No abstract

No abstract

Purpose Drivers of excess controlled substance disposal behaviors are not well understood. A survey of patients who had received opioid-based medications was conducted to inform the design of future innovative drug take-back programs. Methods This was a cross-sectional survey study conducted in 152 participants who received treatment with an opioid within the previous 2 years and had possession of unused medication following either switching to a different opioid or discontinuation of pain. Results Approximately one-third of patients had disposed of their unused opioid medication. Education about the importance of and appropriate methods for drug disposal was associated with a significantly increased likelihood of patients disposing of unused medication, and it was observed that patients prescribed an immediate-release/short-acting opioid were twice as likely to keep their medication compared to those prescribed an extended-release/long-acting opioid. The most commonly reported methods for disposal were via drug return kiosks and flushing the medication down the toilet. Some of the most impactful drivers of unused opioid disposal were routine practice of disposing of all unused drugs and instruction from a health care provider, and the most common driver of keeping unused medication was the desire to have it on-hand should there be a need to treat pain in the future. Over 80 % of patients indicated that they would be more likely to use a drug take-back service if they were offered compensation or if the kiosk was in a location that they visited frequently, and approximately half of the patients indicated that they would be willing to request an initial partial fill of an opioid prescription to reduce the volume of unused medication. Conclusion There is a clear need to increase patient awareness about the importance and methods of proper medication disposal, and a great opportunity for health care providers to increase patient education efforts. These study findings also highlight key areas for improvement in drug take-back programs that may promote and incentivize more patients to utilize the services.

Background: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are effective at reducing the risk and duration of neutropenia. The current meta-analysis compared the neutropenia-related efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim to those of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim. Methods: Embase was searched for trials examining the efficacy/safety of lipegfilgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or filgrastim. Outcomes included febrile neutropenia, severe neutropenia, duration of severe neutropenia, time to recovery of absolute neutrophil count, and incidence of bone pain. Direct comparisons were made using random-effects models. No trials directly compared lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim. Indirect comparisons were made between lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim with pegfilgrastim as the common comparator.Results: This meta-analysis included a total of 5769 patients from 24 studies. Over all cycles, lipegfilgrastim showed a lower, nonsignificant risk of febrile neutropenia compared with pegfilgrastim. Lipegfilgrastim has a lower risk of febrile neutropenia versus filgrastim but was also not statistically significant. The risk ratio for severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 0.80, a 20% reduction in favor of lipegfilgrastim. For cycles 2-4, the risk ratio was 0.53 (0.35, 0.79) for lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim. The risk of severe neutropenia in cycles 2-4 was also significantly lower for lipegfilgrastim (risk ratio 0. 45, 0.27, 0.75, respectively). No significant differences were found for febrile neutropenia and severe neutropenia in cycle 1. However, in cycles 2-4, lipegfilgrastim was associated with significant and clinically meaningful reductions in risk of severe neutropenia versus either pegfilgrastim or filgrastim. Conclusions: Compared with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim, lipegfilgrastim has a statistically significantly lower absolute neutrophil count recovery time; however, differences in duration of severe neutropenia and bone pain were nonsignificant.

Abstract:One of the most common conditions affecting end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) is pruritus. Studies report that itchy and dry skin, symptoms of pruritus, affect 40%-90% of ESRD patients. Yet, in clinical practice the condition is often underdiagnosed resulting in inadequate management and an underappreciated impact on patient outcomes. Two retrospective analyses were conducted: a preliminary analysis of ESRD patients with pruritus symptoms (n=73,124) undergoing HD or peritoneal dialysis at a large dialysis provider and a subsequent detailed analysis of a homogenous subset of patients undergoing in-center HD (n=38,315). The goal was to better understand the clinical burden of pruritus as it relates to patient characteristics, quality of life, medication use, and HD compliance. This population is commonly burdened by multiple comorbidities and related polypharmaceutical management; identifying the relationship of pruritus to these ailments can help guide future research and resource allocation. The detailed analysis confirmed trends observed in the preliminary analysis: 30% reported being "moderately" to "extremely bothered" by itchiness. The HD patient population with the highest severity of self-reported pruritus also had a consistent trend in overall increased resource utilization -higher monthly doses of erythropoietin-stimulating agents (53,397.1 to 63,405.4 units) and intravenous (IV) iron (237.2 to 247.6 units) and higher use of IV antibiotics (14.1% to 20.7%), as well as poorer quality-of-life measures (25-point reductions in Burden of Disease Score and Effects on Daily Life subscales of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 survey). These results highlight the need to better identify and manage ESRD patients impacted by pruritus, as this symptom is associated with negative clinical outcomes and increased resource utilization. Further studies are needed to evaluate the current economic burden of pruritus in ESRD patients and create possible options for an improved pharmacoeconomic profile in this patient population.