METHODS: Within an extensive research consortium, we evaluated prescription rates for first- (FGA) and second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) LAI drugs and their clinical correlates among 3557 subjects diagnosed with schizophrenia across 15 Asian countries and region.
RESULTS: Overall, an average of 17.9% (638/3557; range: 0.0%-44.9%) of treated subjects were prescribed LAI antipsychotics. Those given LAI vs orally administered agents were significantly older, had multiple hospitalizations, received multiple antipsychotics more often, at 32.4% higher doses, were more likely to manifest disorganized behavior or aggression, had somewhat superior psychosocial functioning and less negative symptoms, but were more likely to be hospitalized, with higher BMI, and more tremor. Being prescribed an FGA vs SGA LAI agent was associated with male sex, aggression, disorganization, hospitalization, multiple antipsychotics, higher doses, with similar risks of adverse neurological or metabolic effects. Rates of use of LAI antipsychotic drugs to treat patients diagnosed with schizophrenia varied by more than 40-fold among Asian countries and given to an average of 17.9% of treated schizophrenia patients. We identified the differences in the clinical profiles and treatment characteristics of patients who were receiving FGA-LAI and SGA-LAI medications.
DISCUSSION: These findings behoove clinicians to be mindful when evaluating patients' need to be on LAI antipsychotics amidst multifaceted considerations, especially downstream adverse events such as metabolic and extrapyramidal side effects.
METHODS: Within an Asian research consortium focusing on pharmaco-epidemiological factors in schizophrenia, we evaluated rates of MS coprescription, including high doses (>1000 mg/day lithium-equivalents) and clinical correlates.
RESULTS: Among 3557 subjects diagnosed with schizophrenia in 14 Asian countries, MSs were coprescribed with antipsychotics in 13.6% (n = 485) of the sample, with 10.9% (n = 53) on a high dose. Adjunctive MS treatment was associated (all p < 0.005) with demographic (female sex and younger age), setting (country and hospitalization), illness (longer duration, more hospitalizations, non-remission of illness, behavioral disorganization, aggression, affective symptoms, and social-occupational dysfunction), and treatment-related factors (higher antipsychotic dose, multiple antipsychotics, higher body mass index, and greater sedation). Patients given high doses of MSs had a less favorable illness course, more behavioral disorganization, poorer functioning, and higher antipsychotic doses.
CONCLUSIONS: Schizophrenia patients receiving adjunctive MS treatment in Asian psychiatric centers are more severely ill and less responsive to simpler treatment regimens.
METHODS: We examined the prevalence and clinical correlates of clozapine treatment for BD in 13 Asian countries and regions (China, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and Thailand) within an Asian Prescription Patterns Research Consortium. We compared BD patients treated with clozapine or not in initial bivariate comparisons followed by multivariable logistic regression modeling.
RESULTS: Clozapine was given to 2.13% of BD patients overall, at a mean daily dose of 275 (confidence interval, 267-282) chlorpromazine-equivalent mg/day. Patients receiving clozapine were older, more likely males, hospitalized, currently manic, and given greater numbers of mood-stabilizing and antipsychotic drugs in addition to clozapine. Logistic regression revealed that older age, male sex, current mania, and greater number of other antipsychotics remained significantly associated with clozapine treatment. Clozapine use was not associated with depressed mood, remission of illness, suicidal risk, or electroconvulsive treatment within the previous 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: The identified associations of clozapine use with particular clinical features call for vigilance in personalized clinical monitoring so as to optimize clinical outcomes of BD patients and to limit risks of adverse effects of polytherapy.
AIM: To synthesize the available mental health stigma literature from Asia and LMICs and compare them on the mental health stigma, anti-stigma interventions, and the effectiveness of such interventions from HICs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed and Google Scholar databases were screened using the following search terms: stigma, prejudice, discrimination, stereotype, perceived stigma, associate stigma (for Stigma), mental health, mental illness, mental disorder psychiatric* (for mental health), and low-and-middle-income countries, LMICs, High-income countries, and Asia, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation/SAARC (for countries of interest). Bibliographic and grey literature were also performed to obtain the relevant records.
