Treatment persistence & health care costs of adult MDD patients treated with escitalopram vs. citalopram in a medicaid population.

OBJECTIVE: Compare treatment persistence and health care costs of major depressive disorder (MDD) Medicaid patients treated with escitalopram versus citalopram. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicaid administrative claims data. METHODOLOGY: Analyzed administrative claims data from the Florida Medicaid program (07/2002-06/2006) for patients ages 18-64 years with 21 inpatient claim or 2 independent medical claims for MDD. Outcomes included discontinuation and switching rates and prescription drug, medical, and total health care costs, all-cause and related to mental disorder. Contingency table analysis and survival analysis were used to compare outcomes between treatment groups, using both unadjusted analysis and multivariate analysis adjusting for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: The study included 2,650 patients initiated on escitalopram and 630 patients initiated on citalopram. Patients treated with escitalopram were less likely to discontinue the index drug (63.7% vs. 68.9%, P=0.015) or to switch to another second-generation antidepressant (14.9% vs. 18.4%, P=0.029) over the six months post-index date. Patients treated with escitalopram had $1,014 lower total health care costs (P=0.032) and $519 lower health care costs related to mental disorder (P=0.023). More than half of the total cost difference was attributable to savings in inpatient hospitalizations related to mental disorder ($571, P=0.003) and to outpatient costs ($53, P<0.001). Escitalopram therapy was also associated with $736 lower medical costs related to mental disorder (P=0.009). CONCLUSION: In the Florida Medicaid program, compared to adult MDD patients initiated on citalopram, escitalopram patients have better treatment persistence and lower total health care costs due to any cause and due to mental disorder, mostly driven by lower hospitalization costs related to mental disorder.

Economic impact of therapeutic substitution of a brand selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with an alternative generic selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor in patients with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: To reduce pharmacy costs, managed care organizations encourage therapeutic substitution from brand to a generic product. However, little is known about whether these cost-containment strategies can also potentially lower total expenditures for payers in treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). OBJECTIVE: To compare economic outcomes of patients with MDD who were switched from a brand selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) to an alternative generic SSRI for nonmedical reasons versus patients who continued on the brand SSRI. METHODS: Adult MDD patients in the Ingenix Impact Database (2003-2007) were considered "switchers" if they received treatment with a brand SSRI and were later switched to an alternative generic SSRI for nonmedical reasons. Patients who remained on the brand SSRI (nonswitchers) were matched 1:1 with switchers. All-cause, mental health-related, and MDD-related rates of hospitalizations/emergency department (ED) visits and costs over 6 months were compared both descriptively and by using adjusted regression models. A subgroup analysis on patients who were switched from escitalopram (Lexapro) to an alternative generic SSRI was also performed. RESULTS: The study included 4449 matched pairs. Compared with nonswitchers, switchers had higher risk of all-cause, mental health-related, and MDD-related use of hospitalizations/ED visits (OR 1.15, 1.34, and 1.54, respectively; all p < 0.01) and higher risk-adjusted mental health-related and MDD-related medical costs ($219 and $222, respectively; both p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis on escitalopram showed similar results; switchers experienced higher risk of any-cause, mental health-related, and MDD-related use of hospitalizations/ED visits (OR 1.21, 1.41, and 1.53, respectively; all p < 0.01) and higher risk-adjusted MDD-related medical costs ($151; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients who continued on their patented SSRIs, patients who switched to a generic SSRI incurred more resource use of hospitalizations/ED visits and higher MDD-related health-care costs. The effects of therapeutic substitution should be carefully examined, because use of generic alternatives may not be a cost-saving strategy when total health-care costs are considered.

Employer burden of mild, moderate, and severe major depressive disorder: mental health services utilization and costs, and work performance.

