Search Results for: "chronic back pain management"

Background: Immediate initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) regardless of CD4 cell count reduces risk for AIDS and non–AIDS-related events in asymptomatic, HIV-positive persons and is the standard of care. However, most HIV-positive persons initiate ART when their CD4 count decreases below 500 × 109 cells/L. Consequences of delayed ART on risk for non–AIDS-defining and AIDS-defining cancer, one of the most common reasons for death in HIV, are unclear. Objective: To estimate the long-term risk difference for cancer with the immediate ART strategy. Design: Multinational prospective cohort study. Setting: The D:A:D (Data collection on Adverse events of anti-HIV Drugs) study, which included HIV-positive persons from Europe, Australia, and the United States. Participants: 8318 HIV-positive persons with at least 1 measurement each of CD4 cell count and viral load while ART-naive (study period, 2006 to 2016). Measurements: The parametric g-formula was used, with adjustment for baseline and time-dependent confounders (CD4 cell count and viral load), to assess the 10-year risk for non–AIDS-defining and AIDS-defining cancer of immediate versus deferred (at CD4 counts <350 and <500 × 109 cells/L) ART initiation strategies. Results: During 64 021 person-years of follow-up, 231 cases of non–AIDS-defining cancer and 272 of AIDS-defining cancer occurred among HIV-positive persons with a median age of 36 years (interquartile range, 29 to 43 years). With immediate ART, the 10-year risk for non–AIDS-defining cancer was 2.97% (95% CI, 2.37% to 3.50%) and that for AIDS-defining cancer was 2.50% (CI, 2.37% to 3.38%). Compared with immediate ART initiation, the 10-year absolute risk differences when deferring ART to CD4 counts less than 500 × 109 cells/L and less than 350 × 109 cells/L were 0.12 percentage point (CI, −0.01 to 0.26 percentage point) and 0.29 percentage point (CI, −0.03 to 0.73 percentage point), respectively, for non–AIDS-defining cancer and 0.32 percentage point (CI, 0.21 to 0.44 percentage point) and 1.00 percentage point (CI, 0.67 to 1.44 percentage points), respectively, for AIDS-defining cancer. Limitation: Potential residual confounding due to observational study design. Conclusion: In this young cohort, effects of immediate ART on 10-year risk for cancer were small, and further supportive data are needed for non–AIDS-defining cancer. Primary Funding Source: Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Oversight Committee.

The Management of Stroke Rehabilitation: A Synopsis of the 2019 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline

Description: In June 2019, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved an update of the joint clinical practice guideline for rehabilitation after stroke. This synopsis summarizes the key recommendations from this guideline. Methods: In February 2018, the VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a joint VA/DoD guideline development effort that included clinical stakeholders and stroke survivors and conformed to the National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline panel identified key questions, systematically searched and evaluated the literature, and developed 2 algorithms and 42 key recommendations using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Stroke survivors and their family members were invited to share their perspectives to further inform guideline development. Recommendations: The guideline recommendations provide evidence-based guidance for the rehabilitation care of patients after stroke. The recommendations are applicable to health care providers in both primary care and rehabilitation. Key features of the guideline are recommendations in 6 areas: timing and approach; motor therapy; dysphagia; cognitive, speech, and sensory therapy; mental health therapy; and other functions, such as returning to work and driving.

Access to Office-Based Buprenorphine Treatment in Areas With High Rates of Opioid-Related Mortality: An Audit Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 171, No 1

Background: Improving access to treatment for opioid use disorder is a national priority, but little is known about the barriers encountered by patients seeking buprenorphine–naloxone (“buprenorphine”) treatment. Objective: To assess real-world access to buprenorphine treatment for uninsured or Medicaid-covered patients reporting current heroin use. Design: Audit survey (“secret shopper” study). Setting: 6 U.S. jurisdictions with a high burden of opioid-related mortality (Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Ohio, and the District of Columbia). Participants: From July to November 2018, callers contacted 546 publicly listed buprenorphine prescribers twice, posing as uninsured or Medicaid-covered patients seeking buprenorphine treatment. Measurements: Rates of new appointments offered, whether buprenorphine prescription was possible at the first visit, and wait times. Results: Among 1092 contacts with 546 clinicians, schedulers were reached for 849 calls (78% response rate). Clinicians offered new appointments to 54% of Medicaid contacts and 62% of uninsured–self-pay contacts, whereas 27% of Medicaid and 41% of uninsured–self-pay contacts were offered an appointment with the possibility of buprenorphine prescription at the first visit. The median wait time to the first appointment was 6 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2 to 10 days) for Medicaid contacts and 5 days (IQR, 1 to 9 days) for uninsured–self-pay contacts. These wait times were similar regardless of clinician type or payer status. The median wait time from first contact to possible buprenorphine induction was 8 days (IQR, 4 to 15 days) for Medicaid and 7 days (IQR, 3 to 14 days) for uninsured–self-pay contacts. Limitation: The survey sample included only publicly listed buprenorphine prescribers. Conclusion: Many buprenorphine prescribers did not offer new appointments or rapid buprenorphine access to callers reporting active heroin use, particularly those with Medicaid coverage. Nevertheless, wait times were not long, implying that opportunities may exist to increase access by using the existing prescriber workforce. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Comparative Efficacy of Therapies for Treatment of Depression for Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Randomized Clinical Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 170, No 6

