Effects of body position on autonomic regulation of cardiovascular function in young, healthy adults

Background: Analysis of rhythmic patterns embedded within beat-to-beat variations in heart rate (heart rate variability) is a tool used to assess the balance of cardiac autonomic nervous activity and may be predictive for prognosis of some medical conditions, such as myocardial infarction. It has also been used to evaluate the impact of manipulative therapeutics and body position on autonomic regulation of the cardiovascular system. However, few have compared cardiac autonomic activity in supine and prone positions, postures commonly assumed by patients in manual therapy. We intend to redress this deficiency. Methods: Heart rate, heart rate variability, and beat-to-beat blood pressure were measured in young, healthy non-smokers, during prone, supine, and sitting postures and with breathing paced at 0.25 Hz. Data were recorded for 5 minutes in each posture: Day 1 - prone and supine; Day 2 - prone and sitting. Paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to evaluate posture-related differences in blood pressure, heart rate, and heart rate variability. Results: Prone versus supine: blood pressure and heart rate were significantly higher in the prone posture (p < 0.001). Prone versus sitting: blood pressure was higher and heart rate was lower in the prone posture (p < 0.05) and significant differences were found in some components of heart rate variability. Conclusion: Cardiac autonomic activity was not measurably different in prone and supine postures, but heart rate and blood pressure were. Although heart rate variability parameters indicated sympathetic dominance during sitting (supporting work of others), blood pressure was higher in the prone posture. These differences should be considered when autonomic regulation of cardiovascular function is studied in different postures

Health System, Community-Based, or Usual Dementia Care for Persons With Dementia and Caregivers

ImportanceThe effectiveness of different approaches to dementia care is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of health system-based, community-based dementia care, and usual care for persons with dementia and for caregiver outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial of community-dwelling persons living with dementia and their caregivers conducted at 4 sites in the US (enrollment June 2019-January 2023; final follow-up, August 2023).InterventionsParticipants were randomized 7:7:1 to health system-based care provided by an advanced practice dementia care specialist (n = 1016); community-based care provided by a social worker, nurse, or licensed therapist care consultant (n = 1016); or usual care (n = 144).Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were caregiver-reported Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) severity score for persons living with dementia (range, 0-36; higher scores, greater behavioral symptoms severity; minimal clinically important difference [MCID], 2.8-3.2) and Modified Caregiver Strain Index for caregivers (range, 0-26; higher scores, greater strain; MCID, 1.5-2.3). Three secondary outcomes included caregiver self-efficacy (range, 4-20; higher scores, more self-efficacy).ResultsAmong 2176 dyads (individuals with dementia, mean age, 80.6 years; 58.4%, female; and 20.6%, Black or Hispanic; caregivers, mean age, 65.2 years; 75.8%, female; and 20.8% Black or Hispanic), primary outcomes were assessed for more than 99% of participants, and 1343 participants (62% of those enrolled and 91% still alive and had not withdrawn) completed the study through 18 months. No significant differences existed between the 2 treatments or between treatments vs usual care for the primary outcomes. Overall, the least squares means (LSMs) for NPI-Q scores were 9.8 for health system, 9.5 for community-based, and 10.1 for usual care. The difference between health system vs community-based care was 0.30 (97.5% CI, -0.18 to 0.78); health system vs usual care, -0.33 (97.5% CI, -1.32 to 0.67); and community-based vs usual care, -0.62 (97.5% CI, -1.61 to 0.37). The LSMs for the Modified Caregiver Strain Index were 10.7 for health system, 10.5 for community-based, and 10.6 for usual care. The difference between health system vs community-based care was 0.25 (97.5% CI, -0.16 to 0.66); health system vs usual care, 0.14 (97.5% CI, -0.70 to 0.99); and community-based vs usual care, -0.10 (97.5% CI, -0.94 to 0.74). Only the secondary outcome of caregiver self-efficacy was significantly higher for both treatments vs usual care but not between treatments: LSMs were 15.1 for health system, 15.2 for community-based, and 14.4 for usual care. The difference between health system vs community-based care was -0.16 (95% CI, -0.37 to 0.06); health system vs usual care, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.26-1.14); and community-based vs usual care, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.29).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized trial of dementia care programs, no significant differences existed between health system-based and community-based care interventions nor between either active intervention or usual care regarding patient behavioral symptoms and caregiver strain.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03786471

Preferences and decisional considerations relating to opioid agonist therapy among Ukrainian people who use drugs: A conjoint analysis survey.

