Search

Abstract Background Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) are the most common notifiable sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States. Because symptoms of these infections often overlap with other urogenital infections, misdiagnosis and incorrect treatment can occur unless appropriate STI diagnostic testing is performed in clinical settings. The objective of this study was to describe STI diagnostic testing and antimicrobial treatment patterns and trends among adolescent and adult men and women with lower genitourinary tract symptoms (LGUTS). Methods We analyzed insurance claims data from the IBM® MarketScan® Research Databases. Patients included were between 14 and 64 years old with LGUTS as determined by selected International Classification of Diseases codes between January 2010 and December 2019. Testing of STIs and relevant drug claims were captured, and distribution of testing patterns and drug claims were described. Results In total, 23,537,812 episodes with LGUTS (87.4% from women; 12.6% from men) were analyzed from 12,341,154 patients. CT/NG testing occurred in only 17.6% of all episodes. For episodes where patients received treatment within 2 weeks of the visit date, 89.3% received treatment within the first 3 days (likely indicating presumptive treatment), and 77.7% received it on the first day. For women with pelvic inflammatory disease and men with orchitis/epididymitis and acute prostatitis, ≤ 15% received CT/NG testing, and around one-half received antibiotic treatment within 3 days. Conclusions Our study revealed low CT/NG testing rates, even in patients diagnosed with complications commonly associated with these STIs, along with high levels of potentially inappropriate presumptive treatment. This highlights the need for timely and accurate STI diagnosis in patients with LGUTS to inform appropriate treatment recommendations.

Jeffrey Gudin,1,2 Lynn R Webster,3 Emileigh Greuber,4 Kip Vought,4 Kalpana Patel,4 Louis Kuritzky5 1Department of Anesthesiology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, Englewood, NJ, USA; 3Scientific Affairs Neurosciences, PRA Health Sciences, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 4Global Research and Development and Medical Affairs, Scilex Pharmaceuticals Inc, Palo Alto, CA, USA; 5Community Health and Family Medicine, University of Florida Community Health & Family Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USACorrespondence: Lynn R WebsterVice President Scientific Affairs, PRA Health Sciences, Salt Lake City, UT, 84103, USATel +1 801 904 4593Email WebsterLynn@Prahs.comPurpose: The primary objective was to evaluate adhesion performance of the lidocaine topical system 1.8% for 12 hours in healthy human subjects in three studies: as a single product (Study 1) and versus other lidocaine topical products (lidocaine patch 5% and lidocaine medicated plaster 5% [Study 2] and generic lidocaine patch 5% [Study 3]). Safety of the lidocaine topical system 1.8%, with a skin irritation focus, was a secondary objective.Patients and Methods: All three studies were open-label, randomized, Phase 1 adhesion performance studies in healthy adult volunteers (N=125). Lidocaine topical products were applied for 12 hours per test, per study arm. Adhesion of all test products was scored at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 hours post-application. Skin irritation was scored after product removal or when a product detached.Results: Overall, the majority (≥ 75%) of subjects treated with the lidocaine topical system 1.8% demonstrated ≥ 90% adhesion (FDA adhesion score 0) throughout the 12-hour administration period versus 13.6% of subjects treated with lidocaine patch 5%, 15.9% of subjects treated with lidocaine medicated plaster 5%, and 0% of subjects treated with the generic lidocaine patch 5%. There were no complete detachments with the lidocaine topical system 1.8%, whereas 4.5% of lidocaine patch 5% and lidocaine medicated plaster 5% detached, and 29% of generic lidocaine patch 5% detached. Minimal skin irritation was observed with each lidocaine topical product.Conclusion: Across three studies, lidocaine topical system 1.8% demonstrated superior adhesion performance versus the three other products tested. Skin irritation was minimal across products and studies.Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04312750, NCT04320173, NCT04319926.Keywords: lidocaine topical system, lidocaine patch, lidocaine medicated plaster, adhesion, postherpetic neuralgia

AbstractMany patients with type 2 diabetes will ultimately require the inclusion of basal insulin in their treatment regimen. Since most people with type 2 diabetes are managed in the community, it is important that primary care providers understand and correctly manage the initiation and titration of basal insulins, and help patients to self-manage insulin injections. Newer, long-acting basal insulins provide greater stability and flexibility than older preparations and improved delivery systems. Basal insulin is usually initiated at a conservative dose of 10 units/day or 0.1–0.2 units/kg/day, then titrated thereafter over several weeks or months, based on patients’ self-measured fasting plasma glucose, to achieve an individualized target (usually 80–130 mg/dL). Through a shared decision-making process, confirmation of appropriate goals and titration methods should be established, including provisions for events that might alter scheduled titration (e.g. travel, dietary change, illness, hospitalization, etc.). Although switching between basal insulins is usually easily accomplished, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences between formulations require clinicians to provide explicit guidance to patients. Basal insulin is effective long-term, but overbasalization (continuing to escalate dose without a meaningful reduction in fasting plasma glucose) should be avoided.Key messagesPrimary care providers often initiate basal insulin for people with type 2 diabetes.Basal insulin is recommended to be initiated at 10 units/day or 0.1–0.2 units/kg/day, and doses must be titrated to agreed fasting plasma glucose goals, usually 80–130 mg/dL. A simple rule is to gradually increase the initial dose by 1 unit per day (NPH, insulin detemir, and glargine 100 units/mL) or 2–4 units once or twice per week (NPH, insulin detemir, glargine 100 and 300 units/mL, and degludec) until FPG levels remain consistently within the target range. If warranted, switching between basal insulins can be done using simple regimens.The dose of basal insulin should be increased as required up to approximately 0.5–1.0 units/kg/day in some cases. Overbasalization (continuing to escalate dose without a meaningful reduction in fasting plasma glucose) is not recommended; rather re-evaluation of individual therapy, including consideration of more concentrated basal insulin preparations and/or short-acting prandial insulin as well as other glucose-lowering therapies, is suggested.

