Search

Abstract Background Buprenorphine (BUP) treatment has been successfully integrated into primary care and other general medical settings; however, potential BUP prescribers frequently report inadequate training and resources to provide psychosocial counseling as barriers to providing care. Group medical visits, which combine psychosocial support and chronic condition management, have been described for BUP treatment, but few studies have explored what is gained and/or lost by offering BUP treatment in groups instead of individual visits. Methods Five focus groups with 3–11 participants each were conducted at an urban community health center that housed a mature office-based BUP treatment program. Participants were persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) who had previously received BUP treatment. A semi-structured interview guide covered the following domains: experience with BUP, experience with group counseling, and preferences for BUP in a group format or individual setting. Qualitative analysis followed a modified grounded theory approach. Results Of 33 participants, 28 were male, median age range was 50–54, 20 identified as Hispanic/Latinx, and 24 reported past experiences with substance use disorder treatment groups. Four main themes were: (1) Groups can address the psychological aspects of addiction; (2) Groups introduce positive peer support; (3) Balancing OUD treatment and management of other chronic conditions; (4) Groups must be voluntary. Conclusions Findings demonstrate that many persons with OUD taking BUP desire assistance with recovery skills, peer support, and learning about the risks and benefits of BUP. Group medical visits can efficiently deliver these services in primary care, but findings also emphasize that group counseling will be best received when voluntary and group members are committed and authentic.

PurposeCombined BRAF/MEK inhibition with encorafenib (E) plus binimetinib (B) has demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in phase III clinical trials, and is the standard of care for advanced/metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. However, real-life evidence is limited, particularly in patients pre-treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI).Patients and methodsBECARE GEM 2002 was a retrospective, non-interventional study aimed at investigating the real-world effectiveness and tolerability of EB in patients with unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma conducted at 21 sites in Spain. The primary objective of this study was to characterise the population of patients receiving EB and assess the efficacy and tolerability of EB in real life. The study included patients treated according to standard clinical practice with EB as the 1st line or 2nd line after progression to ICI for an unresectable or metastatic stage. Patients who previously received treatment with BRAF and/or MEK inhibitor, other than as adjuvants, that ended ≥ 6 m before EB were not eligibleResultsFrom September 2021 to March 2023, 117 patients were included; 89 (76.1%) and 28 (23.9%) patients received EB as 1st line and 2nd line, respectively. The median follow-up was 13.8 months (95% CI: 12.0-17.4). In patients with EB as 1st line treatment, ORR and median PFS were 75% and 12 months (95% CI: 9.4-18.6), respectively. In patients with EB as 2nd line treatment after ICI, ORR and median PFS were 77.8% and 12.5 months (95% CI: 6.6-NA), respectively. In patients with brain metastasis ORR and median PFS were 70.8% and 6.3 months (95% CI: 6.1-10.3). Treatment-related adverse events of grade ≥3 were reported in 17 (14.5%) patients; transaminitis (9.4%) and diarrhoea (2.6%) were the most frequent adverse events.ConclusionIn this real-world study, EB treatment demonstrated effectiveness and a consistent safety profile in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma treated according to standard clinical practice, including in those with prior ICI treatment and of brain metastasis; therefore, EB is a feasible treatment option for unresectable and metastatic melanoma.Clinical trial identification: REec: 0004-2021-OBSClinical trial identificationREec: 0004-2021-OBS.

Background: Buprenorphine (BUP) treatment has been successfully integrated into primary care and other general medical settings; however, potential BUP prescribers frequently report inadequate training and resources to provide psychosocial counseling as barriers to providing care. Group medical visits, which combine psychosocial support and chronic condition management, have been described for BUP treatment, but few studies have explored what is gained and/or lost by offering BUP treatment in groups instead of individual visits. Methods: Five focus groups with 3–11 participants each were conducted at an urban community health center that housed a mature office-based BUP treatment program. Participants were persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) who had previously received BUP treatment. A semi-structured interview guide covered the following domains: experience with BUP, experience with group counseling, and preferences for BUP in a group format or individual setting. Qualitative analysis followed a modified grounded theory approach. Results: Of 33 participants, 28 were male, median age range was 50–54, 20 identified as Hispanic/Latinx, and 24 reported past experiences with substance use disorder treatment groups. Four main themes were: (1) Groups can address the psychological aspects of addiction; (2) Groups introduce positive peer support; (3) Balancing OUD treatment and management of other chronic conditions; (4) Groups must be voluntary. Conclusions: Findings demonstrate that many persons with OUD taking BUP desire assistance with recovery skills, peer support, and learning about the risks and benefits of BUP. Group medical visits can efficiently deliver these services in primary care, but findings also emphasize that group counseling will be best received when voluntary and group members are committed and authentic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hip fractures represent a serious public health problem with a high burden of mortality, morbidity, and resource use. Co-management has proven to enhance the clinical outcomes of hip fracture patients hospitalized in various settings. Aim: This study aims to evaluate whether the previously observed benefits of co-management can be achieved when such a program is implemented in a rural-based district hospital. Methods: A prospective, single-center observational study was conducted on hip fracture patients hospitalized for hip fracture. Patients were either co-managed by an internal medicine specialist with part-time dedication or not co-managed. The study was conducted in a rural hospital located in Galicia, Northwestern Spain, which serves a population of 45,000. Results: A total of 207 patients were included in the study, of whom 97 received co-management. The majority of the patients who were co-managed were female (69.1%) and had a median age of 88 years (interquartile range 83–92). The study showed a high burden of comorbidity with a median Charlson index of 6 points, along with high prevalence rates of dementia (46%), functional disability (50%), and chronic anticoagulant therapy (25%). Despite no differences in age, sex, or preadmission cognitive or functional status, the study found lower 30-day postdischarge mortality in co-managed patients (9.3%) compared with the 110 controls (20.0%, p = 0.049). The prevalence of osteoporosis treatment, both calcium/vitamin D (87.8% vs. 60.7%, p < 0.001) and bisphosphonates/denosumab/teriparatide (42.4% vs. 15.7%, p < 0.001), was higher in the co-managed patients at 30 days after discharge. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of in-hospital mortality and length of stay. Conclusions: The implementation of internal medicine co-management for hip fracture patients resulted in enhanced outcomes, particularly in the reduction of mortality within 30 days of discharge as well as in the prevalence of osteoporosis treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]