BACKGROUND: Treatment utilization/costs and work performance for persons with major depressive disorder (MDD) by severity of illness is not well documented. METHODS: Using National Comorbidity Survey-Replication (2001-2002) data, US workforce respondents (n=4,465) were classified by clinical severity (not clinically depressed, mild, moderate, severe) using a standard self-rating scale [Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR)]. Outcomes included 12-month prevalence of medical services/medications use/costs and workplace performance. Treatment costs (employer's perspective) were estimated by weighing utilization measures by unit costs obtained for similar services used by MDD patients in claims data. Descriptive analysis across three severity groups generated chi(2) results. RESULTS: Using a sample of 539 US workforce respondents with MDD, 13.8% were classified mild, 38.5% moderate, and 47.7% severe cases. Mental health services usage, including antidepressants, increased significantly with severity, with average treatment costs substantially higher for severe than for mild cases both regarding mental health services ($697 vs. $388, chi(2)=4.4, P=.019) and antidepressants ($256 vs. $88, chi(2)=9.0, P=.001). Prevalence rates of unemployment/disability increased significantly (chi(2)=11.7, P=.003) with MDD severity (15.7, 23.3, and 31.3% for mild, moderate, and severe cases). Severely and moderately depressed workers missed more work than nondepressed workers; the monthly salary-equivalent lost performance of $199 (severely depressed) and $188 (moderately depressed) was significantly higher than for nondepressed workers (chi(2)=10.3, P<.001). Projected to the US workforce, monthly depression-related worker productivity losses had human capital costs of nearly $2 billion. CONCLUSIONS: MDD severity is significantly associated with increased treatment usage/costs, treatment adequacy, unemployment, and disability and with reduced work performance.

Resource utilization and costs of schizophrenia patients treated with olanzapine versus quetiapine in a Medicaid population.

OBJECTIVE: Compare annual health-care costs and resource utilization associated with olanzapine versus quetiapine for treating schizophrenia in a Medicaid population. METHODS: Adult schizophrenia patients were selected from deidentified Pennsylvania Medicaid claims database (1999­2003). Included patients were continuously enrolled and initiated with olanzapine or quetiapine monotherapy after a 90-day washout period. Treatment costs were calculated for 1-year post-therapy initiation and inflation adjusted to year 2003. To control for selection bias, olanzapine and quetiapine patients were 1:1 matched using an optimal matching algorithm on propensity score, which was generated using logistic regression controlling for demographics, prior drug therapy, utilization, and costs. Treatment costs for the matched cohorts were compared directly, as well as using a difference-in-difference analysis. RESULTS: A total of 6929 patients treated with olanzapine and 2321 with quetiapine met inclusion criteria. Quetiapine patients appeared more severe at baseline. After propensity score matching, 2321 patient pairs had similar baseline characteristics, including total costs. Compared with matched quetiapine patients, for the 1-year postindex period, olanzapine patients had similar drug costs ($6131 vs. $6014, P = 0.326), lower medical costs ($9897 vs. $11,218, P = 0.0128), and lower total health-care costs ($16,028 vs. $17,232, P = 0.0279). Lower psychiatric hospitalization costs account for most of the total cost difference. Difference-in-difference regression analysis confirmed olanzapine's economic advantage. Further adjusting for baseline variations, the total cost advantage of olanzapine patients was $962 (P = 0.032), and was mostly because of reduced psychiatric hospitalization costs of $992 (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Schizophrenia patients treated with olanzapine had lower total costs than quetiapine patients, mostly attributable to reductions in psychiatric hospitalization costs.

Determinants of direct cost differences among US employees with major depressive disorders using antidepressants.

OBJECTIVE: To understand factors driving the economic burden of major depressive disorder (MDD) patients with different treatment regimens, by evaluating the relationship between medical profiles and treatment costs. METHODS: Claims data for US privately insured employees (1999-2004) were analysed. Analysis included adult employees with >/=1 diagnosis of MDD and >/=1 prescription for specific antidepressants following a 6-month washout period. Patients were first classified into treatment pattern groups (switchers/discontinuers/maintainers/augmenters), then stratified into mutually exclusive treatment groups - nonstable, stable and intermediate - based on evidence of stability in treatment therapy. Rates of mental and physical co-morbidities, injuries/accidents, substance abuse and urgent care use were analysed across treatment pattern groups. Direct (medical/drug) costs were calculated per patient per year and disaggregated into depression- and non-depression-related components. A two-part multivariate model controlled for baseline characteristics. Costs were also estimated for patients with MDD only, patients with MDD and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and patients with MDD and any type of anxiety. RESULTS: Annual per patient adjusted costs (year 2005 values) were significantly lower among stable patients ($US6215) than among intermediate ($US7317) and nonstable patients ($US9948; p < 0.001). Stable patients also had lower depression- and non-depression-related costs. Patients with MDD and comorbid GAD or any type of anxiety had significantly higher costs than MDD-only patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nonstability of treatment is associated with higher comorbidity rates, more urgent care use and higher total, depression- and non-depression-related direct costs. The stable group represents continuity of care and is associated with significant cost savings. Co-morbidities are associated with increased costs.

