Search

Background: Implementation research generally assumes established evidence-based practices and prior piloting of implementation strategies, which may not be feasible during a public health emergency. We describe the use of a simulation model of the effectiveness of COVID-19 mitigation strategies to inform a stakeholder-engaged process of rapidly designing a tailored intervention and implementation strategy for individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) and intellectual/developmental disabilities (ID/DD) in group homes in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized trial. Methods: We used a validated dynamic microsimulation model of COVID-19 transmission and disease in late 2020/early 2021 to determine the most effective strategies to mitigate infections among Massachusetts group home staff and residents. Model inputs were informed by data from stakeholders, public records, and published literature. We assessed different prevention strategies, iterated over time with input from multidisciplinary stakeholders and pandemic evolution, including varying symptom screening, testing frequency, isolation, contact-time, use of personal protective equipment, and vaccination. Model outcomes included new infections in group home residents, new infections in group home staff, and resident hospital days. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameter uncertainty. Results of the simulations informed a stakeholder-engaged process to select components of a tailored best practice intervention and implementation strategy. Results: The largest projected decrease in infections was with initial vaccination, with minimal benefit for additional routine testing. The initial level of actual vaccination in the group homes was estimated to reduce resident infections by 72.4% and staff infections by 55.9% over the 90-day time horizon. Increasing resident and staff vaccination uptake to a target goal of 90% further decreased resident infections by 45.2% and staff infections by 51.3%. Subsequent simulated removal of masking led to a 6.5% increase in infections among residents and 3.2% among staff. The simulation model results were presented to multidisciplinary stakeholders and policymakers to inform the "Tailored Best Practice" package for the hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. Conclusions: Vaccination and decreasing vaccine hesitancy among staff were predicted to have the greatest impact in mitigating COVID-19 risk in vulnerable populations of group home residents and staff. Simulation modeling was effective in rapidly informing the selection of the prevention and implementation strategy in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. Future implementation may benefit from this approach when rapid deployment is necessary in the absence of data on tailored interventions. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04726371 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Individuals with psychotic symptoms experience substantial morbidity and have shortened life expectancies; early treatment may mitigate the worst effects. Understanding care preceding a first psychotic disorder diagnosis is critical to inform early detection and intervention. Study Design In this observational cohort study using comprehensive information from the Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database, we identified the first psychotic disorder diagnosis in 2016, excluding those with historical psychotic disorder diagnoses in the prior 48 months among those continuous enrollment data. We reviewed visits, medications, and hospitalizations 2012–2016. We used logistic regression to examine characteristics associated with pre-diagnosis antipsychotic use. Study Results There were 2505 individuals aged 15–35 years (146 per 100 000 similarly aged individuals in the database) with a new psychotic disorder diagnosis in 2016. Most (97%) had at least one outpatient visit in the preceding 48 months; 89% had a prior mental health diagnosis unrelated to psychosis (eg, anxiety [60%], depression [60%]). Many received psychotropic medications (77%), including antipsychotic medications (46%), and 68% had a visit for injury or trauma during the preceding 48 months. Characteristics associated with filling an antipsychotic medication before the psychotic disorder diagnosis included male sex and Medicaid insurance at psychosis diagnosis. Conclusions In this insured population of Massachusetts residents with a new psychotic disorder diagnosis, nearly all had some healthcare utilization, visits for injury or trauma were common, and nearly half filled an antipsychotic medication in the preceding 48 months. These patterns of care could represent either pre-disease signals, delays, or both in receiving a formal diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals with serious mental illness have a high prevalence of tobacco use disorder and related early mortality but underutilize smoking cessation medication. The authors determined whether clinician-delivered education to primary care providers regarding safety, efficacy, and importance of cessation medication (provider education [PE]) alone or combined with community health worker (CHW) support would increase tobacco