Background: Although depression is common among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis, data on their acceptance of treatment and on the comparative efficacy of various therapies are limited. Objective: To determine the effect of an engagement interview on treatment acceptance (phase 1) and to compare the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) versus sertraline (phase 2) for treating depression in patients receiving hemodialysis. Design: Multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02358343) Setting: 41 dialysis facilities in 3 U.S. metropolitan areas. Participants: Patients who had been receiving hemodialysis for at least 3 months and had a Beck Depression Inventory-II score of 15 or greater; 184 patients participated in phase 1, and 120 subsequently participated in phase 2. Intervention: Engagement interview versus control visit (phase 1) and 12 weeks of CBT delivered in the dialysis facility versus sertraline treatment (phase 2). Measurements: The primary outcome for phase 1 was the proportion of participants who started depression treatment within 28 days. For phase 2, the primary outcome was depressive symptoms measured by the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms–Clinician-Rated (QIDS-C) at 12 weeks. Results: The proportion of participants who initiated treatment after the engagement or control visit did not differ (66% vs. 64%, respectively; P = 0.77; estimated risk difference, 2.1 [95% CI, −12.1 to 16.4]). Compared with CBT, sertraline treatment resulted in lower QIDS-C depression scores at 12 weeks (effect estimate, −1.84 [CI, −3.54 to −0.13]; P = 0.035). Adverse events were more frequent in the sertraline than the CBT group. Limitation: No randomized comparison was made with no treatment, and persistence of treatment effect was not assessed. Conclusion: An engagement interview with patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis had no effect on their acceptance of treatment for depression. After 12 weeks of treatment, depression scores were modestly better with sertraline treatment than with CBT. Primary Funding Source: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Dialysis Clinic, Kidney Research Institute, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Intensive Models of Hepatitis C Care for People Who Inject Drugs Receiving Opioid Agonist Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 170, No 9

Background: Many people who inject drugs (PWID) are denied treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, even if they are receiving opioid agonist therapy (OAT). Research suggests that HCV in PWID may be treated effectively, but optimal models of care for promoting adherence and sustained virologic response (SVR) have not been evaluated in the direct-acting antiviral (DAA) era. Objective: To determine whether directly observed therapy (DOT) and group treatment (GT) are more effective than self-administered individual treatment (SIT) in promoting adherence and achieving SVR among PWID receiving OAT. Design: Three-group, randomized controlled trial conducted from October 2013 to April 2017. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01857245) Setting: Three OAT programs in Bronx, New York. Participants: Persons aged 18 years and older with genotype 1 HCV infection who were willing to receive HCV therapy on site in the OAT program. Of 190 persons screened, 158 were randomly assigned to a study group and 150 initiated treatment: DOT (n = 51), GT (n = 48), and SIT (n = 51). Intervention: 2 intensive interventions (DOT and GT) and 1 control condition (SIT). Measurements: Primary: adherence, measured by using electronic blister packs. Secondary: HCV treatment completion and SVR 12 weeks after treatment completion. Results: Mean age was 51 years; 65% of participants had positive results on urine drug testing during the 6 months before treatment, and 75% reported ever injecting drugs. Overall adherence, estimated from mixed-effects models using the daily timeframe, was 78% (95% CI, 75% to 81%) and was greater among participants randomly assigned to DOT (86% [CI, 80% to 92%]) than those assigned to SIT (75% [CI, 70% to 81%]; difference, 11% [CI, 5% to 18%]; Bonferroni-corrected P = 0.001). No significant difference in adherence was observed between participants randomly assigned to GT (80% [CI, 74% to 86%]) and those assigned to SIT (difference, 4.7% [CI, −2% to 11%]; Bonferroni-corrected P = 0.29). The HCV treatment completion rate was 97%, with no differences among groups (P = 0.53). Overall SVR was 94% (CI, 89% to 97%); the SVR rate was 98% in the DOT group, 94% in the GT group, and 90% in the SIT group (P = 0.152). Limitation: These findings may not be generalizable to PWID not enrolled in OAT programs. Conclusion: All models of onsite HCV care delivered to PWID in OAT programs resulted in high SVR, despite ongoing drug use. Directly observed therapy was associated with greater adherence than SIT. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse and Gilead Sciences.

