Humans

IMPORTANCE:

Although clinical trials demonstrate the superior effectiveness of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) compared with nonpharmacologic treatment, national data on the comparative effectiveness of real-world treatment pathways are lacking.

OBJECTIVE:

To examine associations between opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment pathways and overdose and opioid-related acute care use as proxies for OUD recurrence.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

This retrospective comparative effectiveness research study assessed deidentified claims from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse from individuals aged 16 years or older with OUD and commercial or Medicare Advantage coverage. Opioid use disorder was identified based on 1 or more inpatient or 2 or more outpatient claims for OUD diagnosis codes within 3 months of each other; 1 or more claims for OUD plus diagnosis codes for opioid-related overdose, injection-related infection, or inpatient detoxification or residential services; or MOUD claims between January 1, 2015, and September 30, 2017. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019.

EXPOSURES:

One of 6 mutually exclusive treatment pathways, including (1) no treatment, (2) inpatient detoxification or residential services, (3) intensive behavioral health, (4) buprenorphine or methadone, (5) naltrexone, and (6) nonintensive behavioral health.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

Opioid-related overdose or serious acute care use during 3 and 12 months after initial treatment.

RESULTS:

A total of 40 885 individuals with OUD (mean [SD] age, 47.73 [17.25] years; 22 172 [54.2%] male; 30 332 [74.2%] white) were identified. For OUD treatment, 24 258 (59.3%) received nonintensive behavioral health, 6455 (15.8%) received inpatient detoxification or residential services, 5123 (12.5%) received MOUD treatment with buprenorphine or methadone, 1970 (4.8%) received intensive behavioral health, and 963 (2.4%) received MOUD treatment with naltrexone. During 3-month follow-up, 707 participants (1.7%) experienced an overdose, and 773 (1.9%) had serious opioid-related acute care use. Only treatment with buprenorphine or methadone was associated with a reduced risk of overdose during 3-month (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.14-0.41) and 12-month (AHR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31-0.55) follow-up. Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone was also associated with reduction in serious opioid-related acute care use during 3-month (AHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.99) and 12-month (AHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.95) follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone was associated with reductions in overdose and serious opioid-related acute care use compared with other treatments. Strategies to address the underuse of MOUD are needed.

Diet is established among the most important influences on health in modern societies. Injudicious diet figures among the leading causes of premature death and chronic disease. Optimal eating is associated with increased life expectancy, dramatic reduction in lifetime risk of all chronic disease, and amelioration of gene expression. In this context, claims abound for the competitive merits of various diets relative to one another. Whereas such claims, particularly when attached to commercial interests, emphasize distinctions, the fundamentals of virtually all eating patterns associated with meaningful evidence of health benefit overlap substantially. There have been no rigorous, long-term studies comparing contenders for best diet laurels using methodology that precludes bias and confounding, and for many reasons such studies are unlikely. In the absence of such direct comparisons, claims for the established superiority of any one specific diet over others are exaggerated. The weight of evidence strongly supports a theme of healthful eating while allowing for variations on that theme. A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention and is consistent with the salient components of seemingly distinct dietary approaches. Efforts to improve public health through diet are forestalled not for want of knowledge about the optimal feeding of Homo sapiens but for distractions associated with exaggerated claims, and our failure to convert what we reliably know into what we routinely do. Knowledge in this case is not, as of yet, power; would that it were so.

BACKGROUND:

Two large clinical trials have shown a reduced rate of breast cancer development in high-risk women in the initial 5 years of follow-up after use of aromatase inhibitors (MAP.3 and International Breast Cancer Intervention Study II [IBIS-II]). Here, we report blinded long-term follow-up results for the IBIS-II trial, which compared anastrozole with placebo, with the objective of determining the efficacy of anastrozole for preventing breast cancer (both invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ) in the post-treatment period.

