Publications

IMPORTANCE

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for the management of blood cholesterol and the current European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines differ in how they identify adults in need of statin therapy; furthermore, it is unclear how this difference translates into numbers and characteristics of patients recommended for treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of the ACC/AHA and ESC/EAS cholesterol guidelines when applied to a population-based sample.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We used nationally representative data for 3055 adults aged 40 to 65 years from the 2007-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) for the United States and for 1060 adults aged 40 to 65 years from the 2011 Nadciśnięnie Tętnicze w Polsce survey for Poland. Data analysis was conducted from May 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The number and characteristics of adults recommended for statin therapy according to the ACC/AHA and ESC/EAS guidelines were evaluated, and characteristics were compared between adults with discordant recommendations.

RESULTS

The 3136 US adults in NHANES (2007-2012) aged 40 to 65 years represented 100.1 million adults; after excluding the 81 patients with missing data, these population estimates translate to 97.9 million adults. Similarly, the 1060 Polish adults in NATPOL (2011) aged 40 to 65 years represent 13.5 million adults. Using weighted data, in the United States, 43.8% (95% CI, 40.9%-46.7%) of adults would be recommended for statin therapy according to ACC/AHA guidelines and 39.1% (95% CI, 36.4%-41.8%) according to ESC/EAS guidelines. In Poland, 49.9% (95% CI, 46.9%-52.9%) of adults would be recommended for statin therapy under ACC/AHA guidelines compared with 47.6% (95% CI, 44.6%-50.7%) under ESC/EAS guidelines. Among individuals without cardiovascular disease and not currently taking statins, 11.0% of US and 10.5% of Polish adults had discordant guideline recommendations. Compared with individuals recommended for statin therapy by the ESC/EAS guidelines but not the ACC/AHA guidelines, those recommended for statin therapy under the ACC/AHA guidelines only had less chronic kidney disease; however, these individuals were also more likely to smoke, have lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and have higher predicted 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Despite differences in the ACC/AHA and EAS/ESC guidelines, the numbers of adults aged 40 to 65 years recommended for cholesterol-lowering therapy under each guideline were similar when applied to nationwide representative samples from both the United States and Poland. Discordant recommendations were driven by differences in the risk equations used in the 2 guidelines and different recommendations for adults with chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate self-administration of vaginal lidocaine gel to decrease pain with intrauterine device (IUD) insertion in nulliparous women.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, women self-administered 2% lidocaine or placebo vaginal gel 5 minutes before IUD insertion. The primary outcome was change in pain from baseline to IUD insertion on a 100-mm visual analog scale. We also assessed pain after speculum insertion, tenaculum placement, uterine sounding, and 5 minutes after IUD insertion. Secondary outcomes included patient acceptability, ease of IUD insertion, and need for pain medication for up to 7 days.

RESULTS

From July 2012 to May 2013, 59 women were randomized; 30 received lidocaine gel and 29 placebo. Baseline demographics, including age, race, and body mass index, were similar. There was no difference in median change in pain during IUD insertion in women receiving lidocaine (61 mm [interquartile range 53-71]) compared with placebo (69 mm [interquartile range 63-80], P=.06). Women receiving lidocaine experienced less pain with tenaculum placement (32 mm [interquartile range 18-54]) compared with placebo (56 mm [interquartile range 26-75], P=.02). Most (76%) women were satisfied with their IUD insertion experience and 86% would probably or definitely recommend an IUD to a friend. Thirty-four percent of women required pain medication for at least 3 days after IUD insertion.

CONCLUSION

For nulliparous women, self-administered vaginal lidocaine gel does not reduce pain with IUD insertion, but does decrease pain with tenaculum placement.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01534520.

BACKGROUND

One-third of US medical students participate in global health (GH) education, and approximately one-quarter of US medical schools have structured programs that offer special recognition in GH. GH clinical electives (GHCEs) are opportunities for students to experience a medical system and culture different from their own. GHCEs are administered through institutional affiliation agreements, often between an institution in a high-income country (HIC) and one in a low- or middle-income country (LMIC). Although these agreements suggest the exchange of students in both directions, GHCEs are traditionally characterized by students from HICs traveling to LMICs.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to investigate the availability of opportunities for students from LMICs participating in GHCEs at partner institutions in HICs and to describe the costs of these opportunities for students from LMICs.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based search of 30 US institutions previously identified as having structured programs in GH. We determined which of these schools have programs that accept medical students from international schools for GHCEs, as well as the administrative requirements, types of fees, and other costs to the international student based on information available on the web. Descriptive statistics were employed for the quantitative analysis of costs.

FINDINGS

We found that, although the majority of US institutions with structured GH programs sending students to sites abroad accept international students at their sites in the United States, nearly one-fifth of programs do not offer such opportunities for bidirectional exchange. We also characterized the substantial costs of such experiences, because this can represent a significant barrier for students from LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to GHCEs in US partner institutions should be an important underlying ethical principle in the establishment of institutional partnerships. The opportunities available to and experiences of students from LMIC partner institutions are important areas for future GH education research.

PURPOSE

Notwithstanding a paucity of data, prescription of the opioid antagonist naloxone to patients prescribed opioids is increasingly recommended in opioid stewardship guidelines. The aim of this study was to evaluate chronic pain patients' attitudes toward being offered a naloxone prescription and their experience with naloxone.

METHODS

We interviewed 60 patients who received naloxone prescriptions across 6 safety-net primary care clinics (10 patients per clinic) from October 2013 to October 2015. We used a standardized questionnaire to collect information on substance use, perception of personal overdose risk, history of overdose, and experiences with naloxone prescription, including initial reaction, barriers to filling the prescription, storage and use of naloxone, associated behavioral changes, and opinions about future prescribing.

RESULTS

Respondents were demographically similar to all clinic patients receiving opioid prescriptions. Ninety percent had never previously received a naloxone prescription, 82% successfully filled a prescription for naloxone, and 97% believed that patients prescribed opioids for pain should be offered naloxone. Most patients had a positive (57%) or neutral (22%) response to being offered naloxone, and 37% reported beneficial behavior changes after receiving the prescription; there were no harmful behavior changes reported. Although 37% had personally experienced an opioid-poisoning event (17% of which were described as bad reactions but consistent with an overdose) and 5% reported that the prescribed naloxone had been used on them, 77% estimated their risk of overdose as low.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care patients on opioids reported that receiving a prescription for naloxone was acceptable, the prescription reached patients who had not had access to naloxone, and having naloxone may be associated with beneficial changes in opioid use behaviors. Patients prescribed opioids may not interpret the terminology describing overdose to imply unintentional opioid poisoning.