Scaling up opioid agonist therapies (OAT) is the most effective strategy to control combined HIV and opioid epidemics, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA), where HIV incidence and mortality continue to increase. Patient concerns about OAT, however, have undermined scale-up. The objective of this study is to understand Ukrainian opioid use disorder patient preferences about OAT to guide the development of an evidence-informed decision aid for clinical decision-making. We conducted a conjoint-based choice (CBC) survey. Participants were asked to about their preferences relating to 7 attributes of OAT (cost, dosing frequency, concerns about withdrawal symptoms, adverse side effects, improvements in quality of life, precipitation of withdrawal and legislative requirements to be registered as a drug dependent person) and 20 attribute levels for receiving OAT under differing potential treatment constraints. Data were analyzed using Hierarchical Bayesian models. Using respondent-driven sampling and random sampling, we recruited 2,028 people who inject drugs with opioid use disorder. Relative importance (RIS) and partial-worth utility scores (PWUS) were used to assess preferences for attributes and thresholds within each attribute. Cost and dosing frequency were the most important attributes (RIS = 39.2% and RIS = 25.2%, respectively) to potential patients, followed by concerns about withdrawal symptoms (RIS = 10.8%), adverse side effects (RIS = 9.0%), quality-of-life improvement (RIS = 7.5%), precipitation of euphoria (5.2%) and requirement to be registered as a drug- dependent person (RIS = 3.1%). The monthly cost-threshold for willingness-to-pay was 1,900 UAH ($70 USD). In Ukraine, where both governmental and private OAT clinics have emerged and provide markedly different delivery strategies, preferences are mostly driven by out-of-pocket expenses, despite many patients being willing to pay for OAT. Programmatic demands (flexibility and ease of acquiring medications) remain an important consideration while for a minority, clinical concerns about withdrawal symptoms, adverse side effects and OAT impact on life play a smaller role

Part-worth utility scores (zero-centered)^<i>d</i> of OAT program level choices by group.

Part-worth utility scores (zero-centered)d of OAT program level choices by group.</p

Description of attributes.

Scaling up opioid agonist therapies (OAT) is the most effective strategy to control combined HIV and opioid epidemics, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA), where HIV incidence and mortality continue to increase. Patient concerns about OAT, however, have undermined scale-up. The objective of this study is to understand Ukrainian opioid use disorder patient preferences about OAT to guide the development of an evidence-informed decision aid for clinical decision-making. We conducted a conjoint-based choice (CBC) survey. Participants were asked to about their preferences relating to 7 attributes of OAT (cost, dosing frequency, concerns about withdrawal symptoms, adverse side effects, improvements in quality of life, precipitation of withdrawal and legislative requirements to be registered as a drug dependent person) and 20 attribute levels for receiving OAT under differing potential treatment constraints. Data were analyzed using Hierarchical Bayesian models. Using respondent-driven sampling and random sampling, we recruited 2,028 people who inject drugs with opioid use disorder. Relative importance (RIS) and partial-worth utility scores (PWUS) were used to assess preferences for attributes and thresholds within each attribute. Cost and dosing frequency were the most important attributes (RIS = 39.2% and RIS = 25.2%, respectively) to potential patients, followed by concerns about withdrawal symptoms (RIS = 10.8%), adverse side effects (RIS = 9.0%), quality-of-life improvement (RIS = 7.5%), precipitation of euphoria (5.2%) and requirement to be registered as a drug- dependent person (RIS = 3.1%). The monthly cost-threshold for willingness-to-pay was 1,900 UAH ($70 USD). In Ukraine, where both governmental and private OAT clinics have emerged and provide markedly different delivery strategies, preferences are mostly driven by out-of-pocket expenses, despite many patients being willing to pay for OAT. Programmatic demands (flexibility and ease of acquiring medications) remain an important consideration while for a minority, clinical concerns about withdrawal symptoms, adverse side effects and OAT impact on life play a smaller role.</div

Inclusivity in global research.

