Post hoc analysis of food costs associated with Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet, whole food, plant-based diet, and typical baseline diet of individuals with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus in a nonrandomized crossover trial with meals provided.

BACKGROUND: Americans consume diets that fall short of dietary recommendations, and the cost of healthier diets is often cited as a barrier to dietary change. We conducted a nonrandomized crossover trial with meals provided utilizing 2 diets: Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) and whole food, plant-based (WFPB), and thus had intake data from baseline and both intervention diets. OBJECTIVES: Using actual diet records, describe food costs of baseline diets of individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) as well as therapeutic DASH and WFPB diets. METHODS: Three-day food records were collected and analyzed for each 7-d diet phase: baseline, DASH, and WFPB. Nutrient content was analyzed using the Nutrient Data System for Research and cost was determined using Fillet, an application to manage menu pricing. Food costs were calculated for each diet as consumed and adjusted to a standardized 1800 kcal/d. Ingredient-only costs of food away from home (FAFH) were approximated and analyzed. Costs were analyzed using linear mixed-effect models as a function of diet. RESULTS: Fifteen subjects enrolled; 12 completed all dietary phases. The baseline, DASH, and WFPB diets, as consumed, cost $15.72/d (95% CI; $13.91, $17.53), $12.74/d ($11.23, $14.25), and $9.78/d ($7.97, $11.59), respectively. When adjusted to an 1800 kcal/d intake, the baseline, DASH, and WFPB diets cost $15.69/d ($13.87, $17.52), $14.92/d ($13.59, $16.26), and $11.96/d ($10.14, $13.78), respectively. When approximated ingredient-only costs of FAFH were analyzed, as consumed baseline [$11.01 ($9.53, $12.49)] and DASH diets [$11.81 ($10.44, $13.18)] had similar costs; WFPB diet [$8.83 ($7.35, $10.31)] cost the least. CONCLUSIONS: In this short-term study with meals provided, the food costs of plant-predominant diets offering substantial metabolic health benefits were less than or similar to baseline food costs of adults with insulin-treated T2DM. Longer-term data without meal provision are needed for more generalizable results. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04048642.

The acute effects of a DASH diet and whole food, plant-based diet on insulin requirements and related cardiometabolic markers in individuals with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: There is limited research regarding insulin dosing changes following adoption of plant-based diets. We conducted a nonrandomized crossover trial utilizing two plant-based diets (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, or DASH, and Whole Food, Plant-Based, or WFPB) to assess acute changes in insulin requirements and associated markers among individuals with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Participants (n = 15) enrolled in a 4-week trial with sequential, one-week phases: Baseline, DASH 1, WFPB, and DASH 2. Each diet was ad libitum and meals were provided. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, daily insulin usage was 24%, 39%, and 30% lower after DASH 1, WFPB, and DASH 2 weeks respectively (all p < 0.01). Insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was 49% lower (p < 0.01) and the insulin sensitivity index was 38% higher (p < 0.01) at the end of the WFPB week before regressing toward baseline during DASH 2. Total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol, leptin, urinary glucose, and hsCRP decreased to a nadir at the end of the WFPB week before increasing during DASH 2. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting a DASH or WFPB diet can result in significant, rapid changes in insulin requirements, insulin sensitivity, and related markers among individuals with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, with larger dietary changes producing larger benefits.

Affordability of Forensic Assertive Community Treatment Programs: A Return-on-Investment Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, the authors assessed return on investment (ROI) associated with a forensic assertive community treatment (FACT) program. METHODS: A retrospective secondary data analysis of a randomized controlled trial comprising 70 legal-involved patients with severe mental illness was conducted in Rochester, New York. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either FACT or outpatient psychiatric treatment including intensive case management. Unit of service costs associated with psychiatric emergency department visits, psychiatric inpatient days, and days in jail were obtained from records of New York State Medicaid and the Department of Corrections. The total dollar value difference between the two trial arms calculated on a per-patient-per-year (PPPY) basis constituted the return from the FACT intervention. The FACT investment cost was defined by the total additional PPPY cost associated with FACT implementation relative to the control group. ROI was calculated by dividing the return by the investment cost. RESULTS: The estimated return from FACT was $27,588 PPPY (in 2019 dollars; 95% confidence interval [CI]=$3,262-$51,913), which was driven largely by reductions in psychiatric inpatient days, and the estimated investment cost was $18,440 PPPY (95% CI=$15,215-$21,665), implying an ROI of 1.50 (95% CI=0.35-2.97) for FACT. CONCLUSIONS: The Rochester FACT program was associated with approximately $1.50 return for every $1 spent on its implementation, even without considering potential returns from other sources, including reductions in acute medical care, crime-related damages, and public safety costs. ROI estimates were highly dependent on context-specific factors, particularly Medicaid reimbursement rates for assertive community treatment and hospital stays.