A review of approaches to 18F radiolabelling affinity peptides and proteins

Affinity peptide and protein‐ (APP) based radiotracers are an increasingly popular class of radiotracer in positron emission tomography (PET), which was once dominated by the use of small molecule radiotracers. Radiolabelled monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are important examples of APPs, yet a preference for smaller APPs, which exhibit fast pharmacokinetics and permit rapid PET aided diagnosis, has become apparent. ¹⁸F exhibits favourable physical characteristics for APP radiolabelling and has been described as an ideal PET radionuclide. Notwithstanding, ¹⁸F radiolabelling of APP is challenging, and this is echoed in the literature where a number of diverse approaches have been adopted. This review seeks to assess and compare the approaches taken to ¹⁸F APP radiolabelling with the intention of highlighting trends within this expanding field. Generic themes have emerged in the literature, namely the use of mild radiolabelling conditions, a preference of site‐specific methodologies with an impetus for short, automated procedures which produce high‐yielding [¹⁸F]APPs.     

Factors associated with provision of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate to adolescents by US health care providers

ObjectiveIdentify factors associated with healthcare providers' frequency of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) provision to adolescents.Study designWe analyzed data from surveys mailed to a nationally representative sample of public-sector providers and office-based physicians (n=1984). We estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of factors associated with frequent DMPA provision to adolescents in the past year.ResultsAlthough most providers (>95%) considered DMPA safe for adolescents, fewer reported frequent provision (89% of public-sector providers; 64% of office-based physicians). Among public-sector providers, factors associated with lower odds of frequent provision included working in settings without Title X funding (aOR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30–0.64), reporting primary care as their primary clinical focus versus reproductive or adolescent health (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.28–0.61), and providing fewer patients with family planning services. Among office-based physicians, factors associated with lower odds of frequent provision included specializing in obstetrics/gynecology (aOR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27–0.91) and family medicine (aOR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09–0.47) versus adolescent medicine, completing training ≥15 versus <5 years ago (aOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09–0.83), and reporting that 0–24% of patients pay with Medicaid or other government healthcare assistance versus ≥50% (aOR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09–0.61). The reason most commonly reported by providers for infrequent DMPA provision was patient preference for another method.ConclusionsWhile most providers reported frequently providing DMPA to adolescents, training on evidence-based recommendations for contraception, focused on subgroups of providers with lower odds of frequent DMPA provision, may increase adolescents' access to contraception.ImplicationsAlthough >95% of providers considered depot medroxyprogesterone (DMPA) a safe contraceptive for adolescents, only 89% of public-sector providers and 64% of office-based physicians reported frequently providing DMPA to adolescents. Provider training on evidence-based recommendations for contraception counseling and provision may increase adolescents' access to DMPA and all methods of contraception.