A Survey of Practitioner’s Knowledge of Psychiatric Medication Costs

Introduction. Escalating medical costs continue to be an issue facing contemporary medicine. One factor contributing to this escalation may be physicians’ knowledge of medication costs. As physicians increasingly face opportunities to treat a variety of symptoms and conditions in a single patient, including co-morbid psychiatric disorders or complications, accurate knowledge of medication costs becomes increasingly important. Methods. Resident and attending physicians (N = 16) across the disciplines of internal medicine, psychiatry, and combined internal medicine/psychiatry from a large, mid-western medical school were surveyed on the costs of several medications that are used to manage physical and psychiatric symptoms. Results. Differences were found in the perceived estimated cost of medications among practitioners particularly with specialty internal medicine training as compared to those with additional psychiatric training/experience. Trends also were noted across practitioners with psychiatric and internal medicine/psychiatry training. Conclusions. The breadth of training and experience can affect accuracy in estimating anticipated costs of medication regimens

Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety of Fixed Dose Lovastatin and NiacinER Combination in Asian Indian Dyslipidemic Patients: A Multicentric Study

Asian Indian dyslipidemia is characterized by: borderline high low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and apolipoprotein (apo) B; high triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and apoA1; and high lipoprotein(a) (lp[a]). We performed a controlled multicentric trial in India to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed dose combination of lovastatin and niacin extended release (niacinER) formulation in patients with moderate to severe dyslipidemia. Consecutive subjects that satisfied the selection criteria, agreed to an informed consent, and with no baseline presence of liver/renal disease or heart failure were enrolled in the study. After a 4-week run-in period there were 142 patients with LDL levels ≥130 mg/dL. Eleven patients were excluded because of uncontrolled hyperglycemia and 131 patients were recruited. After baseline evaluation of clinical and biochemical parameters all subjects were administered lovastatin (20 mg) and niacinER (500 mg) combination once daily. Dose escalation was done on basis of lipid parameters at 8 weeks and in 11 patients increased to lovastatin (20 mg) and niacinER (1000 mg). An intention-to-treat analysis was performed and data was analyzed using nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank test. Thirteen patients (10%) were lost to follow-up and 4 (3%) withdrew because of dermatological adverse effects: flushing, pruritus, and rash. The mean values of various lipid parameters (mg/dL) at baseline, and at weeks 4, 12, and 24 respectively were: total cholesterol 233.9 ± 27, 206.3 ± 27, 189.8 ± 31, and 174.9 ± 27 mg/dL; LDL cholesterol 153.4 ± 22, 127.3 ± 21, 109.2 ± 27, and 95.1 ± 23 mg/dL; triglycerides 171.1 ± 72, 159.5 ± 75, 149.2 ± 45, and 135.2 ± 40 mg/dL; HDL cholesterol 45.6 ± 7, 48.9 ± 7, 51.6 ± 9, and 53.9 ± 10 mg/dL; lp(a) 48.5 ± 26, 40.1 ± 21, 35.4 ± 21, and 26.9 ± 19 mg/dL; and apoA1/apoB ratio 0.96 ± 0.7, 1.04 ± 0.4, 1.17 ± 0.5, and 1.45 ± 0.5 (p < 0.01). The percentage of decline in various lipids at 4, 12, and 24 weeks was: total cholesterol 11.8%, 18.8%, and 25.2%; LDL cholesterol 17.0%, 28.8%, and 38.0%; triglyceride 6.8%, 12.8%, and 21.0%; lp(a) 17.5%, 26.9%, and 44.5% respectively (p < 0.01). HDL cholesterol and apoA1/apoB increased by 7.2%, 13.1%, and 18.2%; and 7.9%, 21.9%, and 51.6% respectively (p < 0.01). Target LDL levels (<100 mg/dL in subjects with manifest coronary heart disease or diabetes; <130 mg/dL in subjects with >2 risk factors) were achieved in 92 (80.7%) patients. No significant changes were observed in systolic or diastolic blood pressure, blood creatinine, transaminases, or creatine kinase. A fixed dose combination of lovastatin and niacinER significantly improved cholesterol lipoprotein lipids as well as lp(a) and apoA1/apoB levels in Asian Indian dyslipidemic patients. Satisfactory safety and tolerability profile in this population was also demonstrated

Taking stock of 10 years of published research on the ASHA programme: Examining India’s national community health worker programme from a health systems perspective

Background: As India’s accredited social health activist (ASHA) community health worker (CHW) programme enters its second decade, we take stock of the research undertaken and whether it examines the health systems interfaces required to sustain the programme at scale. Methods: We systematically searched three databases for articles on ASHAs published between 2005 and 2016. Articles that met the inclusion criteria underwent analysis using an inductive CHW–health systems interface framework. Results: A total of 122 academic articles were identified (56 quantitative, 29 mixed methods, 28 qualitative, and 9 commentary or synthesis); 44 articles reported on special interventions and 78 on the routine ASHA program. Findings on special interventions were overwhelmingly positive, with few negative or mixed results. In contrast, 55% of articles on the routine ASHA programme showed mixed findings and 23% negative, with few indicating overall positive findings, reflecting broader system constraints. Over half the articles had a health system perspective, including almost all those on general ASHA work, but only a third of those with a health condition focus. The most extensively researched health systems topics were ASHA performance, training and capacity-building, with very little research done on programme financing and reporting, ASHA grievance redressal or peer communication. Research tended to be descriptive, with fewer influence, explanatory or exploratory articles, and no predictive or emancipatory studies. Indian institutions and authors led and partnered on most of the research, wrote all the critical commentaries, and published more studies with negative results. Conclusion: Published work on ASHAs highlights a range of small-scale innovations, but also showcases the challenges faced by a programme at massive scale, situated in the broader health system. As the programme continues to evolve, critical comparative research that constructively feeds back into programme reforms is needed, particularly related to governance, intersectoral linkages, ASHA solidarity, and community capacity to provide support and oversight

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570