Acceptability of a Fentanyl Vaccine to Prevent Opioid Overdose and Need for Personalized Decision-Making

BACKGROUND

The opioid epidemic worsened during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Synthetic opioids (primarily fentanyl) comprise the most common drugs involved in overdose (OD) death. A vaccine that blocks fentanyl from reaching the brain to prevent OD is under development, and insight is needed into its acceptability.

METHODS

Using a semi-structured interview guide, persons with opioid use disorder (OUD), family, professionals, and the public were interviewed about attitudes and concerns regarding a fentanyl vaccine. Reactions to fictional clinical vignettes of persons at risk of OUD because of pain and/or substance use histories were collected, analyzed, and quantified for favorability. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Among N = 64 participants, (70.3% female, average age 32.4 years), attitudes were favorable toward a fentanyl vaccine, with preference for lifelong durability (76% of n = 55 asked). Perceived benefits centered on the potential for a life-saving intervention, suffering averted, healthcare dollars saved, and the utility of a passive harm reduction strategy. Concerns centered on uncertainty regarding vaccine safety, questions about efficacy, worry about implications for future pain management, stigma, and need for supportive counseling and guidance to personalize decision making. Reactions to vignettes revealed complex attitudes toward fentanyl vaccination when considering recipient age, health history, and future risks for addiction and pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive responses to a fentanyl vaccine were found along with appreciation for the complexity of a vaccine strategy to prevent OD in the setting of pain and uncertain durability. Further research is needed to elucidate operational, ethical, and communications strategies to advance the model.

A SMART approach to reducing paroxysmal atrial fibrillation symptoms: Results from a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

Stress and negative emotions contribute to atrial fibrillation (AF). Mind-body practices decrease stress and negative emotions and may reduce AF episodes and improve quality of life for patients with AF.

Objective

We examined the effects of a multimodal mind-body program, the SMART Program, on AF-related quality of life in patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF).

Methods

In this randomized, waitlist-controlled pilot trial, 18 subjects with PAF participated in an 8-week SMART Program delivered online immediately or 3 months later. Validated measures were completed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months (waitlist group only).

Results

Comparing pre- vs post-program scores among all 18 participants, subjects reported improvement in AF-related quality of life (Cohen’s d = 0.75, P = .005) and depression (d = 0.50, P = .05) but not anxiety (d = 0.35, P = .16). Subjects also reported improvements in AF symptom severity (P = .026), distress (P = .014), positive affect (P = .003), and ability to cope with stress (P = .001). Compared to waitlist control subjects, those in the immediate group reported improvement in positive affect (d = 1.20, P = .021) and coping with stress (d = 1.36, P = .011) after participating in the program.

Conclusion

The SMART Program, delivered virtually, may enhance positive emotions and coping with stress as well as decrease negative emotions and AF symptoms. These results warrant a larger trial to better understand the potential benefits of such programs for patients with PAF.

Stress Management and Resiliency Training for Healthcare Professionals: A Mixed-Methods, Quality-Improvement, Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of a multi-modal resilience program, the Stress Management and Resiliency Training (SMART) Program, on healthcare professional well-being and job satisfaction.

METHODS

This pilot, mixed-methods, quality improvement, cohort study assessed perceived stress, physical and mental health, job satisfaction, burnout, and value of the curriculum to attendees.

RESULTS

Participants experienced a significant reduction in perceived stress (P < 0.001) and significant improvements in global mental health (P = 0.001), physical health (P = 0.045), and job satisfaction (P = 0.047). There was no significant improvement in burnout. Qualitative analysis of free text responses revealed appreciation for the skills taught, increased resiliency, and a positive impact on relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

Delivering the SMART Program to healthcare professionals is feasible and may serve as a useful tool for reducing stress and increasing resilience.