BACKGROUND:With addiction rates and opioid deaths increasing, health care providers are obligated to help stem the opioid crisis. As limited studies examine the comparative effectiveness of fixed-dose combination nonopioid analgesia to opioid-containing analgesia, a comparative effectiveness study was planned and refined by conducting a pilot study.METHODS:The Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study (OARS) pilot, a stratified, randomized, multisite, double-blind clinical trial, was designed to test technology and procedures to be used in the full OARS trial. Participants engaged in the full protocol, enabling the collection of OARS outcome data. Eligible participants reporting to 1 of 5 sites for partial or full bony impacted mandibular third molar extraction were stratified by biologic sex and randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups, OPIOID or NONOPIOID. OPIOID participants were provided 20 doses of hydrocodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 300 mg. NONOPIOID participants were provided 20 doses of ibuprofen 400 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg. OARS outcomes data, including pain experience, adverse effects, sleep quality, pain interference, overall satisfaction, and remaining opioid tablets available for diversion, were collected via surveys, electronic medication bottles, eDiary, and activity/sleep monitor.RESULTS:Fifty-three participants were randomized with 50 completing the OARS pilot protocol. Across all outcome pain domains, in all but 1 time period, NONOPIOID was better in managing pain than OPIOID (P < 0.05 level). Other outcomes suggest less pain interference, less adverse events, better sleep quality, better overall satisfaction, and fewer opioid-containing tablets available for diversion.DISCUSSION:Results suggest patients requiring impacted mandibular third molar extraction would benefit from fixed-dose combination nonopioid analgesia.KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT:Study results suggest fixed-dose nonopioid combination ibuprofen 400 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg is superior to opioid-containing analgesic (hydrocodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg). This knowledge should inform surgeons and patients in the selection of postsurgical analgesia.

Objectives: To estimate the association between safety perception on vaccine acceptance and adoptions of risk mitigation strategies among dental health care workers (DHCWs). Methods: A survey was emailed to DHCWs in the New Jersey area from December 2020 to January 2021. Perceived safety from regular SARS-CoV-2 testing of self, coworkers, and patients and its association with vaccine hesitancy and risk mitigation were ascertained. Risk Mitigation Strategy (RiMS) scores were computed from groupings of office measures: 1) physical distancing (reduced occupancy, traffic flow, donning of masks, minimal room crowding), 2) personal protective equipment (fitted for N95; donning N95 masks; use of face shields; coverings for head, body, and feet), and 3) environmental disinfection (suction, air filtration, ultraviolet, surface wiping). Results: SARS-CoV-2 testing of dental professionals, coworkers, and patients were perceived to provide safety at 49%, 55%, and 68%, respectively. While dentists were least likely to feel safe with regular self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 (P < 0.001) as compared with hygienists and assistants, they were more willing than hygienists (P = 0.004; odds ratio, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.21 to 2.66]) and assistants (P < 0.001; odds ratio, 3.32 [95% CI, 1.93 to 5.71]) to receive the vaccine. RiMS scores ranged from 0 to 19 for 467 participants (mean [SD], 10.9 [2.9]). RiMS scores did not significantly differ among groups of DHCWs; however, mean RiMS scores were higher among those who received or planned to receive the COVID-19 vaccine than those with who did not (P = 0.004). DHCWs who felt safer with regular testing had greater RiMS scores than those who did not (11.0 vs. 10.3, P = 0.01). Conclusions: Understanding DHCWs’ perception of risk and safety is crucial, as it likely influences attitudes toward testing and implementation of office risk mitigation policies. Clinical studies that correlate risk perception and RiMS with SARS-CoV-2 testing are needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of RiMS in dental care settings. Knowledge Transfer Statement: Educators, clinicians, and policy makers can use the results of this study when improving attitudes toward testing and implementation of risk mitigation policies within dental offices, for current and future pandemics.

Abstract Background We studied risk factors, antibodies, and symptoms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in a diverse, ambulatory population. Methods A prospective cohort (n = 831) previously undiagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent serial testing (SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction, immunoglobulin G [IgG]) for 6 months. Results Ninety-three participants (11.2%) tested SARS-CoV-2-positive: 14 (15.1%) asymptomatic, 24 (25.8%) severely symptomatic. Healthcare workers (n = 548) were more likely to become infected (14.2% vs 5.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.4–3.3) and severely symptomatic (29.5% vs 6.7%). IgG antibodies were detected after 79% of asymptomatic infections, 89% with mild-moderate symptoms, and 96% with severe symptoms. IgG trajectories after asymptomatic infections (slow increases) differed from symptomatic infections (early peaks within 2 months). Most participants (92%) had persistent IgG responses (median 171 days). In multivariable models, IgG titers were positively associated with symptom severity, certain comorbidities, and hospital work. Dyspnea and neurologic changes (including altered smell/taste) lasted ≥ 120 days in ≥ 10% of affected participants. Prolonged symptoms (frequently more severe) corresponded to higher antibody levels. Conclusions In a prospective, ethnically diverse cohort, symptom severity correlated with the magnitude and trajectory of IgG production. Symptoms frequently persisted for many months after infection. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04336215.