Humans

Importance There are limited data on the effectiveness of mailed self-collection to increase cervical cancer screening (CCS) participation in underresourced health care settings.

Objective To compare the effectiveness of mailed self-collection kits, with and without patient navigation, to telephone reminders to increase CCS in a safety-net health system.

Design, Setting, and Participants This pragmatic, parallel, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial within a publicly funded safety-net health system in Houston, Texas, compared (1) telephone reminder (TR) for clinic-based screening, (2) TR with mailed self-collection (SC), and (3) TR with mailed SC and patient navigation among a random sample of CCS-eligible patients not up to date with CCS, including those with no CCS on record. The trial was conducted from February 20, 2020, to August 31, 2023.

Interventions All groups received a TR by a patient navigator to attend clinic-based CCS. In the SC and SC with patient navigation groups, participants were additionally mailed a self-collection kit to their home as an alternative to clinic-based CCS. In the SC with patient navigation group, the mailed kit was followed by a patient navigation telephone call.

Main Outcomes and Measures CCS participation was defined as attendance for clinic-based screening or return of a mailed self-collection kit within 6 months of randomization and determined through electronic health record review.

Results Of the 2474 participants in the intent-to-screen analyses (median [IQR] age, 49 [39-57] years), 2325 (94.0%) were from racial or ethnic minoritized populations (1655 [66.9%] identifying as Hispanic or Latino, 82 [3.3%] as non-Hispanic Asian, 535 [21.6%] as non-Hispanic Black or African American, and 53 [2.1%] as other or unknown race, including American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander), and 1388 (56.1%) were covered by the county’s publicly funded financial assistance program. At 6 months, 144 of 828 participants (17.4%) in the TR group, 340 of 828 (41.1%) in the SC group, and 381 of 818 (46.6%) in the SC with patient navigation group had participated in CCS. Compared to TR, relative participation was 2.36 (95% CI, 1.99-2.80) times higher for SC and 2.68 (95% CI, 2.27-3.16) times higher for SC with patient navigation; screening difference was 23.7% (95% CI, 19.4%-27.9%) for SC and 29.2% (95% CI, 24.9%-33.5%) for SC with patient navigation.

Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial in a safety-net health system, SC was effective for increasing CCS participation among underscreened patients; there were modest additional gains from SC with patient navigation. The large increase in CCS participation using SC compared to TR suggest that SC should be considered in safety-net settings with suboptimal CCS coverage.

Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03898167

•
In clinical trials involving middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, testosterone treatment led to improved sexual activity and libido, correction of anemia, and modestly improved energy, mood, and walking ability. (The following key points also refer to findings from clinical trials involving this patient population.)
•
Testosterone treatment did not improve cognition in men without a previously diagnosed cognitive disorder and did not prevent progression to diabetes in men with prediabetes or improve glycemic control in those with diabetes.
•
Testosterone treatment did not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events among men with preexisting cardiovascular disease.
•
Testosterone treatment did not increase the risk of prostate cancer or acute urinary retention and did not worsen lower urinary tract symptoms.
•
Testosterone treatment was associated with an increased risk of clinical fractures and pulmonary embolism.
•
The decision to administer testosterone treatment in a man with hypogonadism should be based on the severity of the hypogonadism and an assessment of the potential benefits and risks of treatment.

Importance: Existing pharmacological treatments for insomnia have significant limitations.

Objective: To assess the effective dose range, safety, and tolerability of the novel selective orexin-2 receptor antagonist seltorexant in insomnia disorder.

Design, setting, and participants: This randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, dose-finding, polysomnography study was conducted from November 2017 to April 2019 at 55 sites in 6 countries and analyzed in August 2019. The timeline for submission of this data for publication was impacted by internal strategic decision-making. Adults (aged 18-64 years) and older adults (aged 65-85 years) with insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index score ≥15) and no psychiatric comorbidity were included.

Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1:1:1:1 to receive nightly oral-seltorexant (5 mg, 10 mg, or 20 mg), placebo, or zolpidem (5-10 mg) for 14 days.

Main outcomes and measures: Primary and key secondary outcomes included the dose-response relationship of night 1 latency to persistent sleep (LPS) and wake after sleep onset over the first 6 hours (WASO-6). Other secondary outcomes included night 13 LPS and WASO-6. Due to asymmetrical distributions of LPS and WASO-6 at baseline, log transformation was applied and results were expressed as back-transformed least-squares mean (LSM) ratios for comparisons between groups.