abstinence in this population, compared with usual care. All adult current tobacco smokers receiving psychiatric rehabilitation for serious mental illness through two community agencies in Greater Boston were eligible, regardless of readiness to quit smoking. Primary care clinics were cluster randomized to PE or usual care, with a nested, participant-level randomization to CHW or no CHW in PE-assigned clinics. The primary outcome was blindly assessed, biochemically verified tobacco abstinence at year 2. Overall, 1,010 eligible participants were enrolled. PE was delivered to providers in 53 of 55 assigned clinics; 220 of 336 CHW-assigned participants consented to CHW support. Year 2 abstinence rates were significantly higher among participants assigned to PE+CHW versus usual care (12% vs. 5%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.20–4.79) or PE alone (12% vs. 7%; AOR=1.84, 95% CI=1.04–3.24). No effect of PE alone on abstinence was detected. Compared with participants assigned to usual care, those assigned to PE+CHW had greater odds of varenicline use (OR=2.77, 95% CI=1.61–4.75), which was associated with higher year 2 abstinence (OR=1.97, 95% CI=1.16–3.33). Combined PE and CHW tobacco cessation support increased tobacco abstinence rates among adults with serious mental illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Patients with bipolar disorder treated with lithium often require additional antipsychotics or anticonvulsants. However, the comparative effectiveness and safety of these agents as add-on to lithium has not been studied. Methods: This secondary analysis combined two similar 24-week trials on outpatients with bipolar disorder randomized to lithium (target serum level 0.4–0.6 mEq/L). Guideline-based adjunctive antipsychotics (Li+AP) and anticonvulsants (Li+AC) could be used if clinically indicated and was assessed at every study visit. Response was measured on the Clinical Global Impression scale and we performed adjusted mixed effects linear regression analyses. Analysis of variance tests compared metabolic measures including a binary diagnosis of metabolic syndrome before and after 24 weeks of treatment. Results: Among 379 outpatients (57% female, mean age 38 years, mean Clinical Global Impression 4.4), users of Li+AP (N = 50, primarily quetiapine and aripiprazole) improved to a similar degree (mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.6, standard deviation = 1.5) as those using lithium-only (i.e. without adjunctive antipsychotics or anticonvulsants, N = 149, mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.7, standard deviation = 1.4) (p = 0.59). Users of Li+AC (N = 107, primarily lamotrigine and valproate, mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.2, standard deviation = 1.3) and users of Li+AP+AC (N = 73, mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.1, standard deviation = 1.3) showed worse response compared to lithium-only users (all p < 0.01). When comparing Li+AP to Li+AC, users of Li+AP improved slightly better on general (p = 0.05) and manic symptoms (p = 0.01), but showed a worse development of glucose, triglycerides, and metabolic syndrome. Conclusion: Despite treatment-by-indication confounding, these findings are relevant for real-world treatment settings and emphasize the need for randomized trials on this clinically important topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: The 2021 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) increased the availability and magnitude of premium tax credits (PTCs) for consumers purchasing individual marketplace plans in 2021-2022. Millions currently purchase PTC-ineligible plans off of the marketplace. We estimate the proportion of off-marketplace enrollees who would be eligible for the expanded PTCs under ARPA, calculate PTC amounts for eligible enrollees, and examine factors influencing plan choice that could inform outreach efforts. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed data from a survey of a random sample of off-marketplace enrollees in California in 2017 (n = 829). METHODS: Using survey data including self-reported income, household size, and employment status combined with 2021 benchmark premium data from Covered California, we estimate eligibility for PTCs and potential PTC amounts under ARPA among off-marketplace enrollees. We adjust for both survey design weights and poststratification weights. RESULTS: Among off-marketplace enrollees, we estimate that approximately 12% are potentially ineligible for PTCs because they reported incomes less than 100% of the poverty level or because they had access to employer-sponsored coverage for their family through themselves or their partner. The median annual PTC in 2021 for eligible off-marketplace enrollees was $311 but varied greatly by age, family or individual plan, and household income (5%-95% range, $0-$14,836). In 2017, 69% of off-marketplace enrollees were unaware that they had to enroll in marketplace plans to receive PTCs, and 51% received enrollment assistance from insurance brokers. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest the need for targeted outreach to encourage off-marketplace enrollees to switch to marketplace plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]