Health and economic burden of metabolic comorbidity among individuals with bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the prevalence and health care costs of metabolic conditions in patients with bipolar disorder to age- and sex-matched control patients using a large insurance claims database. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of medical service and prescription claims from the Thomson Reuters (Healthcare) MarketScan Commercial Database (which includes claims information on >12 million employees with employer-based insurance and their dependents in the United States) was conducted. Claims data for 28,531 patients with bipolar disorder were compared for 1 year with data for 85,593 age- and sex-matched control patients with no mental health disorders and no psychotropic medication use. RESULTS: Patients with bipolar disorder had a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic comorbidities than the general population (37% vs 30%, P < 0.0001), and annual medical service treatment costs for metabolic conditions were twice that of the control cohort (531 dollars vs 233 dollars, P < 0.0001). The bipolar cohort had significantly higher overall medical service and prescription drug costs than those of the control cohort (12,764 dollars vs 3,140 dollars, P < 0.0001). Prescription medication costs for metabolic conditions were higher as well, with bipolar cohort per-patient costs of 571 dollars versus 301 dollars for the control cohort (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with bipolar disorder have significantly more metabolic comorbidities and higher medical costs than age- and sex-matched controls. Studies that link claims data with medical records or primary data collection pertaining to metabolic conditions may overcome limitations in the diagnostic information and outcome predictors. To reduce the medical and economic burden of bipolar disorder, strategies should be identified to prevent the development of metabolic comorbidities and improve medication adherence.

Use of combinations of antipsychotics: McLean Hospital inpatients, 2002.

BACKGROUND: The empirical use of combinations of antipsychotic agents appears to be increasing with little research support for the relative efficacy, safety or cost-effectiveness of this practice. Such treatment was evaluated in hospitalized psychiatric patients. METHODS: Samples of consecutive inpatients treated with > or = 2 ('polytherapy') vs 1 antipsychotic ('monotherapy') were matched on age, sex, diagnosis and admission clinical ratings, and these groups were compared on total daily chlorpromazine-equivalent doses, days in hospital, and changes in clinical ratings between admission and discharge. RESULTS: The study sample included 69 polytherapy and 115 well-matched monotherapy subjects. Despite matching for initial CGI and GAF ratings, polytherapy was associated with high PANSS subscale scores of positive symptoms among affective psychosis, and relatively greater PANSS subscale ratings of excitement-agitation among patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. Estimated clinical improvement during hospitalization was similar among poly- and monotherapy patients, but total daily CPZ-eq doses at discharge averaged twice-greater with polytherapy, and hospitalization lasted 1.5 times longer. CONCLUSIONS: Antipsychotic polytherapy as well as the types of agents combined may reflect clinician responses to particular symptom patterns. The value of specific combinations of antipsychotic agents and their comparison with monotherapies requires specific, prospective, randomized and well-controlled trials that consider matching on clinical characteristics and truly comparable doses across regimens.