Antidepressant treatment patterns and costs among US employees.

OBJECTIVE: To compare medical and cost profiles of patients treated for depression classified by treatment pattern groups. METHODS: An analysis used de-identified 1999-2004 employer claims data (n=2.9 million beneficiaries) for employees with > or =1 diagnosis of major depressive disorder and > or =1 antidepressant prescription, following a 6-month washout period of no antidepressant prescription. Patients were classified into switcher/discontinuer/augmenter/maintainer during Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set-defined initial and subsequent treatment periods, then grouped into stable, intermediate, or non-stable treatment groups, based on stability of treatment patterns. Medical/cost profiles for 6-month pre- and 12-month post-index periods were compared descriptively, and multivariate regressions were estimated, controlling for baseline characteristics/severity markers. Cost savings reflect differences between treatment pattern groups from a current US perspective. RESULTS: Of the 5,225 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 60.8% were in stable, 24.5% in intermediate and 14.7% in non-stable treatment groups. No significant differences existed in medical profiles and costs between the three groups in the pre-index period. In the post-index period, stable group patients had lower costs compared to intermediate and non-stable groups. Stable group patients generated cost savings of $1,842 compared to intermediate and $5,231 compared to non-stable groups. Multivariate analysis confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Patients on a more stable treatment regimen yield significant cost savings compared to patients on a less stable regimen.

Treatment persistence, healthcare utilisation and costs in adult patients with major depressive disorder: a comparison between escitalopram and other SSRI/SNRIs.

OBJECTIVE: Compare treatment persistence, healthcare utilisation and costs for patients treated with escitalopram versus other SSRI/SNRIs in a real-world setting. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis for major depressive disorder (MDD) and at least one prescription for an SSRI or SNRI were identified from the Ingenix Impact Database (2002-2005). The baseline and study observation periods were defined as the 6 months before and after the index date (first date for an SSRI /SNRI pharmacy claim). Comparisons were made between patients initiated on escitalopram versus other SSRI/SNRIs using descriptive statistics and multivariate regressions. RESULTS: Escitalopram patients (n=10,465) had better treatment persistence compared to patients initiated on other SSRI/SNRIs (n=28,310): the hazard ratio of all discontinuation was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.94-0.99) for the escitalopram therapy (p=0.003), and the hazard ratio of switching to another second-generation antidepressant was 0.91 (95% CI=0.87-0.94) for the escitalopram therapy (p<0.001). Escitalopram patients also had fewer inpatient service and emergency room visits. Adjusted average total all-cause healthcare costs and inpatient services costs were $839 and $405 lower in the escitalopram group (both p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Escitalopram may be associated with lower healthcare utilisation and costs among adult MDD patients compared to other SSRI/SNRIs.

Annual costs associated with diagnosis of uterine leiomyomata.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the annual care, direct health care, and indirect work loss costs for women with a diagnosis of uterine leiomyomata. METHODS: We examined data from an employer claims database of 1.2 million beneficiaries (1999 to 2003). Analysis was restricted to women with at least 12 months of continuous coverage and ages 18 to 64 years with at least one diagnosis of leiomyomata (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, 218.xx, 654.1x). We selected a comparison group of women without a leiomyoma diagnosis using a 1:1 match on age, employment, region, health plan type, and length of enrollment. We compared resource use, disability claims, and excess costs in the year after the index diagnosis. RESULTS: The average age of women diagnosed with leiomyomata in this study was 43.7 years. Women with leiomyomata (N = 5,122) had more clinic visits (relative risk [RR] 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-1.2), diagnostic tests (RR 3.1, 95% CI 2.9-3.2), and procedures (RR 34.6, 95% CI 25.8-46.5) than controls (N = 5,122). Within 1 year of the diagnosis of leiomyomata, 42% of women had a complete blood count, 66% had pelvic imaging, and 30% had surgery (68% of surgical procedures involved hysterectomy). Women with leiomyomata were 3-fold more likely to have disability claims (RR 3.1, 95% CI 2.7-3.6). Estimated average annual excess cost for each woman with leiomyomata (adjusted for confounders) was Dollars 4,624 (Dollars 771 in work loss costs). Total costs for women with leiomyomata were 2.6 times greater than for controls. CONCLUSION: Diagnosed uterine leiomyomata are associated with increased resource use and with substantially higher health care and work loss costs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-3.

