Safety of Longer-Term Doxycycline Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Implications for Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection Chemoprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia have significantly increased over the past decade in the United States. Doxycycline as chemoprophylaxis (i.e., postexposure prophylaxis) offers promise for addressing bacterial STIs. The goal of the current study was to evaluate the safety of longer-term doxycycline use (defined as 8 or more weeks) in the context of potential use as STI chemoprophylaxis through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. METHODS: This review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to search MEDLINE/PubMed for clinical studies published from August 2003 to January 2023 that reported on adverse events with doxycycline use with a focus on side effects and metabolic effects of long-term use. RESULTS: A total of 67 studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, studies on longer-term doxycycline use reported 0% to greater than 50% adverse events ranging from mild to severe. Most common adverse events included gastrointestinal symptoms (i.e., nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain), dermatologic (i.e., rash), and neurological (i.e., headache and dizziness) symptoms. Discontinuation of doxycycline due to adverse events was relatively uncommon in most studies. A meta-analysis of placebo controlled clinical trials (N = 18) revealed that gastrointestinal and dermatological adverse events were more likely to occur in the doxycycline group. CONCLUSIONS: Longer-term (8+ weeks) doxycycline use is generally safe and may be associated with minor side effects. Further research is needed on the potential metabolic impact of longer-term doxycycline use.

Anticipated Barriers to Sustained Engagement in Treatment With Medications for Opioid Use Disorder After Release From Incarceration.

BACKGROUND: Although the burden of opioid use disorder is disproportionately high among persons who are incarcerated, medications for opioid use disorder are often unavailable in correctional settings. The Rhode Island Department of Corrections provides all 3 classes of medications for opioid use disorder to clinically eligible persons who are incarcerated. Despite a decrease in fatal overdoses among persons with recent criminal legal system involvement since the program's implementation, barriers to continued engagement in treatment after release from incarceration still exist. METHODS: We conducted 40 semistructured, qualitative interviews with people who were incarcerated and enrolled in the comprehensive medications for opioid use disorder program at the Rhode Island Department of Corrections. Analysis applied a general, inductive approach using NVivo 12. RESULTS: Participants discussed barriers to treatment engagement before incarceration, as well as anticipated barriers to medications to treat opioid use disorder continuation after release from incarceration. Structural factors including housing, health insurance, transportation, and the treatment program structure, as well as social factors such as social support networks were perceived to influence retention in medications to treat opioid use disorder post-release. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that people with opioid use disorder who are incarcerated encounter unique challenges upon community reentry. Addressing structural factors that pose barriers to post-release engagement is essential to sustaining retention. We recommend utilization of peer recovery specialists to alleviate some of the stress of navigating the structural barriers identified by participants.

Upstage Rate of Complex Sclerosing Lesions/Radial Scars.

BACKGROUND: Radial scars (RS) and complex sclerosing lesions (CSL) are breast radiologic findings described as small, stellate lesions causing architectural distortion. This can mimic malignancy. Core needle biopsy (CNB) is often performed. Advances in breast imaging have led to increased detection of RS/CSL. The upstage rate of RS/CSL to in situ or invasive disease is 0-40%. We sought to determine the upstaging rate of RS/CSL to in situ, invasive disease, or high-risk lesion at our institution to create excision guidelines. METHODS: The pathology database of a single center was searched for RS/CSL, from January 2013 to September 2020. We included CNB without malignancy or high-risk lesion (eg, atypical ductal hyperplasia). Patient demographics, indications for biopsy, imaging findings, biopsy procedure, and final pathology were collected. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were included. 52.3% had CNB for architectural distortion on mammography, 18.2% for mass, 11.4% for calcifications, 2.3% for abnormal MRI, and 15.9% for multiple reasons (eg, calcifications and mass). Most had an ultrasound: 43.2% had no abnormality and 34.1% had a mass. All CNB were vacuum assisted, 65.9% with 9-gauge needle, and averaged 10.0 cores. 77.3% were stereotactic biopsies, 13.6% ultrasound, and 6.8% MRI. 59.1% had excision after CNB. 82.1% of patients did not upstage. One patient upstaged to invasive ductal carcinoma (3.6%) and two patients to high-risk lesion (7.1%). DISCUSSION: There was low upstage rate of RS/CSL on excisional biopsy. Centers could consider close surveillance for RS/CSL on CNB. Longer follow-up in cases of deferred excision is needed to ensure oncologic safety.

A comparison between leukocyte reduced low titer whole blood vs non-leukocyte reduced low titer whole blood for massive transfusion activation.

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhagic shock is the leading cause of survivable death in trauma patients and recent literature has focused on resuscitation strategies including transfusing low-titer group O whole blood (LTOWB). Debate remains regarding whether leukocyte reduced (LR) whole blood is of clinical benefit or detriment to patients requiring massive transfusion. This study compares survival outcomes between LR-LTOWB and non-LR LTOWB. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The objective of this prospective, observational study was to detect any difference in 24-hour survival between patients receiving LR-LTOWB and non-LR LTOWB during their massive transfusion activation. Secondary objectives were to report any difference in ICU LOS, ventilation days, in-hospital survival, and hospital LOS. Data collected included patient sex, age, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS), cause of death, and number of LTOWB transfused. RESULTS: A total of 167 patients received 271 LTOWB transfusions. There were 97 patients that received 168 units of LR-LTOWB while 70 patients received 103 units of non-LR LTOWB. The two study groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, ISS, TRISS, and the number of LTOWB transfused. The use of LR LTOWB during the initial massive transfusion activation in traumatically injured patients was not associated with increased 24-hour survival compared to when using non-LR LTOWB. No transfusion associated adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of either LR or non-LR LTOWB was not associated with >24 hours survival in patients presenting with massive hemorrhage. The high cost and the rapid decline in platelet count of LR whole blood may be a consideration.