Naltrexone is an approved drug for management of alcohol use disorder (AUD), but data in patients with liver disease (LD) are limited. We aimed to evaluate the safety of naltrexone in those with LD. This is a retrospective cohort of adults with and without LD who were prescribed naltrexone for AUD from 2015 to 2019 in a safety‐net setting. Naltrexone hepatic safety was determined by liver enzyme changes during and after compared to before naltrexone prescription as well as rates of subsequent hospitalization and death by Kaplan‐Meier methods. Factors associated with hospitalization were examined by Cox regression. Of 160 patients prescribed naltrexone for AUD, 100 (63%) had LD and 47 (47%) of those with LD had cirrhosis (47% decompensated). The total cohort, LD, and cirrhosis groups had lower adjusted mean aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase levels after versus before naltrexone prescription (p < 0.001). Two‐year survival was 97.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.6–99.7), 95.4% (95% CI, 82.8–98.8), 90.8% (95% CI, 73.5–97.0), and 81.3% (95% CI, 41.2–93.8) in those without LD, LD without cirrhosis, cirrhosis, and decompensated cirrhosis groups (p = 0.46), respectively. Alcohol‐related 2‐year hospitalization rates were 8.2% (95% CI, 2.7–24), 27.7% (95% CI, 16.6–44.0), 40.5% (95% CI, 24.8–61.6), and 41.7% (95% CI, 23.3–66.6) for the groups without LD, LD without cirrhosis, cirrhosis, and decompensated cirrhosis (p = 0.007), respectively. Independent predictors of subsequent hospitalization were LD, (hazard ratio [HR], 3.70; 95% CI, 1.19–11.51; p = 0.02), cirrhosis (HR, 5.16; 95% CI, 1.69–15.75), and shorter duration (≤30 days) of naltrexone prescription (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.l2–5.20; p = 0.01). Conclusion: Naltrexone is safe to use in patients with underlying LD, including those with compensated cirrhosis. Although encouraging, more safety data are needed for those with decompensated cirrhosis.
Structured learning can be implemented in an academic robotic program with high levels of trainee and evaluator participation, encouraging both quantitative and verbal feedback. A proficiency assessment tool developed for step-specific proficiency has construct and concurrent validity.
IntroductionUnderstanding patient perceptions and preferences of hospital care is important to improve patients’ hospitalization experiences and satisfaction. The objective of this study was to investigate patient preferences and perceptions of hospital care, specifically differences between intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital floor admissions.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional survey of emergency department (ED) patients who were presented with a hypothetical scenario of a patient with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI). We surveyed their preferences and perceptions of hospital care related to this scenario. A closed-ended questionnaire provided quantitative data on patient preferences and perceptions of hospital care and an open-ended questionnaire evaluated factors that may not have been captured with the closed-ended questionnaire.ResultsOut of 302 study patients, the ability for family and friends to visit (83%), nurse availability (80%), and physician availability (79%) were the factors most commonly rated “very important,” while the cost of hospitalization (62%) and length of hospitalization (59%) were the factors least commonly rated “very important.” When asked to choose between the ICU and the floor if they were the patient in the scenario, 33 patients (10.9%) choose the ICU, 133 chose the floor (44.0%), and 136 (45.0%) had no preference.ConclusionBased on a hypothetical scenario of mild TBI, the majority of patients preferred admission to the floor or had no preference compared to admission to the ICU. Humanistic factors such as the availability of doctors and nurses and the ability to interact with family appear to have a greater priority than systematic factors of hospitalization, such as length and cost of hospitalization or length of time in the ED waiting for an in-patient bed.
age was 25.5 and 53.8% were females. The average "Tubes" score for the dV-Trainer and dVSSS were 10/100 and 48.5/100 respectively. Scores of MS and JR were similar (p¼0.36). GEARS scores of participants who initially used the dVSSS compared to the dV-Trainer were significantly higher (21/25 vs. 17.2/25, p¼0.04). Similarly, RACE scores of participants who used the dVSSS were also significantly higher compared to the dV-Trainer (23.2/25 vs. 17.8/25, p¼0.02). Scores of MS and JR were similar for GEARS (p¼0.50) and RACE score (p¼0.57). Intraclass correlation coefficient for the GEARS and RACE scoring were 72.6 and 89.3 respectively.CONCLUSIONS: The dVSSS trainer lead to superior scores in performing UVA in the OR for both MS and JR compared to the dV-Trainer. The dVSSS can be used to improve teaching in surgical trainees in a safe and effective manner.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.