RESULTS: The anti-stigma interventions in Asia nations and LMICs are generalized (vs. disorder specific), population-based (vs. specific groups, such as patients, caregivers, and health professionals), mostly educative (vs. contact-based or attitude and behavioral-based programs), and lacking in long-term effectiveness data. Government, international/national bodies, professional organizations, and mental health professionals can play a crucial in addressing mental health stigma.
CONCLUSION: There is a need for a multi-modal intervention and multi-sectoral coordination to mitigate the mental health stigma. Greater research (nationwide surveys, cultural determinants of stigma, culture-specific anti-stigma interventions) in this area is required.
METHODS: We obtained 1294 pairs of images saved in both raw and processed formats from Hologic and General Electric (GE) direct digital systems and a Fuji computed radiography (CR) system, and 128 screen-film and processed CR-digital pairs from consecutive screening rounds. Four readers performed Cumulus-based MD measurements (n = 3441), with each image pair read by the same reader. Multi-level models of square-root percent MD were fitted, with a random intercept for woman, to estimate processed-raw MD differences.
RESULTS: Breast area did not differ in processed images compared with that in raw images, but the percent MD was higher, due to a larger dense area (median 28.5 and 25.4 cm2 respectively, mean √dense area difference 0.44 cm (95% CI: 0.36, 0.52)). This difference in √dense area was significant for direct digital systems (Hologic 0.50 cm (95% CI: 0.39, 0.61), GE 0.56 cm (95% CI: 0.42, 0.69)) but not for Fuji CR (0.06 cm (95% CI: -0.10, 0.23)). Additionally, within each system, reader-specific differences varied in magnitude and direction (p
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We examined cross-sectional differences in MD by age and menopausal status in over 11,000 breast-cancer-free women aged 35-85 years, from 40 ethnicity- and location-specific population groups across 22 countries in the International Consortium on Mammographic Density (ICMD). MD was read centrally using a quantitative method (Cumulus) and its square-root metrics were analysed using meta-analysis of group-level estimates and linear regression models of pooled data, adjusted for body mass index, reproductive factors, mammogram view, image type, and reader. In all, 4,534 women were premenopausal, and 6,481 postmenopausal, at the time of mammography. A large age-adjusted difference in percent MD (PD) between post- and premenopausal women was apparent (-0.46 cm [95% CI: -0.53, -0.39]) and appeared greater in women with lower breast cancer risk profiles; variation across population groups due to heterogeneity (I2) was 16.5%. Among premenopausal women, the √PD difference per 10-year increase in age was -0.24 cm (95% CI: -0.34, -0.14; I2 = 30%), reflecting a compositional change (lower dense area and higher non-dense area, with no difference in breast area). In postmenopausal women, the corresponding difference in √PD (-0.38 cm [95% CI: -0.44, -0.33]; I2 = 30%) was additionally driven by increasing breast area. The study is limited by different mammography systems and its cross-sectional rather than longitudinal nature.
CONCLUSIONS: Declines in MD with increasing age are present premenopausally, continue postmenopausally, and are most pronounced over the menopausal transition. These effects were highly consistent across diverse groups of women worldwide, suggesting that they result from an intrinsic biological, likely hormonal, mechanism common to women. If cumulative breast density is a key determinant of breast cancer risk, younger ages may be the more critical periods for lifestyle modifications aimed at breast density and breast cancer risk reduction.
METHODS: World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care.
RESULTS: Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) meetings and literature reviews were synthesized into a seed document and distributed to spine care experts. After three rounds of a modified Delphi process, all participants reached consensus on the final model of care and implementation steps.
RESULTS: Sixty-six experts representing 24 countries participated. The GSCI model of care has eight core principles: person-centered, people-centered, biopsychosocial, proactive, evidence-based, integrative, collaborative, and self-sustaining. The model of care includes a classification system and care pathway, levels of care, and a focus on the patient's journey. The six steps for implementation are initiation and preparation; assessment of the current situation; planning and designing solutions; implementation; assessment and evaluation of program; and sustain program and scale up.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based, practical, sustainable, and scalable model of care representing eight core principles with a six-step implementation plan. The aim of this model is to help transform spine care globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders.
RESULTS: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.