METHODS: A cross-sectional, anonymous US national online survey was conducted among 8049 Kratom users in October, 2016 to obtain demographic, health, and Kratom use pattern information.
RESULTS: People who use Kratom to mitigate illicit drug dependence self-reported less pain and better overall health than individuals who used Kratom for acute/chronic pain. Self-reported improvements in pre-existing mental health symptoms (attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder/attention deficit disorder, anxiety, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression) attributed to Kratom use were greater than those related to somatic symptoms (back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, acute pain, chronic pain, fibromyalgia). Demographic variables, including female sex, older age, employment status, and insurance coverage correlated with increased likelihood of Kratom use.
CONCLUSIONS: Kratom use may serve as a self-treatment strategy for a diverse population of patients with pre-existing health diagnoses. Healthcare providers need to be engaging with patients to address safety concerns and potential limitations of its use in clinical practice for specific health conditions.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A detailed questionnaire was distributed to 28 highly-experienced interventional cardiologists ('Authors') from 13 Asia-Pacific countries. The results were discussed at a meeting on patient selection, technical consideration, deployment practices and patient management. Potential patient benefits of Absorb compared to metallic DES, the learning curve for patient selection and preparation, device deployment, and subsequent patient management approaches are presented.
CONCLUSIONS: Current practices are derived from guidelines optimized for European patients. Differences in approach exist in the Asia-Pacific context, including limited access to imaging and frequency of occurrence of complex lesions. Nevertheless, the use of the Absorb BVS ('Absorb') in certain Asia-Pacific countries has flourished and practices here are continuing to mature.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We reviewed all GenBank submissions of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase sequences with or without protease and identified 287 studies published between March 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013, with more than 25 recently or chronically infected ARV-naïve individuals. These studies comprised 50,870 individuals from 111 countries. Each set of study sequences was analyzed for phylogenetic clustering and the presence of 93 surveillance drug-resistance mutations (SDRMs). The median overall TDR prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), south/southeast Asia (SSEA), upper-income Asian countries, Latin America/Caribbean, Europe, and North America was 2.8%, 2.9%, 5.6%, 7.6%, 9.4%, and 11.5%, respectively. In SSA, there was a yearly 1.09-fold (95% CI: 1.05-1.14) increase in odds of TDR since national ARV scale-up attributable to an increase in non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) resistance. The odds of NNRTI-associated TDR also increased in Latin America/Caribbean (odds ratio [OR] = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.06-1.25), North America (OR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.12-1.26), Europe (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.13), and upper-income Asian countries (OR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.12-1.55). In SSEA, there was no significant change in the odds of TDR since national ARV scale-up (OR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.92-1.02). An analysis limited to sequences with mixtures at less than 0.5% of their nucleotide positions—a proxy for recent infection—yielded trends comparable to those obtained using the complete dataset. Four NNRTI SDRMs—K101E, K103N, Y181C, and G190A—accounted for >80% of NNRTI-associated TDR in all regions and subtypes. Sixteen nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) SDRMs accounted for >69% of NRTI-associated TDR in all regions and subtypes. In SSA and SSEA, 89% of NNRTI SDRMs were associated with high-level resistance to nevirapine or efavirenz, whereas only 27% of NRTI SDRMs were associated with high-level resistance to zidovudine, lamivudine, tenofovir, or abacavir. Of 763 viruses with TDR in SSA and SSEA, 725 (95%) were genetically dissimilar; 38 (5%) formed 19 sequence pairs. Inherent limitations of this study are that some cohorts may not represent the broader regional population and that studies were heterogeneous with respect to duration of infection prior to sampling.
CONCLUSIONS: Most TDR strains in SSA and SSEA arose independently, suggesting that ARV regimens with a high genetic barrier to resistance combined with improved patient adherence may mitigate TDR increases by reducing the generation of new ARV-resistant strains. A small number of NNRTI-resistance mutations were responsible for most cases of high-level resistance, suggesting that inexpensive point-mutation assays to detect these mutations may be useful for pre-therapy screening in regions with high levels of TDR. In the context of a public health approach to ARV therapy, a reliable point-of-care genotypic resistance test could identify which patients should receive standard first-line therapy and which should receive a protease-inhibitor-containing regimen.