Scaling up opioid agonist therapies (OAT) is the most effective strategy to control combined HIV and opioid epidemics, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA), where HIV incidence and mortality continue to increase. Patient concerns about OAT, however, have undermined scale-up. The objective of this study is to understand Ukrainian opioid use disorder patient preferences about OAT to guide the development of an evidence-informed decision aid for clinical decision-making. We conducted a conjoint-based choice (CBC) survey. Participants were asked to about their preferences relating to 7 attributes of OAT (cost, dosing frequency, concerns about withdrawal symptoms, adverse side effects, improvements in quality of life, precipitation of withdrawal and legislative requirements to be registered as a drug dependent person) and 20 attribute levels for receiving OAT under differing potential treatment constraints. Data were analyzed using Hierarchical Bayesian models. Using respondent-driven sampling and random sampling, we recruited 2,028 people who inject drugs with opioid use disorder. Relative importance (RIS) and partial-worth utility scores (PWUS) were used to assess preferences for attributes and thresholds within each attribute. Cost and dosing frequency were the most important attributes (RIS = 39.2% and RIS = 25.2%, respectively) to potential patients, followed by concerns about withdrawal symptoms (RIS = 10.8%), adverse side effects (RIS = 9.0%), quality-of-life improvement (RIS = 7.5%), precipitation of euphoria (5.2%) and requirement to be registered as a drug- dependent person (RIS = 3.1%). The monthly cost-threshold for willingness-to-pay was 1,900 UAH ($70 USD). In Ukraine, where both governmental and private OAT clinics have emerged and provide markedly different delivery strategies, preferences are mostly driven by out-of-pocket expenses, despite many patients being willing to pay for OAT. Programmatic demands (flexibility and ease of acquiring medications) remain an important consideration while for a minority, clinical concerns about withdrawal symptoms, adverse side effects and OAT impact on life play a smaller role.</div

Seed characteristics for RDS sampling.

Scaling up opioid agonist therapies (OAT) is the most effective strategy to control combined HIV and opioid epidemics, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA), where HIV incidence and mortality continue to increase. Patient concerns about OAT, however, have undermined scale-up. The objective of this study is to understand Ukrainian opioid use disorder patient preferences about OAT to guide the development of an evidence-informed decision aid for clinical decision-making. We conducted a conjoint-based choice (CBC) survey. Participants were asked to about their preferences relating to 7 attributes of OAT (cost, dosing frequency, concerns about withdrawal symptoms, adverse side effects, improvements in quality of life, precipitation of withdrawal and legislative requirements to be registered as a drug dependent person) and 20 attribute levels for receiving OAT under differing potential treatment constraints. Data were analyzed using Hierarchical Bayesian models. Using respondent-driven sampling and random sampling, we recruited 2,028 people who inject drugs with opioid use disorder. Relative importance (RIS) and partial-worth utility scores (PWUS) were used to assess preferences for attributes and thresholds within each attribute. Cost and dosing frequency were the most important attributes (RIS = 39.2% and RIS = 25.2%, respectively) to potential patients, followed by concerns about withdrawal symptoms (RIS = 10.8%), adverse side effects (RIS = 9.0%), quality-of-life improvement (RIS = 7.5%), precipitation of euphoria (5.2%) and requirement to be registered as a drug- dependent person (RIS = 3.1%). The monthly cost-threshold for willingness-to-pay was 1,900 UAH ($70 USD). In Ukraine, where both governmental and private OAT clinics have emerged and provide markedly different delivery strategies, preferences are mostly driven by out-of-pocket expenses, despite many patients being willing to pay for OAT. Programmatic demands (flexibility and ease of acquiring medications) remain an important consideration while for a minority, clinical concerns about withdrawal symptoms, adverse side effects and OAT impact on life play a smaller role.</div

Relative importance scores (%) of OAT program attributes by group.

Relative importance scores (%) of OAT program attributes by group.</p