Marijuana Use and Hemoglobin Concentrations in NHANES 2009-2018: Implications for Subclinical Hypoxemia.

RATIONALE: Cannabis use is rapidly growing in the United States, but its health implications are poorly understood, particularly when compared with cigarette smoking. Previous research conducted on animal models or non-representative populations with small sample sizes has yielded mixed results on the impact of marijuana use on hemoglobin levels, which may reflect subclinical hypoxemia and/or carbon monoxide exposure. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the association between marijuana use and hemoglobin levels in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 16,038 individuals aged 18 to 59 years enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2009 to 2018. We related current and former marijuana use with measured hemoglobin levels, with adjustment for demographics, education, housing, and cigarette smoking status in multivariable analyses that incorporated complex survey weights. As candidate positive and negative control exposures, we used similar methods to relate cigarette smoking and benzodiazepine use, respectively, with hemoglobin concentrations. RESULTS: Current marijuana use was associated with significantly higher hemoglobin concentrations. After multivariable adjustment, compared with never use, current marijuana use was associated with a 0.111, 95% CI [0.021,0.201] g/dL higher hemoglobin concentration, whereas former use was associated with a 0.047, 95% CI [-0.018,0.113] g/dL higher concentration (linear trend p=0.01). As hypothesized, cigarette smoking was also associated with higher hemoglobin concentrations, while benzodiazepine use was not. CONCLUSIONS: Among American adults, current marijuana use was associated with higher hemoglobin concentrations, as is cigarette smoking but not benzodiazepine use. These results suggest the possibility that marijuana smoking induces subclinical hypoxemia stimulating hemoglobin production. Further confirmation of this observational finding is needed, in light of the increasing medical and recreational use of smoked marijuana products.

Older Adult and Primary Care Practitioner Perspectives on Using, Prescribing, and Deprescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain.

Importance: Guidelines recommend deprescribing opioids in older adults due to risk of adverse effects, yet little is known about patient-clinician opioid deprescribing conversations. Objective: To understand the experiences of older adults and primary care practitioners (PCPs) with using opioids for chronic pain and discussing opioid deprescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study conducted semistructured individual qualitative interviews with 18 PCPs and 29 adults 65 years or older prescribed opioids between September 15, 2022, and April 26, 2023, at a Boston-based academic medical center. The PCPs were asked about their experiences prescribing and deprescribing opioids to older adults. Patients were asked about their experiences using and discussing opioid medications with PCPs. Main Outcome and Measures: Shared and conflicting themes between patients and PCPs regarding perceptions of opioid prescribing and barriers to deprescribing. Results: In total, 18 PCPs (12 [67%] younger that 50 years; 10 [56%] female; and 14 [78%] based at an academic practice) and 29 patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [5] years; 19 [66%] female) participated. Participants conveyed that conversations between PCPs and patients on opioid use for chronic pain were typically challenging and that conversations regarding opioid risks and deprescribing were uncommon. Three common themes related to experiences with opioids for chronic pain emerged in both patient and PCP interviews: opioids were used as a last resort, opioids were used to improve function and quality of life, and trust was vital in a clinician-patient relationship. Patients and PCPs expressed conflicting views on risks of opioids, with patients focusing on addiction and PCPs focusing on adverse drug events. Both groups felt deprescribing conversations were often unsuccessful but had conflicting views on barriers to successful conversations. Patients felt deprescribing was often unnecessary unless an adverse event occurred, and many patients had prior negative experiences tapering. The PCPs described gaps in knowledge on how to taper, a lack of clinical access to monitor patients during tapering, and concerns about patient resistance. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, PCPs and older adults receiving long-term opioid therapy viewed the use of opioids as a beneficial last resort for treating chronic pain but expressed dissonant views on the risks associated with opioids, which made deprescribing conversations challenging. Interventions, such as conversation aids, are needed to support collaborative discussion about deprescribing opioids.