The patterned dielectric back contact (PDBC) structure can be used to form a point-contact architecture that features a dielectric spacer with spatially distributed, reduced-area metal point contacts between the semiconductor back not recognized contact layer and the metal back contact. In this structure, the dielectric-metal region provides higher reflectance and is electrically insulating. Reduced-area metal point contacts provide electrical conduction for the back contact but typically have lower reflectance. The fabrication methods discussed in this article were developed for thermophotovoltaic cells, but they apply to any III-V optoelectronic device requiring the use of a conductive and highly reflective back contact. Patterned dielectric back contacts may be used for enhanced sub-bandgap reflectance, for enhanced photon recycling near the bandgap energy, or both depending on the optoelectronic application. The following fabrication methods are discussed in the article • PDBC fabrication procedures for spin-on dielectrics and commonly evaporated dielectrics to form the spacer layer. • Methods to selectively etch a parasitically absorbing back contact layer using metal point contacts as an etch mask. • Methods incorporating a dielectric etch through different process techniques such as reactive ion and wet etching.

Background: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) are the most common notifiable sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States. Because symptoms of these infections often overlap with other urogenital infections, misdiagnosis and incorrect treatment can occur unless appropriate STI diagnostic testing is performed in clinical settings. The objective of this study was to describe STI diagnostic testing and antimicrobial treatment patterns and trends among adolescent and adult men and women with lower genitourinary tract symptoms (LGUTS). Methods: We analyzed insurance claims data from the IBM® MarketScan® Research Databases. Patients included were between 14 and 64 years old with LGUTS as determined by selected International Classification of Diseases codes between January 2010 and December 2019. Testing of STIs and relevant drug claims were captured, and distribution of testing patterns and drug claims were described. Results: In total, 23,537,812 episodes with LGUTS (87.4% from women; 12.6% from men) were analyzed from 12,341,154 patients. CT/NG testing occurred in only 17.6% of all episodes. For episodes where patients received treatment within 2 weeks of the visit date, 89.3% received treatment within the first 3 days (likely indicating presumptive treatment), and 77.7% received it on the first day. For women with pelvic inflammatory disease and men with orchitis/epididymitis and acute prostatitis, ≤ 15% received CT/NG testing, and around one-half received antibiotic treatment within 3 days. Conclusions: Our study revealed low CT/NG testing rates, even in patients diagnosed with complications commonly associated with these STIs, along with high levels of potentially inappropriate presumptive treatment. This highlights the need for timely and accurate STI diagnosis in patients with LGUTS to inform appropriate treatment recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Louis Kuritzky George P SamrajDepartment of Community Health and Family Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USAAbstract: Low back pain (LBP) is amongst the top ten most common conditions presenting to primary care clinicians in the ambulatory setting. Further, it accounts for a significant amount of health care expenditure; indeed, over one third of all disability dollars spent in the United States is attributable to low back pain. In most cases, acute low back pain is a self-limiting disease. There are many evidence-based guidelines for the management of LBP. The most common risk factor for development of LBP is previous LBP, heavy physical work, and psychosocial risk factors. Management of LBP includes identification of red flags, exclusion of specific secondary causes, and comprehensive musculoskeletal/neurological examination of the lower extremities. In uncomplicated LBP, imaging is unnecessary unless symptoms become protracted. Reassurance that LBP will likely resolve and advice to maintain an active lifestyle despite LBP are the cornerstones of management. Medications are provided not because they change the natural history of the disorder, but rather because they enhance the ability of the patient to become more active, and in some cases, to sleep better. The most commonly prescribed medications include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and muscle relaxants. Although NSAIDs are a chemically diverse class, their similarities, efficacy, tolerability, and adverse effect profile have more similarities than differences. The most common side effects of NSAIDs are gastrointestinal. Agents with cyclo-oxygenase 2 selectivity are associated with reduced gastrointestinal bleeding, but problematic increases in adverse cardiovascular outcomes continue to spark concern. Fortunately, short-term use of NSAIDs for LBP is generally both safe and effective. This review will focus on the role of NSAIDs in the management of LBP.Keywords: low back pain, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cyclo-oxygenase 2