The economic consequences of irritable bowel syndrome: a US employer perspective.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to measure the direct costs of treating irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and the indirect costs in the workplace. This was accomplished through retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from a national Fortune 100 manufacturer, which includes all medical, pharmaceutical, and disability claims for the company's employees, spouses/dependents, and retirees. METHODS: Patients with IBS were identified as individuals, aged 18 to 64 years, who received a primary code for IBS or a secondary code for IBS and a primary code for constipation or abdominal pain between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 1998. Of these patients with IBS, 93.7% were matched based on age, sex, employment status, and ZIP code to a control population of beneficiaries. Direct and indirect costs for patients with IBS were compared with those of matched controls. RESULTS: The average total cost (direct plus indirect) per patient with IBS was 4527 dollars in 1998 compared with 3276 dollars for a control beneficiary (P<.001). The average physician visit costs were 524 dollars and 345 dollars for patients with IBS and controls, respectively (P<.001). The average outpatient care costs to the employer were 1258 dollars and 742 dollars for patients with IBS and controls, respectively (P<.001). Medically related work absenteeism cost the employer 901 dollars on average per employee treated for IBS compared with 528 dollars on average per employee without IBS (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Irritable bowel syndrome is a significant financial burden on the employer that arises from an increase in direct and indirect costs compared with the control group.

Dose conversion and cost effectiveness of erythropoietic therapies in chemotherapy-related anaemia : a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate a dose-conversion ratio (DCR) between epoetin alfa (EPO) and darbepoetin alfa (DARB) and compare the costs of both drugs at the estimated DCRs using average wholesale prices (AWPs). METHODS: A search of PUBMED, CANCERLIT and references for papers and abstracts reporting on clinical trials of DARB or EPO for chemotherapy-related anaemia (CRA) identified 56 publications. A meta-analysis was conducted on the 12 eligible papers to estimate a DCR at which the two drugs were equally effective as measured by the area under the curve of haemoglobin (Hb) change (Hb AUC) at weeks 4 and 13. The DCR is based on the ratio of the coefficients of DARB and EPO doses in a regression of Hb AUC on those two variables, baseline Hb, Hb change calculation method, tumour type, and dosing frequency. Studies were frequency-weighted by the number of subjects. DCRs with confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a Monte-Carlo approach. Results from the regression were used to calculate DCRs for different dosing regimen comparisons - EPO three times weekly (TIW) versus DARB once weekly (QW), EPO TIW versus DARB once every 2 weeks (Q2W), EPO QW versus DARB QW, and EPO QW versus DARB Q2W. Relative cost effectiveness (RCE) was assessed by comparing drug costs at the estimated DCRs at $US 2003 AWPs [RCE = DCR . ($/U EPO)/($/mug DARB)]. RESULTS: The regression results suggest an EPO QW : DARB QW DCR of 187 (95% CI 183, 191). Depending on the assumed starting dose, the DCR ranges from 126 to 137 for EPO TIW : DARB QW; from 128 to 139 for EPO TIW : DARB Q2W; and equals 191 for EPO QW : DARB Q2W. RCE was 2.0 for the main regression. CONCLUSION: The DCR of 330 : 1 estimated for the 2004 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is greater than the DCRs estimated based on Hb AUC. The DCR estimated in the primary regression suggests that based on AWPs, EPO is 2.0 times more cost effective than DARB.

Cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapies for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder that impairs the quality of life for patients and their families and is associated with considerable direct and indirect costs. Pharmacotherapies for ADHD, including stimulants and non-stimulants, are often used to treat patients with ADHD. However, the costs, effectiveness and adverse effects of these agents vary. Therefore, information regarding the cost effectiveness of different pharmacological treatments is needed to better inform payers in the allocation of limited resources. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to conduct a systematic literature review of economic evaluations of pharmacotherapies for ADHD treatments and to assess the cost effectiveness of different interventions based on the existing studies. METHODS: A systematic literature review of economic evaluations of pharmacotherapies for ADHD was conducted in MEDLINE, the National Health Services (NHS) Economic Evaluation database and EMBASE. For inclusion in this review, studies had to compare two or more ADHD interventions with at least one pharmacotherapy, assess both costs and outcomes, and be conducted between 1990 and 2011 in North America, Europe, Australia or New Zealand. Studies were excluded if they were not original research, were presented only as conference proceedings or abstracts or did not report costs associated with specific interventions. The study quality was assessed using the British Medical Journal (BMJ) health economics checklist. The literature search, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by one author and independently checked for accuracy by a second author. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus and referring to the original article. If necessary, a third reviewer was consulted. RESULTS: The initial search returned 93 citations from MEDLINE, 10 from the NHS Economic Evaluation database and 377 from EMBASE. Thirteen papers met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included in the review. Based on the BMJ checklist, all these studies were considered to be of sufficient quality to be included in the literature review, but they varied substantially in target population, methodology and effectiveness measures. Identified pharmacotherapies were cost effective compared with no treatment, placebo, behavioural therapy or community care among children and adolescents with ADHD. Studies comparing non-stimulants with stimulants and amfetamine with methylphenidate stimulants showed inconsistent findings. A limited number of studies indicated that methylphenidate Osmotic-controlled Release Oral delivery System (OROS) was cost effective compared with short-acting methylphenidate. There were no published studies on the cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in the adult ADHD population, comparing stimulants, non-stimulants or adjuvant therapy. There is limited evidence on the long-term cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: Among children and adolescents with ADHD, there was consistent evidence that pharmacotherapies are cost effective compared with no treatment or behavioural therapy. Adequate data are lacking to draw conclusions regarding the relative cost effectiveness of different pharmacological agents. More economic evaluations with standardized methods, such as effectiveness measures and cost components, are warranted. To better inform payers about the economic value of existing medications, future studies should also consider identifying subgroups that may have heterogeneous responses to different treatments, including analyses of recently approved treatments (e.g. lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine extended-release and clonidine extended-release) and expanding the time horizon to incorporate long-term outcomes.

Increased olanzapine discontinuation and health care resource utilization following a Medicaid policy change.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the short-term impact of Florida Medicaid's policy change on olanzapine discontinuation and health care resource utilization among olanzapine-treated patients with schizophrenia or bipolar diagnoses. The announced policy change, effective on July 11, 2005, but rescinded on September 9, 2005, reclassified olanzapine as nonpreferred and gave physicians 60 days to change antipsychotics for current users. METHOD: Prescription patterns, health care resource utilization, and Medicaid payments were compared between patients using olanzapine on July 11, 2005, and matched prior-year controls. For reference, parallel analyses were conducted in New Jersey Medicaid, where access to olanzapine remained constant. The effect of Florida's policy change was also estimated among policy-sensitive olanzapine users by treating year (2004 vs 2005) as an instrumental variable. RESULTS: Matched Florida cohorts (N = 4,255) showed increases from 2004 to 2005 in 6-month rates of switching from olanzapine (+326%), hospitalization (+19.8%), and emergency room visits (+19.7%) (all P values < .001). Concurrently in the matched New Jersey cohorts (N = 2,680), there were no significant changes in these outcomes from 2004 to 2005. Among matched Florida policy-sensitive olanzapine users, an additional 9.3% experienced hospitalization in 2005 versus 2004 (P < .001), and increased payments for medical services and other antipsychotics largely offset decreased payments for olanzapine. CONCLUSIONS: The announced reclassification of olanzapine to nonpreferred status substantially disrupted the continuity of olanzapine therapy for many Florida Medicaid recipients diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and was associated with increased hospitalization and emergency room visits. During the 6 months following the policy change, increased payments for medical services largely offset reduced payments for olanzapine.

Impact of initiation timing of SSRI or SNRI on depressed adolescent healthcare utilization and costs.