Results: Overall, 364 participants (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [12.4] years; 246 [67.6%] female) received seltorexant, 5 mg (n = 71), 10 mg (n = 74), or 20 mg (n = 71); placebo (n = 75); or zolpidem (n = 73). The night 1 dose-response relationship for LPS was significant (with trend test t statistics ≥3.99 and adjusted P values <.001 for all 4 prespecified models), with greater improvements in seltorexant, 10 mg and 20 mg, vs placebo (10 mg: LSM ratio, 0.64; 90% CI, 0.51-0.81; 20 mg: LSM ratio, 0.51; 90% CI, 0.41-0.64) and in seltorexant, 20 mg, vs zolpidem (LSM ratio, 0.71; 90% CI, 0.57-0.88). The night 1 dose-response relationship for WASO-6 was also significant, with trend test t statistics ≥3.99 and adjusted P values <.001 for all 4 prespecified models (seltorexant, 10 mg: LSM ratio, 0.68; 90% CI, 0.55-0.85; seltorexant, 20 mg: LSM ratio, 0.60; 90% CI, 0.48-0.74). Night 1 LPS and WASO-6 improvements were maintained on night 13 for seltorexant, 10 mg and 20 mg, but diminished for zolpidem. On night 13, compared with zolpidem, seltorexant, 10 mg and 20 mg, improved LPS by 30% and 28%, respectively, and seltorexant, 20 mg, improved WASO-6 by 31%. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were lower across the combined seltorexant doses (73/216 [33.8%]) relative to placebo (37/75 [49.3%]) and zolpidem (31/73 [42.5%]). Two participants experienced serious TEAEs during the double-blind phase (1 in the seltorexant, 20 mg, group and 1 in the zolpidem group). Three participants in the seltorexant, 5 mg, and 1 in the seltorexant, 20 mg, group experienced asymptomatic electrocardiogram-related TEAEs leading to discontinuation.

Conclusions and relevance: Among participants with insomnia in this study, seltorexant, 10 mg and 20 mg, improved sleep initiation and maintenance throughout 14 days of treatment. Seltorexant was generally well tolerated.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03375203.

Importance Hemorrhoidal disease, pathology of the tissue lining of the anal canal, affects approximately 10 million individuals in the US. Hemorrhoidal disease may impair quality of life due to bleeding, pain, anal irritation, and tissue prolapse.

Observations Hemorrhoids are classified as internal, external, or mixed (concurrent internal and external hemorrhoidal disease). Internal hemorrhoids originate above the dentate line, the boundary between the upper and lower anal canal, and may cause rectal bleeding, discomfort, and tissue prolapse from the anal canal. Internal hemorrhoid prolapse is classified as grade I (into anal canal), grade II (beyond the anus with spontaneous reduction), grade III (requiring manual reduction), and grade IV (irreducible). External hemorrhoids, arising below the dentate line, cause rectal pain when engorged or thrombosed. Initial treatment of all hemorrhoidal disease involves increasing intake of dietary fiber and water and avoiding straining during defecation. Phlebotonics (eg, flavonoids [thought to improve venous tone]) reduce bleeding, rectal pain, and swelling, although symptom recurrence reaches 80% within 3 to 6 months after treatment cessation. If dietary modification and phlebotonics are ineffective, grade I to grade III internal hemorrhoidal disease can be treated with office-based interventions. Rubber band ligation—placing a band around the base of hemorrhoid tissue during anoscopy to restrict blood flow—resolves symptoms in 89% of patients, but repeated banding is needed in up to 20%. Sclerotherapy, which induces fibrosis with a sclerosant injection, is efficacious in the short term (weeks to months) among 70% to 85% of patients, but long-term remission occurs in only one-third of patients. Infrared coagulation uses heat to coagulate hemorrhoidal tissue, yielding 70% to 80% success in reducing bleeding and prolapse. Excisional hemorrhoidectomy, for disease unresponsive to office-based therapy or for mixed hemorrhoidal disease, achieves low recurrence (2%-10%), although with longer recovery (9-14 days). External hemorrhoidal disease rarely requires surgery unless acutely thrombosed. Outpatient clot evacuation within 72 hours of onset of a thrombosed external hemorrhoid is associated with decreased pain and reduced risk of repeat thrombosis. Patients presenting more than 72 hours after external hemorrhoid acute thrombosis should receive medical treatment (eg, stool softeners, oral and topical analgesics such as 5% lidocaine).

Conclusions and Relevance Hemorrhoidal disease affects 10 million people in the US. First-line treatment is increased fiber intake, avoidance of straining during defecation, and phlebotonics. In-office rubber band ligation for grade I to III internal hemorrhoid disease is first-line procedural treatment for persistent symptoms despite conservative therapies. Excisional hemorrhoidectomy is recommended for grade III to IV prolapse, thrombosis, or mixed hemorrhoidal disease that does not improve with less invasive approaches.