Background and objectives Patients with CKD have a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease associated with or exacerbated by inactivity. This randomized, controlled study investigated whether a renal rehabilitation exercise program for patients with stages 3 or 4 CKD would improve their physical function and quality of life.Design, setting, participants, & measurements In total, 119 adults with CKD stages 3 and 4 were randomized, and 107 of these patients proceeded to usual care or the renal rehabilitation exercise intervention consisting of usual care plus guided exercise two times per week for 12 weeks (24 sessions). Physical function was determined by three well established performance-based tests: 6-minute walk test, sit-to-stand test, and gait-speed test. Health-related quality of life was assessed by the RAND 36-Item Short Form Health Survey.Results At baseline, no differences in self-reported level of activity, 6-minute walk test, and sit-to-stand test scores were observed between the usual care (n=48) and renal rehabilitation exercise (n=59) groups, although baseline gait-speed test score was higher in the renal rehabilitation exercise group (P,0.001). At follow-up, the renal rehabilitation exercise group but not the usual care group showed significant improvements in the 6-minute walk test (+210.46266.0 ft [19% improvement] versus 2106219.9 ft; P,0.001), the sit-to-stand test (+26.9627% of age prediction [29% improvement] versus +0.7612.1% of age prediction; P,0.001), and the RAND-36 physical measures of role functioning (P,0.01), physical functioning (P,0.01), energy/fatigue levels (P=0.01), and general health (P=0.03) and mental measure of pain scale (P=0.04). The renal rehabilitation exercise regimen was generally well tolerated.Conclusions A 12-week/24-session renal rehabilitation exercise program improved physical capacity and quality of life in patients with CKD stages 3 and 4. Longer follow-up is needed to determine if these findings will translate into decreased mortality rates.

Arginine vasopressin (AVP) and related peptides have diverse effects on social behaviors in vertebrates, sometimes promoting affiliative interactions and sometimes aggressive or antisocial responses. The type of influence, in at least some species, depends on social contexts, including the sex of the individuals in the interaction and/or on the levels of peptide within brain circuits that control the behaviors. To determine if AVP promotes different responses to same- and other-sex faces in men, and if those effects are dose dependent, we measured the effects of two doses of AVP on subjective ratings of male and female faces. We also tested if any influences persist beyond the time of drug delivery. When AVP was administered intranasally on an initial test day, 20 IU was associated with decreased social assessments relative to placebo and 40 IU, and some of the effects persisted beyond the initial drug delivery and appeared to generalize to novel faces on subsequent test days. In single men, those influences were most pronounced, but not exclusive, for male faces, whereas in coupled men they were primarily associated with responses to female faces. Similar influences were not observed if AVP was delivered after placebo on a second test day. In a preliminary analysis, the differences in social assessments observed between men who received 20 and 40 IU, which we suggest primarily reflect lowered social assessments induced by the lower dose, appeared most pronounced in subjects who carry what has been identified as a risk allele for the V1a receptor gene. Together, these results suggest that AVP’s effects on face processing, and possibly other social responses, differ according to dose, depend on relationship status, and may be more prolonged than previously recognized.

Background The impact of public health policies during the COVID-19 pandemic on people who inject drugs (PWID) has varied across regions. In other countries, recent research has shown that PWID access to harm reduction services, despite rapid adaptations, has been negatively impacted. Our study describes these impacts in a rural state. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with PWID, community partners, and healthcare providers in the rural state of Maine (USA). We explored how changes made during the pandemic impacted access to harm reduction services, including basic services (i.e., shelter), syringe service programs, safe drug supply, low barrier treatment, and peer support. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method to apply Penchansky’s model of access, with Saurman’s modification, which includes six dimensions of access—accessibility, availability, acceptability, affordability, accommodation, awareness. Results We interviewed thirty-six stakeholders (N = 9 community partners, N = 9 healthcare providers, N = 18 PWID). Policies such as mobile outreach expansion, mail delivery of equipment, and relaxed telemedicine regulations facilitated accessibility to syringe service programs and low barrier buprenorphine treatment. Public health policies, such as social distancing and screening policies, reduced contact, which subsequently reduced acceptability and awareness of many services. Elimination of the one-for-one needle exchange in some areas increased, acceptability (i.e., perception of service), and affordability for PWID. However, some areas actually began enforcing a one-for-one needle exchange policy, which reduced affordability, acceptability, and awareness of services. Conclusions Changes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted all dimensions of access to harm reduction services among PWID. While some barriers to harm reduction services were unavoidable during the pandemic, we found that specific policy decisions mitigated service barriers, while other policies exacerbated them. Relaxing needle exchange policies were particularly helpful in facilitating access to harm reduction services by giving community organizations flexibility to adapt to the evolving needs of PWID. These results can inform policies and service delivery to optimally mitigate the negative impacts on PWID during, and beyond, the pandemic.

Background: Patients with injection drug use (IDU)-associated infections traditionally experience prolonged hospitalizations, which often result in negative experiences and bad outcomes. Harm reduction approaches that value patient autonomy and shared decision-making regarding outpatient treatment options may improve outcomes. We sought to identify health care professionals (HCPs) perspectives on the barriers to offering four different options to hospitalized people who use drugs (PWUD): long-term hospitalization, oral antibiotics, long-acting antibiotics at an infusion center, and outpatient parenteral antibiotics. Methods: We recruited HCPs ( n = 19) from a single tertiary care center in Portland, Maine. We interviewed HCPs involved with discharge decision-making and other HCPs involved in the specialized care of PWUD. Semi-structured interviews elicited lead HCP values, preferences, and concerns about presenting outpatient antimicrobial treatment options to PWUD, while support HCPs provided contextual information. We used the iterative categorization approach to code and thematically analyze transcripts. Results: HCPs were willing to present outpatient treatment options for patients with IDU-associated infections, yet several factors contributed to reluctance. First, insufficient resources, such as transportation, may make these options impractical. However, HCPs may be unaware of existing community resources or viable treatment options. They also may believe the hospital protects patients, and that discharging patients into the community exposes them to structural harms. Some HCPs are concerned that patients with substance use disorder will not make ‘good’ decisions regarding outpatient antimicrobial options. Finally, there is uncertainty about how responsibility for offering outpatient treatment is shared across changing care teams. Conclusion: HCPs perceive many barriers to offering outpatient care for people with IDU-associated infections, but with appropriate interventions to address their concerns, may be open to considering more options. This study provides important insights and contextual information that can help inform specific harm reduction interventions aimed at improving care of people with IDU-associated infections.