BACKGROUND: Adolescents with newly diagnosed depression may not receive timely antidepressant therapy. Clinical and economic effects of early versus late treatment initiation are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare effects of early versus late initiation of second-generation (SSRI/SNRI) antidepressants on emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations and healthcare costs in adolescents with depression. METHODS: Patients aged 12-17 with a diagnosis of depression were identified in a claims database (1999-2007). Patients initiating antidepressants within 1 month of initial diagnosis were considered early initiators; patients initiating within 2-12 months were late initiators. Clinical resource use and healthcare costs were measured during the 6-month pre-index and 12-month post-index (study) periods and compared descriptively between groups. Logistic regression compared healthcare services utilization; a generalized linear model compared costs. All models were adjusted for baseline characteristics, including demographics, comorbidities, and healthcare services utilization. RESULTS: A total of 7344 adolescents met study criteria. 4415 (60%) initiated antidepressant treatment within 1 month of diagnosis. At baseline, early initiators had more all-cause inpatient visits (14 vs. 7%) and all-cause ER visits than late initiators (25 vs. 21%, both p<0.01). They had higher medical ($1434 vs. $1160) and total costs ($1565 vs. $1290) (both p<0.01). In the study period, late initiators had higher risk of ER visits (OR=1.13, p=0.03). They incurred higher medical costs ($5415 vs. $4061) and higher total healthcare costs ($6001 vs. $4907), but lower adjusted drug costs ($767 vs. $888) (all p<0.01). LIMITATIONS: Clinical data are scarce in the claims database, and the ability to observe disease severity and reasons for delayed treatment is limited. The definition of early and late initiation was based on empirical analysis, and no clear cutoff was identified beyond what was observed in the data. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents who initiated SSRI/SNRI therapy earlier experienced lower risk of ER visits and had lower total costs compared to late initiators.

Comparing treatment persistence, healthcare resource utilization, and costs in adult patients with major depressive disorder treated with escitalopram or citalopram.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is the most common type of depression, affecting 6.6% of adults in the United States annually. Citalopram and escitalopram are common second-generation antidepressants used for the treatment of patients with this disorder. Because citalopram is available in generic forms that have lower acquisition costs compared with the branded escitalopram, some health plans may provide incentives to encourage the use of the generic option. Decisions based solely on drug acquisition costs may encourage the use of a therapy that is less cost-effective when treatment persistence, healthcare utilization, and overall costs are factored in. OBJECTIVE: To compare, in a real-world setting, the treatment persistence, healthcare utilization, and overall costs of managing adult patients with major depressive disorder who are treated with escitalopram or citalopram. METHODS: Administrative claims data (from January 1, 2003, to June 30, 2005) were analyzed for patients with major depressive disorder aged ≥18 years. Patients filled ≥1 prescriptions for citalopram or for escitalopram (first-fill time was defined as the index date) and had no second-generation antidepressant use during the 6-month preindex period. Treatment persistence, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs were measured over the 6-month preindex and 6-month postindex periods and compared between patients treated with citalopram or escitalopram, using unadjusted and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Patients receiving escitalopram (N = 10,465) were less likely to discontinue the treatment (hazard ratio 0.94; P = .005) and switch to another second-generation antidepressant (hazard ratio 0.83; P <.001) than patients receiving citalopram (N = 4212). Patients receiving escitalopram were also less likely to have a hospital admission (odds ratio 0.88; P = .036) or an emergency department visit and had lower total healthcare costs (-$1174) and major depressive disorder-related costs (-$109; P <.001) during the study period. CONCLUSION: Although the drug acquisition costs are lower for generic citalopram than for the brand-name escitalopram, patients treated with escitalopram had better treatment persistence, lower healthcare utilization, and lower overall costs compared with patients treated with citalopram over the study period. This may suggest that other considerations, in addition to acquisition cost, may need to be factored in to assess the cost-effectiveness of drug therapy.

Remission of major depressive disorder without adverse events: a comparison of escitalopram versus serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: An antidepressant's tolerability, generally captured as the frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs), is often as important as its efficacy in determining treatment success. This study used a composite outcome - remission of major depressive disorder (MDD) without AEs - to compare the benefit-risk profiles of escitalopram versus the norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) duloxetine and venlafaxine extended release (XR). METHODS: Pooled data from three randomized, double-blind, multicenter trials were analyzed, in which patients with MDD were treated for 8 weeks with either escitalopram (n = 462) or an SNRI (n = 467). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT00108979; NCT00384436. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The composite outcome was defined as remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score ≤10) and concurrent absence of an AE. The proportions of remitted patients free of (1) any AEs, (2) moderate-to-severe AEs, and (3) study drug-related AEs were compared between treatment groups at each study visit and longitudinally across study visits common to all trials during the first 8 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: At endpoint (week 8), escitalopram-treated patients were more likely than SNRI-treated patients to experience remission free of any AEs (28.4 vs. 21.6%; p = 0.0179) and remission free of study drug-related AEs (45.2 vs. 36.8%; p = 0.0092). Compared to SNRI-treated patients, escitalopram-treated patients had 38% greater odds of remission free of any AEs, 28% greater odds of remission free of moderate-to-severe AEs, and 34% greater odds of remission free of study drug-related AEs (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Treatment of adult MDD patients with escitalopram was significantly more likely to result in remission without concurrent AEs compared to treatment with current SNRIs. Study limitations include focus on only the initial 8 weeks of treatment and exclusion of trials for which individual patient data were not obtained.

