Differences in onset and abuse/dependence episodes between prescription opioids and heroin: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.

OBJECTIVES: To examine patterns of onset and abuse/dependence episodes of prescription opioid (PO) and heroin use disorders in a national sample of adults, and to explore differences by gender and substance abuse treatment status. METHODS: Analyses of data from the 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (N = 43,093). RESULTS: Of all respondents, 5% (n = 1815) reported a history of nonmedical PO use (NMPOU) and 0.3% (n = 150) a history of heroin use. Abuse was more prevalent than dependence among NMPOUs (PO abuse, 29%; dependence, 7%) and heroin users (heroin abuse, 63%; dependence, 28%). Heroin users reported a short mean interval from first use to onset of abuse (1.5 years) or dependence (2.0 years), and a lengthy mean duration for the longest episode of abuse (66 months) or dependence (59 months); the corresponding mean estimates for PO abuse and dependence among NMPOUs were 2.6 and 2.9 years, respectively, and 31 and 49 months, respectively. The mean number of years from first use to remission from the most recent episode was 6.9 years for PO abuse and 8.1 years for dependence; the mean number of years from first heroin use to remission from the most recent episode was 8.5 years for heroin abuse and 9.7 years for dependence. Most individuals with PO or heroin use disorders were remitted from the most recent episode. Treated individuals, whether their problem was heroin or POs, tended to have a longer mean duration of an episode than untreated individuals. CONCLUSION: Periodic remissions from opioid or heroin abuse or dependence episodes occur commonly but take a long time. Timely and effective use of treatment services are needed to mitigate the many adverse consequences from opioid/heroin abuse and dependence.

Impact of Funding Source on Clinical Trial Results Including Cardiovascular Outcome Trials.

Previous authors have suggested a higher likelihood for industry-sponsored (IS) studies to have positive outcomes than non-IS studies, though the influence of publication bias was believed to be a likely confounder. We attempted to control for the latter using a prepublication database to compare the primary outcome of recent trials based on sponsorship. We used the "advanced search" feature in the clinicaltrials.gov website to identify recently completed phase III studies involving the implementation of a pharmaceutical agent or device for which primary data were available. Studies were categorized as either National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored or IS. Results were labeled "favorable" if the results favored the intervention under investigation or "unfavorable" if the intervention fared worse than standard medical treatment. We also performed an independent literature search to identify the cardiovascular trials as a case example and again categorized them into IS versus NIH sponsored. A total of 226 studies sponsored by NIH were found. When these were compared with the latest 226 IS studies, it was found that IS studies were almost 4 times more likely to report a positive outcome (odds ratio [OR] 3.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6087 to 5.9680, p <0.0001). As a case example of a specialty, we also identified 25 NIH-sponsored and 215 IS cardiovascular trials, with most focusing on hypertension therapy (31.6%) and anticoagulation (17.9%). IS studies were 7 times more likely to report favorable outcomes (OR 7.54, 95% CI 2.19 to 25.94, p = 0.0014). They were also considerably less likely to report unfavorable outcomes (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26, p <0.0001). In conclusion, the outcomes of large clinical studies especially cardiovascular differ considerably on the basis of their funding source, and publication bias appears to have limited influence on these findings.

Hemostatic assessment, treatment strategies, and hematology consultation in massive postpartum hemorrhage: results of a quantitative survey of obstetrician-gynecologists.

OBJECTIVE: To assess potential diagnostic and practice barriers to successful management of massive postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), emphasizing recognition and management of contributing coagulation disorders. STUDY DESIGN: A quantitative survey was conducted to assess practice patterns of US obstetrician-gynecologists in managing massive PPH, including assessment of coagulation. RESULTS: Nearly all (98%) of the 50 obstetrician-gynecologists participating in the survey reported having encountered at least one patient with "massive" PPH in the past 5 years. Approximately half (52%) reported having previously discovered an underlying bleeding disorder in a patient with PPH, with disseminated intravascular coagulation (88%, n=23/26) being identified more often than von Willebrand disease (73%, n=19/26). All reported having used methylergonovine and packed red blood cells in managing massive PPH, while 90% reported performing a hysterectomy. A drop in blood pressure and ongoing visible bleeding were the most commonly accepted indications for rechecking a "stat" complete blood count and coagulation studies, respectively, in patients with PPH; however, 4% of respondents reported that they would not routinely order coagulation studies. Forty-two percent reported having never consulted a hematologist for massive PPH. CONCLUSION: The survey findings highlight potential areas for improved practice in managing massive PPH, including earlier and more consistent assessment, monitoring of coagulation studies, and consultation with a hematologist.

CT Scan Dosimetric Parameters Routine Monitoring: First Results of Radiation Dose Optimization Strategies Promptly Provided by a Multidisciplinary Team

CONCLUSION Radiation dose reduction, while saving image quality could be easily implemented with this approach. Furthermore, the availability of a dosimetric data archive provides immediate feedbacks, related to the implemented optimization strategies. Background JCI Standards and European Legislation (EURATOM 59/2013) require the implementation of patient radiation protection programs in diagnostic radiology. Aim of this study is to demonstrate the possibility to reduce patients radiation exposure without decreasing image quality, through a multidisciplinary team (MT), which analyzes dosimetric data of diagnostic examinations. Evaluation Data from CT examinations performed with two different scanners (Siemens DefinitionTM and GE LightSpeed UltraTM) between November and December 2013 are considered. CT scanners are configured to automatically send images to DoseWatch© software, which is able to store output parameters (e.g. kVp, mAs, pitch ) and exposure data (e.g. CTDIvol, DLP, SSDE). Data are analyzed and discussed by a MT composed by Medical Physicists and Radiologists, to identify protocols which show critical dosimetric values, then suggest possible improvement actions to be implemented. Furthermore, the large amount of data available allows to monitor diagnostic protocols currently in use and to identify different statistic populations for each of them. Discussion We identified critical values of average CTDIvol for head and facial bones examinations (respectively 61.8 mGy, 151 scans; 61.6 mGy, 72 scans), performed with the GE LightSpeed CTTM. Statistic analysis allowed us to identify the presence of two different populations for head scan, one of which was only 10% of the total number of scans and corresponded to lower exposure values. The MT adopted this protocol as standard. Moreover, the constant output parameters monitoring allowed us to identify unusual values in facial bones exams, due to changes during maintenance service, which the team promptly suggested to correct. This resulted in a substantial dose saving in CTDIvol average values of approximately 15% and 50% for head and facial bones exams, respectively. Diagnostic image quality was deemed suitable for clinical use by radiologists.