Search

Heroin overdose, more accurately termed ‘heroin-related overdose’ due to the frequent involvement of other drugs, is the leading cause of mortality among regular heroin users. (Degenhardt et al., 2010) Heroin injectors are at greater risk of hospital admission for heroin-related overdose (HOD) in the eastern United States where Colombian-sourced powder heroin is sold than in the western US where black ‘tar’ heroin predominates. (Unick et al., 2014) This paper examines under-researched influences on HOD, both fatal and non-fatal, using data from a qualitative study of injecting drug users of black tar heroin in San Francisco and powder heroin in Philadelphia Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews carried out in 2012 that were conducted against a background of longer-term participant-observation, ethnographic studies of drug users and dealers in Philadelphia (2007–12) and of users in San Francisco (1994–2007, 2012). Our findings suggest three types of previously unconsidered influences on overdose risk that arise both from structural socio-economic factors and from the physical properties of the heroin source-types: 1) retail market structure including information flow between users; 2) marketing techniques such as branding, free samples and pricing and 3) differences in the physical characteristics of the two major heroin source forms and how they affect injecting techniques and vascular health. Although chosen for their contrasting source-forms, we found that the two cities have contrasting dominant models of drug retailing: San Francisco respondents tended to buy through private dealers and Philadelphia respondents frequented an open-air street market where heroin is branded and free samples are distributed, although each city included both types of drug sales. These market structures and marketing techniques shape the availability of information regarding heroin potency and its dissemination among users who tend to seek out the strongest heroin available on a given day. The physical characteristics of these two source-types, the way they are prepared for injecting and their effects on vein health also differ markedly. The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the unexplored factors that may lead to heroin-related overdose in the United States and to generate hypotheses for further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As interest in comparative effectiveness research grows, questions have emerged regarding whether it is ever acceptable to alter informed consent requirements for research when patients are randomly assigned to widely-used therapies. This paper reports on interviews with Institutional Review Board members and researchers and on focus groups with patients from Geisinger and Johns Hopkins health systems. The objective was to elicit participants' views of the acceptability of four different disclosure and authorization models for low-risk pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials of widely-used therapies. Results suggest that although participants valued autonomous choice, many also believed that it was acceptable to streamline information disclosure and to use an opt-out process for eligible individuals who would prefer not to participate. This provides some preliminary evidence that relevant stakeholders find alternatives to traditional informed consent acceptable for low-risk pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials of widely-used therapies as long as a sufficient amount of choice is preserved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The present study explored chronic disease management over the monthly benefit cycle among primary food shoppers from households receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in Philadelphia, PA, USA.Design: In-depth interviews, participant observation and surveys were conducted with the primary food shopper of SNAP households.Setting: Interviews and surveys were conducted in a clinical setting at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, at participants' homes, and in food procurement settings including grocery stores, food pantries and soup kitchens.Participants: Eighteen adults who received SNAP; five with a diet-related chronic condition, five managing the chronic condition of a family member and thirteen with overweight or obesity.Results: All households had at least one member with a chronic disease or condition. Households reported that the dietary demands of managing chronic illnesses were expensive and mentally taxing. Food and financial shortfalls at the end of the benefit cycle, as well as reliance on charitable food assistance programmes, often had negative impacts on chronic disease self-management.Conclusions: Drawing from nearly 50 h of in-depth qualitative interviews with SNAP participants, the study highlights the dual cognitive burden of poverty and chronic disease and elucidates the particular challenges of food procurement and maintenance of diet quality throughout the benefit month faced by SNAP households with diet-related chronic diseases. Interventions targeted at reducing the cost of medically appropriate, healthy foods may help to improve chronic disease self-management within SNAP populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration can set standards for cigarettes that could include reducing their nicotine content. Such a standard should improve public health without causing unintended serious consequences for sub-populations. This study evaluates the effect of progressive nicotine reduction in cigarettes on smoking behavior, toxicant exposure, and psychiatric symptoms in smokers with comorbid mood and/or anxiety disorders using a two-site, two-arm, double-blind, parallel group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) in four phases over 34 weeks.Methods: Adult smokers (N = 200) of 5 or more cigarettes per day will be randomized across two sites (Penn State and Massachusetts General). Participants must have not had a quit attempt in the prior month, nor be planning to quit in the next 6 months, meet criteria for a current or lifetime unipolar mood and/or anxiety disorder based on the structured Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, and must not have an unstable medical or psychiatric condition. After a week of smoking their own cigarettes, participants receive two weeks of Spectrum research cigarettes with usual nicotine content (11.6 mg). After this baseline period, participants will be randomly assigned to continue smoking Spectrum research cigarettes that contain either (a) Usual Nicotine Content (11.6 mg); or (b) Reduced Nicotine Content: the nicotine content per cigarette is progressively reduced from approximately 11.6 mg to 0.2 mg in five steps over 18 weeks. At the end of the randomization phase, participants will be offered the choice to either (a) quit smoking with assistance, (b) continue smoking free research cigarettes, or (c) return to purchasing their own cigarettes, for the final 12 weeks of the study. The primary outcome measure is blood cotinine; key secondary outcomes are: exhaled carbon monoxide, urinary total NNAL- 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol and 1-hydroxypyrene, oxidative stress biomarkers including 8-isoprostanes, measures of psychiatric symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety), smoking behavior and dependence (e.g., cigarette consumption, quit attempts), and health effects (e.g., blood pressure, respiratory symptoms).Discussion: Results from this study will inform FDA on the potential effects of regulating the nicotine content of cigarettes and help determine whether smokers with mood and/or anxiety disorders can safely transition to significantly reduced nicotine content cigarettes.Trial Registration: TRN: NCT01928758 , registered August 21, 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To test whether a care management program could replicate its success in an earlier trial and determine likely explanations for why it did not.Data Sources/setting: Medicare claims and nurse contact data for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with chronic illnesses enrolled in the trial in eastern Pennsylvania (N = 483).Study Design: A randomized trial with half of enrollees receiving intensive care management services and half receiving usual care. We developed and tested hypotheses for why impacts declined.Data Extraction: All outcomes and covariates were derived from claims and the nurse contact data.Principal Findings: From 2010 to 2014, the program did not reduce hospitalizations or generate Medicare savings to offset program fees that averaged $260 per beneficiary per month. These estimates are statistically different (p < .05) from the large reductions in hospitalizations and spending in the first trial (2002-2010). The treatment-control differences in the second trial disappeared because the control group's risk-adjusted hospitalization rate improved, not because the treatment group's outcomes worsened.Conclusion: Even if demonstrated in a randomized trial, successful results from one test may not replicate in other settings or time periods. Assessing whether gaps in care that the original program filled exist in other settings can help identify where earlier success is likely to replicate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]