Economic consequence of switching to citalopram after its generic entry for adult patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with escitalopram: a 6-month retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate, from a third-party payer's perspective, the effects of switching from escitalopram to citalopram, after the generic entry of citalopram, on hospitalization and healthcare costs among adult MDD patients who were on escitalopram therapy. METHODS: Adult MDD patients treated with escitalopram were identified from Ingenix Impact claims database. MDD- and mental health (MH)-related hospitalization rates and healthcare costs were compared between 'switchers' (patients who switched to citalopram after its generic entry) and 'non-switchers'. MDD- and MH-related outcomes were defined as having a primary or a secondary diagnosis of ICD-9-CM = 296.2x, 296.3x and ICD-9-CM = 290-319, respectively. A propensity score matching method that estimated the likelihood of switching using baseline characteristics was used. Outcomes were examined for both 3-month and 6-month post-index periods. RESULTS: The sample included 3,427 matched pairs with balanced baseline characteristics. Switchers were more likely to incur an MDD-related (odds ratio [OR] = 1.52) and MH-related hospitalization (OR = 1.34) during the 6-month post-index period (both p < 0.05). Compared to switchers, non-switchers had significantly lower MDD- and MH-related hospitalization costs ($248.3 and $219.8 lower, respectively) and medical costs ($277.4 and $246.4 lower, respectively) (all p < 0.05). Although non-switchers had significantly higher MDD- and MH-related prescription drug costs, overall they had significantly lower total MDD- and MH-related healthcare costs ($109.9 and $93.6 lower, respectively; both p < 0.001). The 3-month results were consistent with these 6-month findings. LIMITATIONS: The study limitations included limited generalizability of study findings, inability to differentiate switching from escitalopram to citalopram due to medical reasons versus non-medical reasons, and exclusion of indirect costs from cost calculations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients maintaining on escitalopram, switchers from escitalopram to citalopram experienced higher risk of MDD- and MH-related hospitalization and incurred higher total MDD- and MH-related healthcare costs. The economic consequences of therapeutic substitution should take into account total healthcare costs, not just drug acquisition costs.

Assessing the relationship between compliance with antidepressant therapy and employer costs among employees in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To assess effects of antidepressant treatment compliance on health care and workplace costs. METHODS: By using workplace survey data linked to two employers' health care claims, employees with depression/antidepressant claims were categorized into noncompliant/compliant groups. Annualized costs were compared between compliance groups, for the employees with antidepressant use and a subset diagnosed with depression. RESULTS: Among antidepressant users (N = 1224), medical costs were not statistically different for compliant versus noncompliant patients; drug costs were higher for compliant patients, primarily because of antidepressants' costs. Similar associations were observed among depressed patients (N = 488). Absenteeism costs were lower for compliant patients with antidepressant use ($3857 vs $4,907, P = 0.041) and among depressed patients ($3976 vs $5899, P = 0.047). Presenteeism costs were higher for depressed compliant patients ($19,170 vs $15,829, P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Increased compliance with antidepressants is significantly associated with reduced absenteeism costs.

Healthcare utilization and costs incurred by patients with major depression after being switched from escitalopram to another SSRI for non-medical reasons.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare utilization and costs for major depressive disorder (MDD) patients treated with escitalopram and who were switched to another SSRI for non-medical reasons versus those who did not switch. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients were identified in the Ingenix Impact Database (2003-2006). The analysis group included patients who remained on escitalopram for ≥ 90 days and switched to another SSRI within 45 days of end of supply days for non-medical reasons; the control group included matched individuals who did not switch within 45 days. Switching for medical reasons was defined as switching within 7 days after having a hospitalization, an emergency room (ER) visit, or a psychotherapy visit. Outcomes (all-cause and MDD-related) were analyzed over 3 months and included use of hospital, ER, outpatient visits and professional services, and healthcare costs. Outcomes were compared between the two groups using descriptive statistics and regression analyses controlling for differences in baseline characteristics. Costs were inflation adjusted to 2006 US dollars. RESULTS: The study included 2,805 matched pairs. Compared to controls, switchers had higher rates of all-cause and MDD-related hospitalizations (relative risk [RR] = 1.4 and 2.0, respectively) and all-cause and MDD-related ER visits (RR = 1.2 and 1.6, respectively, all p ≤ 0.05). Results from multivariate analyses show that switchers had higher medical costs (+$138), drug costs (+$149) and total healthcare costs (+$322) compared to patients in the control group (all p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: This study's limitations include its short observational period and definition of switching for non-medical reasons. CONCLUSION: Patients who were switched to another SSRI for non-medical reasons after being stabilized on escitalopram used more resources and had higher healthcare costs within 3 months of switching than patients who did not switch.