Association Between Publication Characteristics and Treatment Effect Estimates: A Meta-epidemiologic Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 169, No 6

Background: Evidence about the effect on meta-analysis results of including unpublished trials or those published in languages other than English is unclear or discordant. Purpose: To compare treatment effects between published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and between trials published in English and other languages using a meta-epidemiologic approach. Data Sources: Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and January 2017 and trial references cited in the reviews. Study Selection: RCTs included in meta-analyses of 3 or more trials with a binary efficacy outcome. Data Extraction: Trial characteristics were extracted by original review authors. A single reviewer assessed publication status and language, with quality assurance by another investigator. Data Synthesis: Among 5659 RCTs included in 698 meta-analyses, 5303 (93.7%) were published in journal articles and 356 (6.3%) were unpublished. Of journal articles, 92.6% (4910 of 5303) were published in English and 7.4% (393 of 5303) in another language. Treatment effects were larger in published than unpublished trials (combined ratio of odds ratios [ROR] for 174 meta-analyses, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.82 to 0.98]; I 2 = 19.3%; τ2 = 0.0492). Treatment effects were also larger for trials published in a language other than English than in English (combined ROR for 147 meta-analyses, 0.86 [CI, 0.78 to 0.95]; I 2 = 0%; τ2 = 0.0000). Limitation: Reliance on the primary reference cited by review authors as the record of interest. Conclusion: In meta-analyses, treatment effects were larger in published than unpublished trials and, for published trials, in those published in a language other than English than in English. Primary Funding Source: Cochrane France.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Tests and Treatment for Post–Acute Coronary Syndrome Depression: A Systematic Review: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 167, No 10

Background: Patients who have had an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event have an increased risk for depression. Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening instruments and to compare safety and effectiveness of depression treatments in adults within 3 months of an ACS event. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2003 to August 2017, and a manual search of citations from key primary and review articles. Study Selection: English-language studies of post-ACS patients that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools or compared the safety and effectiveness of a broad range of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic depression treatments. Data Extraction: 2 investigators independently screened each article for inclusion; abstracted the data; and rated the quality, applicability, and strength of evidence. Data Synthesis: Evidence from 6 of the 10 included studies showed that a range of depression screening instruments produces acceptable levels of diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values (70% to 100%) but low positive predictive values (below 50%). The Beck Depression Inventory-II was the most studied tool. A large study found that a combination of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and antidepressant medication improved depression symptoms, mental health–related function, and overall life satisfaction more than usual care. Limitation: Few studies, no evaluation of the influence of screening on clinical outcomes, and no studies addressing several clinical interventions of interest. Conclusion: Depression screening instruments produce diagnostic accuracy metrics that are similar in post-ACS patients and other clinical populations. Depression interventions have an uncertain effect on cardiovascular outcomes, but CBT combined with antidepressant medication produces modest improvement in psychosocial outcomes. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (PROSPERO: CRD42016047032).

Synopsis of the 2017 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs/U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Description: In April 2017, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved a joint clinical practice guideline for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: The VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a joint VA/DoD guideline development effort that included a multidisciplinary panel of practicing clinician stakeholders and conformed to the Institute of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline panel developed key questions in collaboration with the ECRI Institute, which systematically searched and evaluated the literature through June 2016, developed an algorithm, and rated recommendations by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Recommendations: This synopsis summarizes key features of the guideline in 7 areas: patient-centered care and shared decision making, glycemic biomarkers, hemoglobin A1c target ranges, individualized treatment plans, outpatient pharmacologic treatment, glucose targets for critically ill patients, and treatment of hospitalized patients.

A National Strategy for the Elimination of Viral Hepatitis Emphasizes Prevention, Screening, and Universal Treatment of Hepatitis C

Previous See more results in Annals of Internal Medicine

Clinical Information Search