Search

Sexual minority men (SMM) are disproportionately affected by HIV. Although pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective way of reducing HIV incidence, PrEP use has remained relatively low. Social support may be one effective factor in increasing PrEP use among SMM, but the association between social support and PrEP use/adherence is not well understood. The objective of this paper was to summarize the current literature on the association of social support and PrEP use among SMM in the United States. A systematic search was conducted using six different databases MEDLINE / PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar, Embase, and Web of Science using terms established from keywords and medical subject headings (MeSH) terms before being adapted to each database. Data were extracted for key study factors (e.g., study population, geographic location, study design) and main findings. This search produced eleven articles: ten manuscripts and one conference abstract. Of these, two were randomized control trials, two were interventions, three were qualitative, and four were cross-sectional. The studies were widespread across the country, but most were in major metropolitan areas. From the articles included in this review, findings were inconsistent in the association between social support; some studies showed null findings, others that only certain sources of social support were significant, and others that there was a significant association between social support and PrEP use. This review highlights the complexity of the relationship between social support and PrEP use among SMM, indicating the need for further research to identify specific types and sources of support that effectively enhance PrEP uptake and adherence. Targeted interventions based on these insights could significantly reduce HIV incidence in the population., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

During September–November 2014, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) was notified of five New York state residents who had tested seropositive for Coxiella burnetii, the causative agent of Q fever. All five patients had symptoms compatible with Q fever (e.g., fever, fatigue, chills, and headache) and a history of travel to Germany to receive a medical treatment called "live cell therapy" (sometimes called "fresh cell therapy") in May 2014. Live cell therapy is the practice of injecting processed cells from organs or fetuses of nonhuman animals (e.g., sheep) into human recipients. It is advertised to treat a variety of health conditions. This practice is unavailable in the United States; however, persons can travel to foreign locations to receive injections. Local health departments interviewed the patients, and NYSDOH notified CDC and posted a report on CDC’s Epidemic Information Exchange to solicit additional cases. Clinical and exposure information for each patient was reported to the Robert Koch Institute in Germany, which forwarded the information to local health authorities. A Canada resident who also received live cell therapy in May 2014 was diagnosed with Q fever in July 2014. Clinicians should be aware of health risks, such as Q fever and other zoonotic diseases, among patients with a history of receiving treatment with live cell therapy products.

Various findings of the Impact of Managed Pharmaceutical Care on Resource Utilization and Outcomes in Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (IMPROVE) study are reviewed. Suggestions for future methodologies that will enhance this study are discussed. The IMPROVE study is one of the largest pharmaceutical care studies conducted. Although it was an intervention study that examined global outcomes following management by pharmacists, it was designed as an effectiveness study. Several new practice and research methods were developed, including a method to identify patients at high risk for drug-related problems utilizing pharmacy databases, a method to identify chronic diseases using pharmacy databases, a method to evaluate the structure and process for delivering pharmaceutical care in Veterans Affairs medical centers (VAMCs), and guidelines for providing care to patients in the IMPROVE study. Nine VAMCs participated in the study, and 1054 patients were randomized to either an intervention group (n = 523) or a control group (n = 531). Pharmacists documented a total of 1855 contacts with the intervention group patients and made 3048 therapy-specific interventions over the 12-month study period. There was no meaningful difference in patient satisfaction or quality of life in the two groups. Selected disease-specific indicators found an improved rate of measurement of hemoglobin A1c tests and better control of total and low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels in the intervention group compared with the control group. Total health care costs increased in both groups over the 12-month period. The mean increase in costs in the intervention group was $1020, which was lower than the control group's value of $1313. The lessons learned from the IMPROVE study suggest to future investigators how to study and measure the effects of clinical pharmacy services on patient outcome.