Pain symptomology, functional impact, and treatment of people with Neurofibromatosis type 1

Introduction: Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a neurogenetic disorder affecting 1 in 3000 people worldwide, where individuals are prone to develop benign and malignant tumors. In addition, many people with NF1 complain of pain that limits their daily functioning. Due to the complexity of the disorder, there are few options for treating pain symptoms besides surgery and medications. Moreover, the spectrum of pain symptomatology and treatment, as well as the mechanisms underlying NF1-associated pain, has been understudied. Methodology: To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a survey of 255 adults with NF1, leveraging the Washington University NF1 Patient Registry Initiative (NPRI) database. Demographic and pain data were collected using a Qualtrics survey. Results: All participants had at least one surgical procedure, with 55% reporting having at least one surgery within the last year and 17% being currently prescribed opioid medication. A positive relationship was shown ( Conclusion: The current study demonstrates that individuals with NF1 report a higher incidence of pain severity and interference than observed in NF1 previous studies, with pain symptoms not localized to any specific region of the body. The consideration for alternative treatments and careful monitoring of current treatments that are more conservative or have less potential adverse side effects may improve pain management and reduce the risk of developing medication dependence

Safety of Gabapentin Prescribed for Any Indication in a Large Clinical Cohort of 571,718 US Veterans with and without Alcohol Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Gabapentin is prescribed for seizures and pain and has efficacy for treating alcohol use disorder (AUD) starting at doses of 900 milligrams per day (mg/d). Recent evidence suggests safety concerns associated with gabapentin including adverse neurologic effects. Individuals with hepatitis C (HCV), HIV, or AUD may be at increased risk due to comorbidities and potential medication interactions. METHODS: We identified patients prescribed gabapentin for ? 60 days for any indication between 2002 and 2015. We propensity-score matched each gabapentin-exposed patient with up to 5 gabapentin-unexposed patients. We followed patients for 2 years or until diagnosed with (i) falls or fractures, or (ii) altered mental status using validated ICD-9 diagnostic codes. We used Poisson regression to estimate incidence rates and relative risk (RR) of these adverse events in association with gabapentin exposure overall and stratified by age, race/ethnicity, sex, HCV, HIV, AUD, and dose. RESULTS: Incidence of falls or fractures was 1.81 per 100 person-years (PY) among 140,310 gabapentin-exposed and 1.34/100 PY among 431,408 gabapentin-unexposed patients (RR 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28 to 1.44). Incidence of altered mental status was 1.08/100 PY among exposed and 0.97/100 PY among unexposed patients, RR of 1.12 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.20). Excess risk of falls or fractures associated with gabapentin exposure was observed in all subgroups except patients with HCV, HIV, or AUD; however, these groups had elevated incidence regardless of exposure. There was a clear dose-response relationship for falls or fractures with highest risk observed among those prescribed ? 2,400 mg/d (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.40). Patients were at increased risk for altered mental status at doses 600 to 2,399 mg/d; however, low number of events in the highest dose category limited power to detect a statistically significant association ? 2,400 mg/d. CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin is associated with falls or fractures and altered mental status. Clinicians should be monitoring gabapentin safety, especially at doses ? 600 mg/d, in patients with and without AUD

Law enforcement assisted diversion : qualitative evaluation of barriers and facilitators of program implementation

BACKGROUND : Despite widespread interest in adoption, there has been limited systematic examination of Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) implementation, a model for police-led arrest diversion for those with substance use disorders (SUD). In the fall of 2017, the City of New Haven started a LEAD program. During the first 9 months of the pilot, only 2 clients were successfully diverted from arrest. Therefore, we examined the and barriers and facilitators of LEAD implementation. METHODS : We conducted semi-structured interviews and field observations of LEAD police officers and health care providers between August 2018 and June 2019. Interviews and field observations were analyzed using directed content analysis and guided by the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. RESULTS : Lead professionals participated in 19 semi-structured interviews and three field observations. Barriers to arrest diversion implementation included procedural complexity of arrest diversion, concerns about reduced penalties for substance use among officers, stigma of SUDs, and a belief in a punitive role for policing. Facilitators included a positive longitudinal relationship with potential clients and an understanding of SUD as a chronic disease. CONCLUSION : We identified several barriers to LEAD implementation. Our results suggest promotion of SUD as a chronic disease, ongoing training of officers, and positive incentives for entering substance use treatment should be utilized to facilitate implementation.SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL : Appendix A: Interview guideThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Veterans Affairs.https://www.elsevier.com/locate/jsat2022-05-14hj2022Psycholog

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used