Evaluation of a benzodiazepine deprescribing quality improvement initiative for older adults in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are commonly prescribed long-term benzodiazepines for anxiety and insomnia despite evidence of risks and limited evidence of long-term benefits. Recent quality measures and guidelines have recommended benzodiazepine deprescribing, yet there is little real-world data on clinic-based deprescribing programs. METHODS: We developed a benzodiazepine deprescribing quality improvement program for older adults at a large US academic medical center. The program targeted adults aged 65 years and older who were prescribed chronic benzodiazepines by their primary care physician (PCP). PCPs were contacted to opt-out patients not suitable for deprescribing; then eligible patients were mailed a letter discussing patient-specific risks and advising them to discuss deprescribing with their PCP or a pharmacist who was available to support tapering. The primary outcomes were the number of patients who discussed deprescribing and who initiated a taper within 90 days of outreach. RESULTS: Of 504 older adults prescribed benzodiazepines, 133 (26%) were opted out by their PCPs leaving a cohort of 371 (median age 71 years [IQR 68-75], 58% female, 82% White). The median daily diazepam milligram equivalent was 5 mg (IQR 3-6 mg) and 30% were prescribed long-acting benzodiazepines. Three months following patient outreach, 97 patients (26%) had a documented discussion of benzodiazepines with their PCP or clinic pharmacist. Of these patients, 35 (36%) had documentation of a deprescribing discussion and 25 (26%) initiated a taper. At 12 months, 16 patients (64%) were tapered successfully, with nine (36%) patients taking a lower benzodiazepine dose and seven (28%) discontinuing benzodiazepines completely. CONCLUSIONS: A low-intensity benzodiazepine deprescribing outreach program led to deprescribing conversations for a minority of patients, but one-quarter of older adults who engaged in a conversation chose to taper and nearly two-thirds sustained reduced use. Incorporating benzodiazepine deprescribing into routine care may require more intensive population-health efforts to engage patients and clinicians.

Systems Analysis of a Dedicated Ambulatory Respiratory Unit for Seeing and Ensuring Follow-up of Patients With COVID-19 Symptoms.

COVID-19 necessitated significant care redesign, including new ambulatory workflows to handle surge volumes, protect patients and staff, and ensure timely reliable care. Opportunities also exist to harvest lessons from workflow innovations to benefit routine care. We describe a dedicated COVID-19 ambulatory unit for closing testing and follow-up loops characterized by standardized workflows and electronic communication, documentation, and order placement. More than 85% of follow-ups were completed within 24 hours, with no observed staff, nor patient infections associated with unit operations. Identified issues include role confusion, staffing and gatekeeping bottlenecks, and patient reluctance to visit in person or discuss concerns with phone screeners.

Immediate Effects of Body Checking Behaviour on Negative and Positive Emotions in Women with Eating Disorders: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Approach.

OBJECTIVES: Cognitive-behavioural models of eating disorders state that body checking arises in response to negative emotions in order to reduce the aversive emotional state and is therefore negatively reinforced. This study empirically tests this assumption. METHODS: For a seven-day period, women with eating disorders (n = 26) and healthy controls (n = 29) were provided with a handheld computer for assessing occurring body checking strategies as well as negative and positive emotions. Serving as control condition, randomized computer-emitted acoustic signals prompted reports on body checking and emotions. RESULTS: There was no difference in the intensity of negative emotions before body checking and in control situations across groups. However, from pre- to post-body checking, an increase in negative emotions was found. This effect was more pronounced in women with eating disorders compared with healthy controls. DISCUSSION: Results are contradictory to the assumptions of the cognitive-behavioural model, as body checking does not seem to reduce negative emotions.

Costs and cost effectiveness of a health care provider-directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening among Veterans.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer screening is underused, particularly in the Veterans Affairs (VA) population. In a randomized controlled trial, a health care provider-directed intervention that offered quarterly feedback to physicians on their patients' colorectal cancer screening rates led to a 9% increase in colorectal cancer screening rates among veterans. The objective of this secondary analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening promotion intervention. METHODS: Providers in the intervention arm attended an educational workshop on colorectal cancer screening and received confidential feedback on individual and group-specific colorectal cancer screening rates. The primary end point was completion of colorectal cancer screening tests. Sensitivity analyses investigated cost-effectiveness estimates varying the data collection methods, costs of labor and technology, and the effectiveness of the intervention. RESULTS: Rates of colorectal cancer screening for the intervention versus control arms were 41.3% v 32.4%, respectively (P < .05). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was dollar 978 per additional veteran screened based on feedback reports generated from manual review of records. However, if feedback reports could be generated from information technology systems, sensitivity analyses indicate that the cost-effectiveness estimate would decrease to dollar 196 per additional veteran screened. CONCLUSION: An intervention based on quarterly feedback reports to physicians improved colorectal cancer screening rates at a VA medical center. This intervention would be cost effective if relevant data could be generated by existing information technology systems. Our findings may have broad applicability because a 2005 Medicare initiative will provide the VA electronic medical record system as a free benefit to all US physicians.