Revisiting diabetes risk of olanzapine versus aripiprazole in serious mental illness care.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) carries a risk of type 2 diabetes, but questions remain about the diabetogenic effects of SGAs. AIMS: To assess the diabetes risk associated with two frequently used SGAs. METHOD: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults with schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder or severe major depressive disorder (MDD) exposed during 2008-2013 to continuous monotherapy with aripiprazole or olanzapine for up to 24 months, with no pre-period exposure to other antipsychotics. Newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes was quantified with targeted minimum loss-based estimation; risk was summarised as the restricted mean survival time (RMST), the average number of diabetes-free months. Sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate potential confounding by indication. RESULTS: Aripiprazole-treated patients had fewer diabetes-free months compared with olanzapine-treated patients. RMSTs were longer in olanzapine-treated patients, by 0.25 months [95% CI: 0.14, 0.36], 0.16 months [0.02, 0.31] and 0.22 months [0.01, 0.44] among patients with schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder and severe MDD, respectively. Although some sensitivity analyses suggest a risk of unobserved confounding, E-values indicate that this risk is not severe. CONCLUSIONS: Using robust methods and accounting for exposure duration effects, we found a slightly higher risk of type 2 diabetes associated with aripiprazole compared with olanzapine monotherapy regardless of diagnosis. If this result was subject to unmeasured selection despite our methods, it would suggest clinician success in identifying olanzapine candidates with low diabetes risk. Confirmatory research is needed, but this insight suggests a potentially larger role for olanzapine in the treatment of well-selected patients, particularly for those with schizophrenia, given the drug's effectiveness advantage among them.

Racial-Ethnic Disparities in Quality of Care Among Medicaid Beneficiaries With Schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to update and expand the evidence on the quality of health care and disparities in care among Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia. METHODS: Adult beneficiaries of New York State Medicaid with schizophrenia receiving care during 2016-2019 were identified. Composite quality scores were derived from item response theory models by using evidence-based indicators of the quality of mental and general medical health care. Risk-adjusted racial-ethnic differences in quality were estimated and summarized as percentiles relative to White beneficiaries' mean quality scores. RESULTS: The study included 71,013 beneficiaries; 42.8% were Black, 22.9% Latinx, 27.4% White, and 6.9% other race-ethnicity. Overall, 68.8% had a mental health follow-up within 30 days of discharge, and 90.2% had no preventable hospitalizations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma. Among beneficiaries receiving antipsychotic medications, medication adherence was adequate for 43.7%. Fourteen indicators for mental and general medical health care quality yielded three composites: two for mental health care (pharmacological and ambulatory) and one for acute mental and general medical health care. Mean quality of pharmacological mental health care for Black and Latinx beneficiaries was lower than for White beneficiaries (39th and 44th percentile, respectively). For Black beneficiaries, mean quality of ambulatory mental health care was also lower (46th percentile). In New York City, Black beneficiaries received lower-quality care in all domains. The only meaningful group difference in the quality of acute mental and general medical health care indicated higher-quality care for individuals with other race-ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in the quality of Medicaid-financed health care persist, particularly for Black beneficiaries. Regional differences merit further attention.

Healthcare Access for a Diverse Population with Schizophrenia Following the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on the most disadvantaged members of society, including minorities and those with disabling chronic illnesses such as schizophrenia. We examined the pandemic's impacts among New York State's Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia in the immediate post-pandemic surge period, with a focus on equity of access to critical healthcare. We compared changes in utilization of key behavioral health outpatient services and inpatient services for life-threatening conditions between the pre-pandemic and surge periods for White and non-White beneficiaries. We found racial and ethnic differences across all outcomes, with most differences stable over time. The exception was pneumonia admissions-while no differences existed in the pre-pandemic period, Black and Latinx beneficiaries were less likely than Whites to be hospitalized in the surge period despite minorities' heavier COVID-19 disease burden. The emergence of racial and ethnic differences in access to scarce life-preserving healthcare may hold lessons for future crises.

Managing Urinary Incontinence for Women in Primary Care: Environmental Scan (Base Year).

Urinary incontinence (UI) is a highly prevalent condition among women worldwide. Although effective nonsurgical treatments exist, including pharmacological, behavioral, and physical therapies, many women with the condition are never diagnosed because of a lack of information, stigma, and the absence of regular screening in primary care, and those who are diagnosed might not receive or adhere to treatment. In this study, the authors present an environmental scan of studies published from 2012 through 2022 that assess the dissemination and implementation of nonsurgical UI treatment-including screening, management, and referral strategies-for women in primary care. The scan was conducted as part of the RAND's support and evaluation contract for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Managing Urinary Incontinence initiative. The initiative, which builds on the agency's EvidenceNOW model, funds five grant projects to disseminate and implement improved nonsurgical treatment of UI for women within primary care practices in separate regions of the United States.

Self-Administered Skills-Based Virtual Reality Intervention for Chronic Pain: Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic pain often have limited access to comprehensive care that includes behavioral pain management strategies. Virtual reality (VR) is an immersive technology and emerging digital behavioral pain therapy with analgesic efficacy for acute pain. We found no scientific literature on skills-based VR behavioral programs for chronic pain populations. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of a self-administered VR program that included content and skills informed by evidence-based behavioral treatment for chronic pain. The secondary aim is to determine the preliminary efficacy of the VR program in terms of average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, mood, and sleep, and its impact on pain-related cognition and self-efficacy. The tertiary aim was to conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and compare the VR treatment with an audio-only treatment. This comparison isolated the immersive effects of the VR program, thereby informing potential mechanisms of effect. METHODS: We conducted an RCT involving a web-based convenience sample of adults (N=97) aged 18-75 years with self-reported chronic nonmalignant low back pain or fibromyalgia, with an average pain intensity >4 over the past month and chronic pain duration >6 months. Enrolled participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 unblinded treatments: (1) VR: a 21-day, skills-based VR program for chronic pain; and (2) audio: an audio-only version of the 21-day VR program. The analytic data set included participants who completed at least 1 of 8 surveys administered during the intervention period: VR (n=39) and audio (n=35). RESULTS: The VR and audio groups launched a total of 1067 and 1048 sessions, respectively. The majority of VR participants (n=19/25, 76%) reported no nausea or motion sickness. High satisfaction ratings were reported for VR (n=24/29, 83%) and audio (n=26/33, 72%). For VR efficacy, symptom improvement over time was found for each pain variable (all P<.001), with results strengthening after 2 weeks. Importantly, significant time×group effects were found in favor of the VR group for average pain intensity (P=.04), pain-related inference with activity (P=.005), sleep (P<.001), mood (P<.001), and stress (P=.003). For pain catastrophizing and pain self-efficacy, we found a significant declining trend for both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: High engagement and satisfaction combined with low levels of adverse effects support the feasibility and acceptability of at-home skills-based VR for chronic pain. A significant reduction in pain outcomes over the course of the 21-day treatment both within the VR group and compared with an audio-only version suggests that VR has the potential to provide enhanced treatment and greater improvement across a range of pain outcomes. These findings provide a foundation for future research on VR behavioral interventions for chronic pain.