Comparing the treatment patterns of patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine and quetiapine in the Pennsylvania Medicaid population.

OBJECTIVE: Compare treatment patterns for patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine versus quetiapine in the Pennsylvania Medicaid population. METHODS: Patients (18-64 years) with a diagnosis of schizophrenia (ICD-9-CM: 295.xx) and treated with olanzapine or quetiapine were identified from the Pennsylvania Medicaid claims database (1999-2003). Patients were continuously enrolled in the 12-month pre- and 12-month post-initiation periods. To control for selection bias, propensity score method with optimal matching algorithm was used to match patients from the two treatment groups. The key study outcomes including rates of augmentation, polypharmacy, discontinuation, and switching were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Medication possession ratio and use of concurrent psychotropic drugs were also compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 2321 quetiapine and 6929 olanzapine patients were identified. In all, 2321 pairs of patients were matched between the two groups and they had similar baseline characteristics. Over the 12-month study period, olanzapine patients had a better medication adherence (0.47 vs. 0.43; p < 0.0001), and were less likely to use other psychotropic medications concomitantly (all p < 0.05). Olanzapine patients had a significantly lower risk of augmentation and polypharmacy with other antipsychotics. The 6-month augmentation rates with antipsychotics were 12.9% and 16.7% for olanzapine and quetiapine, respectively (p < 0.05); the polypharmacy rates with any antipsychotics were 12.5% and 18.6% for olanzapine and quetiapine, respectively (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed for discontinuation and switching between the two treatment groups. Sensitivity analysis with a 60-day minimum monotherapy requirement showed similar results. LIMITATIONS: This study's limitations include the analysis of a single Medicaid state, which may limit the generalizability to the entire Medicaid population with schizophrenia or to all patients with schizophrenia. CONCLUSION: This large Medicaid claims database analysis showed that olanzapine patients were significantly more compliant to treatment and less likely to augment or have polypharmacy with antipsychotics during the course of treatment compared to quetiapine patients.

Comparison of treatment persistence, hospital utilization and costs among major depressive disorder geriatric patients treated with escitalopram versus other SSRI/SNRI antidepressants.

OBJECTIVE: To assess treatment persistence, hospitalization outcomes and mean healthcare costs of geriatric major depressive disorder (MDD) patients treated with escitalopram compared to other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients aged > or = 65 years with at least one inpatient claim or two independent claims associated with MDD diagnosis were identified in the IHCIS National Managed Care Database (2003-2005). Patients were continuously enrolled for at least > or = 12 months, filled at least one prescription for an SSRI/SNRI and did not use any second-generation antidepressant during the 6 months pre-index date. Unadjusted and multivariate analyses adjusting for baseline characteristics were conducted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment persistence, hospitalization utilization, and average prescription drug, medical, and total healthcare costs were compared between patients initiated on escitalopram versus other SSRI/SNRIs. RESULTS: Escitalopram-treated patients (N = 459) were less likely to discontinue treatment (HR = 0.85, p = 0.012) or switch to another second-generation antidepressant (HR = 0.76, p = 0.006) compared to patients treated with other SSRI/SNRIs (N = 1517). Escitalopram-treated patients had 39% fewer hospitalization days (p = 0.004). Both groups had similar mean prescription drug costs ($1659 vs. $1630, p = 0.687). After controlling for baseline characteristics, escitalopram-treated patients had lower mean total medical service costs ($9425 vs. $12,703, p < 0.001) and mean total healthcare costs ($11,043 vs. $14,163, p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: This study's limitations include its small sample size, short observational periods and exclusivity of indirect costs. CONCLUSIONS: Geriatric patients treated with escitalopram had higher treatment persistence, fewer hospitalization days and lower total healthcare costs than patients on other SSRI/SNRIs after controlling for baseline characteristics. Most of the cost savings were due to reductions in hospitalizations.