Benzonatate Safety and Effectiveness: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVE: To review the available literature regarding the treatment effects and efficacy of benzonatate needed to better inform patients, providers, and regulators evaluating its role in modern medical therapies. DATA SOURCES: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Library, and Scopus for original research articles evaluating the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety profile of benzonatate from January 1956 through August 2022. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: The identified studies were screened for relevance and then assessed for inclusion through a full-text review, data extraction, and quality assessment by multiple reviewers using the online software Covidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: The selection process resulted in 37 articles consisting of 21 cohort studies, 5 experimental studies, and 11 case studies and series. Initial clinical studies exploring potential therapeutic benefits collected data from very small populations and limited clinical settings. Safety is primarily assessed in terms of toxicity due to overdose or inappropriate use. Quality assessment raised concerns for high degrees of biases primarily related to the limited sample size, data collection, generalizability, and study design. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review reveals substantial limitations within existing evidence pertaining to the safety and clinical effectiveness of benzonatate and thus, a need for large observational studies or randomized trials to better characterize its role and value in modern medical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Rising safety concerns should bring closer scrutiny upon the prescription of benzonatate whose approval is founded upon evidence that would not stand up to current regulatory review.

Employer-Sponsored Health Centers Provide Access to Integrated Care via a Hybrid of Virtual and In-Person Visits.

Background: Since the explosion of telemedicine resulting from the SARS-CoV2 pandemic, employers have been particularly interested in virtual primary care as a novel means of expanding primary care services. The purpose of this study is to describe a model of integrated care delivered both in-person and virtually at employer-sponsored health centers nationwide. The key outcomes of this analysis were the proportion of all care delivered in-person and virtually by clinical discipline, the types of care and member satisfaction for care delivered in-person and virtually, and a description of the use of multiple clinical disciplines by the employee population. Methods: Retrospective observational study comparing health services utilization of primary care, behavioral health, and physical medicine services both in-person and virtually in employer-sponsored clinics between January 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. Results: Of the 331,967 visits with employer-sponsored health center staff, 63% were in-person and 37% were delivered virtually. Most visits were for primary care services (59.5%), with physical medicine visits and behavioral health visits accounting for 25.1% and 15.4%, respectively. Whereas the preponderance of behavioral health visits were virtual visits (72.5%), less than a quarter (18.2%) of physical medicine visits were delivered virtually. 19.6% of patients were seen by more than two clinical disciplines and 2.6% were seen by three different disciplines. Overall, patients were highly likely to recommend the health center across both modalities (Net Promoter Score 89.1 for in-person care and 88.4 for virtual care). Discussion: The future of employer-sponsored integrated team-based care may require a hybrid approach that can lean heavily on virtual visits but requires the infrastructure necessary for in-person care.

Changes in unintentional cannabis exposures in children 6 months to 5 years reported to United States poison centers during the first nine months of the coronavirus-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Almost half of exposures reported to United States (US) poison centers are exploratory ingestions in children under the age of 5 years. Pediatric cannabis exposures reported to US poison centers have risen over the last twenty years, with greater increases in the last 5 years. In 2020, the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in widespread stay-at-home orders and subsequent changes in work, education, and daycare. This study describes the changes in pediatric cannabis exposures during the first nine months of the COVID-19 pandemic relative to the three years before the pandemic. METHODS: Cases were identified from the National Poison Data System. Inclusion criteria was unintentional cannabis exposure in children aged 6 months to 5 years between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2020. Analysis was performed with segmented regression of interrupted time series analysis comparing January 2017-March 2020 (pre-COVID-19) to April 2020-December 2020 (COVID-19 period). Autocorrelation was assessed using Dubin-Watson test. RESULTS: There were 7,679 unintentional pediatric exposures from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2020. There was a significant increase of 3.1% per month during the pre-COVID-19 period (p < .0001). A statistically significant immediate increase in number of exposures per month occurred in April 2020 (58.4%; p < .0001). The slope in the COVID-19 period was -0.01% (p = .99). No autocorrelation was detected. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Unintentional cannabis exposures in children aged 6 months to 5 years reported to United States poison centers increased significantly after the initial COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. This trend may be associated with COVID-19 quarantines, increased time children are spending at home, increased availability of cannabis products in homes, or other reasons. Future efforts should evaluate specific factors that resulted in the observed increases in pediatric exposures.

Environmental Sampling for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 During a COVID-19 Outbreak on the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship.

During a COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship we sampled environmental surfaces after passengers and crew vacated cabins. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 58 of 601 samples (10%) from case cabins 1-17 days after cabins were vacated but not from noncase cabins. There was no difference in detection proportion between cabins of symptomatic (15%, 28/189; cycle quantification [Cq], 29.79-38.86) and asymptomatic cases (21%, 28/131; Cq, 26.21-38.99). No SARS-CoV-2 virus was isolated from any of the samples. Transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 from symptomatic and asymptomatic patients may be similar and surfaces could be involved in transmission.