Risultati per: Short Acting Opioid

This retrospective cohort study examines changes in opioid prescribing patterns and health outcomes among patients with sickle cell disease before and after the release of the 2016 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) opioid guideline.

Introduction
Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) tapering involves a gradual reduction in daily medication dose to ultimately reach a state of opioid abstinence. Due to the high risk of relapse and overdose after tapering, this practice is not recommended by clinical guidelines, however, clients may still request to taper off medication. The ideal time to initiate an OAT taper is not known. However, ethically, taper plans should acknowledge clients’ preferences and autonomy but apply principles of shared informed decision-making regarding safety and efficacy. Linked population-level data capturing real-world tapering practices provide a valuable opportunity to improve existing evidence on when to contemplate starting an OAT taper. Our objective is to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative times from OAT initiation at which a taper can be initiated, with a primary outcome of taper completion, as observed in clinical practice in British Columbia (BC), Canada.

Methods and analysis
We propose a population-level retrospective observational study with a linkage of eight provincial health administrative databases in BC, Canada (01 January 2010 to 17 March 2020). Our primary outcomes include taper completion and all-cause mortality during treatment. We propose a ‘per-protocol’ target trial to compare different durations to taper initiation on the likelihood of taper completion. A range of sensitivity analyses will be used to assess the heterogeneity and robustness of the results including assessment of effectiveness and safety.

Ethics and dissemination
The protocol, cohort creation and analysis plan have been classified and approved as a quality improvement initiative by Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board and the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics. Results will be disseminated to local advocacy groups and decision-makers, national and international clinical guideline developers, presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals electronically and in print.

Introduction
Cabotegravir long-acting injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (LA-PrEP) was shown to be safe and effective in multiple clinical trials. Increasing uptake and persistence among populations with elevated risk for HIV acquisition, especially among men who have sex with men (MSM), is critical to HIV prevention.

Objective
This analysis aims to understand potential users’ preferences for LA-PrEP, with audience segmentation.

Design
Willingness to use and preferences for LA-PrEP were measured in HIV-negative, sexually active MSM in the 2020 American Men’s Internet Survey. Respondents answered a discrete choice experiment with paired profiles of hypothetical LA-PrEP characteristics with an opt-out option (no LA-PrEP). Conditional and mixed logit models were run; the final model was a dummy-coded mixed logit that interacted with the opt-out.

Setting
US national online sample.

Results
Among 2506 MSM respondents, most (75%) indicated a willingness to use LA-PrEP versus daily oral PrEP versus no PrEP. Respondents were averse to side effects and increasing costs and preferred increasing levels of protection. Respondents preferred a 2-hour time to obtain LA-PrEP vs 1 hour, with a strong aversion to 3 hours. Overall, there was an aversion to opting out of LA-PrEP, with variations: those with only one partner, no/other insurance or who were Black, Indigenous or People of Colour were significantly less likely to prefer LA-PrEP, while those who were Hispanic/Latino, college educated and

This study discusses whether facilitated telemedicine for hepatitis C treatment increases cure rates compared with standard-of-care referral to hepatitis specialists.

In a randomized trial, octreotide was highly effective, and serious adverse events were rare.

Introduction
Supervised exercise training is among the first-line therapies for patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Current recommendations for exercise include guidance focusing on claudication pain, programme and session duration, and frequency. However, no guidance is offered regarding exercise training intensity. This study aims to compare the effects of 12-week-long supervised walking exercise training (high-intensity interval training (HIIT) vs moderate-intensity exercise (MOD)) in patients with chronic symptomatic PAD.

Methods and analysis
This study is a monocentric, interventional, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. 60 patients (30 in each group) will be randomly allocated (by using the random permuted blocks) to 12 weeks (three times a week) of HIIT or MOD. For HIIT, exercise sessions will consist of alternating brief high-intensity (≥85% of the peak heart rate (HRpeak)) periods (≤60 s) of work with periods of passive rest. Patients will be asked to complete 1 and then 2 sets of 5–7 (progressing to 10–15×60 s) walking intervals. For the MOD group, exercise training sessions will consist of an alternation of periods of work performed at moderate intensity (≤76% HRpeak) and periods of passive rest. Interventions will be matched by training load. The primary outcome will be the maximal walking distance. Secondary outcomes will include functional performance, functional capacity, heath-related quality of life, self-perceived walking abilities, physical activity and haemodynamic parameters.

Ethics and dissemination
The Angiof-HIIT Study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Canton de Vaud (study number: 2022-01752). Written consent is mandatory prior to enrolment and randomisation. The results will be disseminated via national and international scientific meetings, scientific peer-reviewed journals and social media.

Trial registration number
NCT05612945.