METHODS:

IBIS-II is an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Postmenopausal women at increased risk of developing breast cancer were recruited and were randomly assigned (1:1) to either anastrozole (1 mg per day, oral) or matching placebo daily for 5 years. After treatment completion, women were followed on a yearly basis to collect data on breast cancer incidence, death, other cancers, and major adverse events (cardiovascular events and fractures). The primary outcome was all breast cancer.

FINDINGS:

3864 women were recruited between Feb 2, 2003, and Jan 31, 2012. 1920 women were randomly assigned to 5 years anastrozole and 1944 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 131 months (IQR 105-156), a 49% reduction in breast cancer was observed for anastrozole (85 vs 165 cases, hazard ratio [HR] 0·51, 95% CI 0·39-0·66, p<0·0001). The reduction was larger in the first 5 years (35 vs 89, 0·39, 0·27-0·58, p<0·0001), but still significant after 5 years (50 vs 76 new cases, 0·64, 0·45-0·91, p=0·014), and not significantly different from the first 5 years (p=0·087). Invasive oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer was reduced by 54% (HR 0·46, 95% CI 0·33-0·65, p<0·0001), with a continued significant effect in the period after treatment. A 59% reduction in ductal carcinoma in situ was observed (0·41, 0·22-0·79, p=0·0081), especially in participants known to be oestrogen receptor-positive (0·22, 0·78-0·65, p<0·0001). No significant difference in deaths was observed overall (69 vs 70, HR 0·96, 95% CI 0·69-1·34, p=0·82) or for breast cancer (two anastrozole vs three placebo). A significant decrease in non-breast cancers was observed for anastrozole (147 vs 200, odds ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·91, p=0·0042), owing primarily to non-melanoma skin cancer. No excess of fractures or cardiovascular disease was observed.

INTERPRETATION:

This analysis has identified a significant continuing reduction in breast cancer with anastrozole in the post-treatment follow-up period, with no evidence of new late side-effects. Further follow-up is needed to assess the effect on breast cancer mortality.

FUNDING:

Cancer Research UK, the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Sanofi Aventis, and AstraZeneca.

OBJECTIVES:

To systematically assess the evidence of Craniosacral Therapy (CST) for the treatment of chronic pain.

METHODS:

PubMed, Central, Scopus, PsycInfo and Cinahl were searched up to August 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CST in chronic pain patients were eligible. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain intensity and functional disability (primary outcomes) using Hedges' correction for small samples. Secondary outcomes included physical/mental quality of life, global improvement, and safety. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.

RESULTS:

Ten RCTs of 681 patients with neck and back pain, migraine, headache, fibromyalgia, epicondylitis, and pelvic girdle pain were included. CST showed greater post intervention effects on: pain intensity (SMD = -0.32, 95%CI = [- 0.61,-0.02]) and disability (SMD = -0.58, 95%CI = [- 0.92,-0.24]) compared to treatment as usual; on pain intensity (SMD = -0.63, 95%CI = [- 0.90,-0.37]) and disability (SMD = -0.54, 95%CI = [- 0.81,-0.28]) compared to manual/non-manual sham; and on pain intensity (SMD = -0.53, 95%CI = [- 0.89,-0.16]) and disability (SMD = -0.58, 95%CI = [- 0.95,-0.21]) compared to active manual treatments. At six months, CST showed greater effects on pain intensity (SMD = -0.59, 95%CI = [- 0.99,-0.19]) and disability (SMD = -0.53, 95%CI = [- 0.87,-0.19]) versus sham. Secondary outcomes were all significantly more improved in CST patients than in other groups, except for six-month mental quality of life versus sham. Sensitivity analyses revealed robust effects of CST against most risk of bias domains. Five of the 10 RCTs reported safety data. No serious adverse events occurred. Minor adverse events were equally distributed between the groups.

DISCUSSION:

In patients with chronic pain, this meta-analysis suggests significant and robust effects of CST on pain and function lasting up to six months. More RCTs strictly following CONSORT are needed to further corroborate the effects and safety of CST on chronic pain.