Objective To understand primary care providers’ experiences, beliefs and attitudes about using opioid treatment agreements (OTAs) for patients with chronic pain. Design Qualitative research study Participants 28 internists and family medicine physicians Approach Semi-structured telephone interviews, informed by the Integrative Model of Behavioral Prediction. Themes were analyzed using a Grounded Theory approach, and similarities and differences in themes were examined among OTA adopters, non-adopters, and selective adopters. Results Participants were 64% female and 68% white, and practiced for a mean of 9.5 years. Adoption of OTAs varied: 7 were adopters, 5 were non-adopters, and 16 were selective adopters. OTA adoption reflected PCPs’ beliefs and attitudes in three thematic categories: (1) perceived effect of OTA use on the therapeutic alliance, (2) beliefs about the utility of OTAs for patients or providers, and (3) perception of patients’ risk for opioid misuse. PCPs commonly believed that OTAs were useful for physician self-protection, but few believed that they prevent opioid misuse. Selective adopters expressed ambivalent beliefs and made decisions about OTA use for individual patients based on both observed data and a subjective sense of each patient’s risk for misuse. Conclusions Substantial variability in PCP use of OTAs reflects differences in PCP beliefs and attitudes. Research to understand the impact of OTA use on providers, patients, and the therapeutic alliance is urgently needed to guide best practices.
Background Most drug treatment patients smoke cigarettes, yet few data exist on the prevalence and outcomes of varenicline treatment among smokers with comorbid substance use and psychiatric disorders. Methods We reviewed all patient charts of opioid-dependent smokers prescribed varenicline between May 2006 and December 2009 in two urban methadone clinics that also provide on-site medical and psychiatric care. We assessed prevalence, adverse events, and effectiveness of varenicline treatment in this cohort. Results We identified 575 smokers among 690 patients (83.3%), and assessed 82 courses of varenicline treatment prescribed to 70 smokers. Both cardiovascular risk factors and psychiatric illness were highly prevalent among those prescribed varenicline: hypertension, 51%; hyperlipidemia, 23%; diabetes, 20%; depression, 53%; anxiety, 30%; psychotic disorders, 10%; bipolar disorder, 8.6%. Of 82 varenicline courses, nine (11%) were discontinued due to adverse events and two due to depressive symptoms. One patient initiated new psychiatric medications within six months of initiating varenicline, but did not discontinue varenicline. There were no reports of suicidal ideation, agitation prompting clinical intervention, or psychiatric hospitalization. There were no incident cardiac or vascular events within six months of varenicline prescription. Some (8.6%) varenicline-treated smokers quit smoking, and cessation was significantly associated with varenicline treatment duration. Conclusions Despite substantial comorbidity, opioid-dependent smokers receiving integrated substance abuse, medical and psychiatric care had few documented adverse events with varenicline treatment. Methadone patients will likely experience little harm and a great deal of benefit from treatment with varenicline for smoking cessation.
Background-There is increasing recognition that decreased reserve in multiple organ systems, known as accumulated deficits (AD), may better stratify perioperative risk than traditional risk indices. We hypothesized that an AD model would predict both perioperative adverse events and long-term survival after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), particularly important in asymptomatic patients.
Objectives: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies comparing bipolar and unipolar depression characterize pathophysiological differences between these conditions. However, it is difficult to interpret the current literature due to differences in MRI modalities, analysis methods, and study designs. Methods:We conducted a systematic review of publications using MRI to compare individuals with bipolar and unipolar depression. We grouped studies according to MRI modality and task design. Within the discussion, we critically evaluated and summarized the functional MRI research and then further complemented these findings by reviewing the structural MRI literature. Results:We identified 88 MRI publications comparing participants with bipolar depression and unipolar depressive disorder. Compared to individuals with unipolar depression, participants with bipolar disorder exhibited heightened function, increased within network connectivity, and reduced grey matter volume in salience and central executive network brain regions. Group differences in default mode network function were less consistent but more closely associated with depressive symptoms in participants with unipolar depression but distractibility in bipolar depression. Conclusions:When comparing mood disorder groups, the neuroimaging evidence suggests that individuals with bipolar disorder are more influenced by emotional and sensory processing when responding to their environment. In contrast, depressive symptoms and neurofunctional response to emotional stimuli were more closely associated with reduced central executive function and less adaptive cognitive control of emotionally oriented brain regions in unipolar depression. Researchers now need to replicate and refine network-level trends in these heterogeneous mood disorders and further characterize MRI markers associated with early disease onset, progression, and recovery.
Background There is increasing recognition that decreased reserve in multiple organ systems, known as accumulated deficits (AD), may better stratify perioperative risk than traditional risk indices. We hypothesized that an AD model would predict both perioperative adverse events and long-term survival after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), particularly important in asymptomatic patients. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing CEA between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2010 were retrospectively identified. Seven of the deficit items from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging–frailty index (coronary disease, renal insufficiency, pulmonary disease, peripheral vascular disease, heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes) were tabulated for each patient. Predictors of perioperative and long-term outcomes were evaluated using regression analysis. Results About 1,782 CEAs in 1,496 patients (mean age: 71.3 ± 9.3 years, 56.3% male, 35.4% symptomatic) were included. The risk of major adverse events (stroke, death, or myocardial infarction) at 30 days for patients with ≤3 deficits was 2.53% vs. 8.81% for patients with ≥4 deficits (P < 0.001). For patients with ≥5 deficits, the risk was 15.18%. Each additional deficit increased the odds of a 30-day major adverse event and hospital stay >2 days by 1.64 (P < 0.001) and 1.15 (P < 0.001), respectively. In multivariate analysis, the presence of ≥4 deficits was more predictive of perioperative major adverse events (odds ratio [OR] = 3.62, P < 0.001) than symptomatology within 6 months (OR = 1.57, P = 0.08) or octogenarian status (OR = 2.00, P = 0.02). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly decreased survival over time with accumulating deficits (P < 0.001). Patients with ≥4 deficits have a hazards ratio for death of 2.6 compared to patients with ≤3 deficits (P < 0.001). Overall survival is estimated at 79.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77–0.82) at 5 years in patients with ≤3 deficits versus 52.4% (95% CI: 0.46–0.58) in patients with ≥4 deficits, respectively. In subgroup analysis of asymptomatic patients, 5-year survival for octogenarian male patients with ≥4 deficits was only 26.8%. For asymptomatic males aged 70–79 years with ≥4 deficits, 5-year survival was 59.9%. Conclusions An AD model is more predictive of perioperative adverse events after CEA than age or symptomatic status. This model remains predictive of long-term survival. In asymptomatic male octogenarians with 4 or more AD, 5-year survival is severely limited.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.