsement of some components of 'traditional' masculine norms, compared to men diagnosed with BDD. Results may suggest that addressing some forms of rigid masculine norms (e.g., use of violence) in therapy could be useful in treating MD; however, additional research comparing clinical samples of men with MD and BDD are needed to guide the nosology, assessment, and treatment of MD

Letters from John Pintard to his daughter, Eliza Noel Pintard Davidson, 1816-1833 ...

"Edited by Miss Dorothy C. Barck."--Pref.v. 1. 1816-1820.--v. 2. 1821-1827.--v. 3. 1828-1831.--v. 4. 1832-1833. Index to volumes I-IV.Mode of access: Internet

Recent Advances in Research on Hoarding

Purpose of reviewThe purpose of the following paper is to review recent literature trends and findings in hoarding disorder (HD). Our goal is to highlight recent research on etiology, associated features, and empirically based treatments.Recent findingsRecent literature has added support for cognitive differences as a risk factor for HD; however, there is evidence that individuals with HD may overestimate their level of cognitive impairment. Several associated features have been highlighted in recent studies, including emotion regulation, intolerance of uncertainty and distress intolerance, and attachment. Finally, several psychotherapeutic treatments for hoarding have been recently validated, including group-based therapy and treatments using the cognitive-behavioral model. Although recent research demonstrates that hoarding can be effectively treated with available psychotherapeutic modalities, the effectiveness of current treatments is not as robust as that for other psychiatric disorders and more work is needed in treatment precision

Haemoglobin thresholds to define anaemia from age 6 months to 65 years:estimates from international data sources

Background: Detection of anaemia is crucial for clinical medicine and public health. Current WHO anaemia definitions are based on statistical thresholds (fifth centiles) set more than 50 years ago. We sought to establish evidence for the statistical haemoglobin thresholds for anaemia that can be applied globally and inform WHO and clinical guidelines. Methods: In this analysis we identified international data sources from populations in the USA, England, Australia, China, the Netherlands, Canada, Ecuador, and Bangladesh with sufficient clinical and laboratory information collected between 1998 and 2020 to obtain a healthy reference sample. Individuals with clinical or biochemical evidence of a condition that could reduce haemoglobin concentrations were excluded. We estimated haemoglobin thresholds (ie, 5th centiles) for children aged 6–23 months, 24–59 months, 5–11 years, and 12–17 years, and adults aged 18–65 years (including during pregnancy) for individual datasets and pooled across data sources. We also collated findings from three large-scale genetic studies to summarise genetic variants affecting haemoglobin concentrations in different ancestral populations. Findings: We identified eight data sources comprising 18 individual datasets that were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. In pooled analyses, the haemoglobin fifth centile was 104·4 g/L (90% CI 103·5–105·3) in 924 children aged 6–23 months, 110·2 g/L (109·5–110·9) in 1874 children aged 24–59 months, and 114·4 g/L (113·6–115·2) in 1839 children aged 5–11 years. Values diverged by sex in adolescents and adults. In pooled analyses, the fifth centile was 122·2 g/L (90% CI 121·3–123·1) in 1741 female adolescents aged 12–17 years and 128·2 g/L (126·4–130·0) in 1103 male adolescents aged 12–17 years. In pooled analyses of adults aged 18–65 years, the fifth centile was 119·7 g/L (90% CI 119·1–120·3) in 3640 non-pregnant females and 134·9 g/L (134·2–135·6) in 2377 males. Fifth centiles in pregnancy were 110·3 g/L (90% CI 109·5–111·0) in the first trimester (n=772) and 105·9 g/L (104·0–107·7) in the second trimester (n=111), with insufficient data for analysis in the third trimester. There were insufficient data for adults older than 65 years. We did not identify ancestry-specific high prevalence of non-clinically relevant genetic variants that influence haemoglobin concentrations. Interpretation: Our results enable global harmonisation of clinical and public health haemoglobin thresholds for diagnosis of anaemia. Haemoglobin thresholds are similar between sexes until adolescence, after which males have higher thresholds than females. We did not find any evidence that thresholds should differ between people of differering ancestries. Funding: World Health Organization and the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation.</p