Search

Abstract Background Several clinical studies have established the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of long-acting risperidone administered once every 2 weeks in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. This report evaluates preliminary efficacy, safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic data for a novel (once-monthly) administration of long-acting injectable risperidone 50 mg in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Methods Clinically stable patients participated in a 1-year, open-label, single-arm, multicenter pilot study. During the 4-week lead-in phase, patients received long-acting risperidone 50 mg injections every 2 weeks, with 2 weeks of oral risperidone supplementation. Injections of long-acting risperidone 50 mg every 4 weeks followed for up to 48 weeks, without oral supplementation. The primary endpoint was relapse; other assessments included PANSS, CGI-S, adverse event reports, and determination of risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone plasma concentrations. Results Twelve patients in the intent-to-treat population (n = 67) met relapse criteria (17.9%). Relapse risk at 1 year was estimated as 22.4%. Non-statistically significant improvements in symptoms (PANSS) and clinical status (CGI-S) at endpoint were observed. The most common adverse events included schizophrenia aggravated not otherwise specified (19.5%), anxiety (16.1%), insomnia (16.1%), and headache (11.5%). There were no unexpected safety and tolerability findings. Mean plasma concentrations for risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone were generally stable during the study. Conclusion Once-monthly dosing of long-acting risperidone was well tolerated, associated with a relatively low relapse rate (similar to that reported with other antipsychotics), and maintained the clinically stable baseline status of most patients. Although the results suggest that some symptomatically stable patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder might be safely managed with long-acting risperidone 50 mg once monthly, these findings alone do not identify which patients will have a sufficient therapeutic benefit nor do they quantify comparative effects of standard and altered dosing. Study limitations (the open-label pilot study design, small sample size, and lack of a concurrent biweekly treatment arm) prevent broad interpretations and extrapolations of results. Controlled studies would be required to support a recommendation for alternative dosing regimens.

The demonstration of enteric virus removal for indirect potable reuse of advanced purified water is necessary to ensure safe water reclamation practices. This study evaluated the efficacy of soil treatment in reducing concentrations of Pepper Mild Mottle Virus (PMMoV), Hepatitis A (HAV), and Norovirus (NoV) gene markers through bench scale unsaturated soil columns. Three different infiltration rates were evaluated to determine their impact on viral gene marker removal. The concentrations of viral markers in the column influent and effluent samples were measured through RNA extraction and then RT-qPCR, and the log reduction values (LRVs) were calculated to quantify the effectiveness of removal across the columns. The LRVs achieved for PMMoV were 2.80 ± 0.36, 2.91 ± 0.48, and 2.72 ± 0.32 for infiltration rates of 4.9 mm/h, 9.4 mm/h, and 14.0 mm/h, respectively. A one-way ANOVA indicated no statistically significant differences in LRVs among the various infiltration rates (p-value = 0.329). All samples measured for HAV were below the detection limit both in the influent and effluent of the soil columns. While NoV GI and GII markers were measurable in the soil column influent, they were removed to below the detection limit in the effluent. The use of half the Limit-of-Detection (LoD) for effluent values enabled the estimation of log removals, which were calculated as 1.42 ± 0.07, 1.64 ± 0.29, and 1.74 ± 0.18 for NoV GI and 1.14 ± 0.19, 1.58 ± 0.21, and 1.87 ± 0.41 for NoV GII at infiltration rates of 4.9 mm/h, 9.4 mm/h, and 14.0 mm/h. This highlights the efficacy of soil treatment in reducing virus gene marker concentrations at various infiltration rates, and that spreading basins employed for reclaimed water recharge to ground water aquifers are an effective method for reducing the presence of viral contaminants in indirect potable reuse systems., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: A number of factors can lead to adverse events (AEs) in patients taking warfarin. Performing a root cause analysis (RCA) of serious AEs is one systematic way of determining the causes of these events., Methods: Multidisciplinary teams were formed at Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI 2 ) sites with organized anticoagulation management services (AMS). Medical records from patients who suffered serious AEs (major bleed, embolic stroke, venous thromboembolism) were reviewed, and AMS staff were interviewed to determine the root cause using the "5 Whys" technique. More than 600 patients had an AE and underwent screening by trained RNs. Of these, 79 required full review by a multidisciplinary panel. All potential contributing factors (comorbidities, concurrent medications, current protocols) were assessed to determine the main factor that caused the AE., Results: Full RCA was completed in 79 cases. The main contributing factor was identified in 69/79 (87%) cases. Most identified AEs, 55/69 (80%), were due to patient-specific factors such as comorbidities. Patient-to-provider and provider-to-provider communication accounted for 16/69 (23%) of events and was the second most common cause. Other causes included protocol non-adherence and technology/equipment issues. After each detailed review, the multidisciplinary panel recommended system changes that addressed the primary cause., Conclusion: The majority of severe AEs for patients taking warfarin were related to nonmodifiable patient-related issues. The remaining AEs were primarily due to patient-to-provider and provider-to-provider communication issues. Methods for improving communication need to be addressed, and methods for more effective patient education should be investigated., (Copyright © 2017 The Joint Commission. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)