Clinical Outcome Assessment Instruments in Schizophrenia: A Scoping Literature Review with a Focus on the Potential of Patient-reported Outcomes.

Objective: The complexity inherent in the treatment of schizophrenia results in a multitude of outcome assessments being employed when conducting clinical trials. Subjective outcome assessments and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) to evaluate clinical meaningfulness have gained traction; however, the extent of application in evaluation of treatments for schizophrenia is unknown. A scoping review was conducted to assess the availability of published psychometric evaluations, including MCIDs, for clinical outcome assessments used to evaluate treatments for schizophrenia. Method of Research: Key databases (PubMed®, Embase®, APA PsycINFO®, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research) were searched for studies on schizophrenia published from 2010 to 2020. Secondary sources (ClinicalTrials.gov, PROLABELS™, FDA.gov) were also reviewed. Clinical outcome assessments were organized by type (patient-reported outcomes [PROs], clinician-reported outcomes [ClinROs], observer-reported outcomes [ObsROs]) and further classified by intended use (generic, mental health, schizophrenia). Reliability and internal consistency were evaluated using Cronbach's α. External validity was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Across 140 studies, 66 clinical outcome assessments were identified. MCIDs were reported for eight of the 66 studies. Of these, two were PROs (generic) and six were ClinROs/ObsROs (three mental health-specific, three schizophrenia-specific). Reliability was good across generic, mental health-specific, and schizophrenia-specific categories, whereas external validity was strong mainly for schizophrenia-specific PROs. Overall, ClinROs/ObsROs that focused on mental health had good reliability and strong external validity. Conclusion: This review provides a comprehensive overview of the clinical outcome assessments used in schizophrenia research during the past ten years. Results highlight the heterogeneity of existing outcomes and a growing interest in PROs for schizophrenia.

The effects of early initiation of aripiprazole once-monthly on healthcare resource utilization and healthcare costs in individuals with schizophrenia: real-world evidence from US claims data.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of timing of aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM) initiation on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), risk of hospitalization, and healthcare costs in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the Merative MarketScan database (01/01/2013-12/31/2019). Adults aged ≥18 years with a new episode of care for schizophrenia and an AOM claim were included. Patients were classified into two cohorts based on the time between the first schizophrenia diagnosis and the first AOM claim (early cohort: ≤1 year; late cohort: >1 year). All-cause and psychiatric-specific HCRU, risk of hospitalization, and healthcare costs were evaluated over 1-year post-AOM initiation. The relationship between the timing of AOM initiation and HCRU was evaluated using negative binomial regression, and healthcare costs using generalized linear models (log-link with gamma distribution). Logistic regression was used to estimate the likelihood of hospitalization during the follow up period for both all-cause and psychiatric-specific hospitalization. RESULTS: A total of 945 patients were included (early cohort: n = 525; late cohort: n = 420). At baseline, the early cohort had lower mean age, a greater proportion of males, and a lower mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score than the late cohort (all p < .05). After adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, all-cause and psychiatric-specific hospitalization during the 1-year follow-up period were statistically significantly higher for the late cohort versus the early cohort (all-cause: incident rate ratio [IRR] = 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-2.07, p < .01; psychiatric-specific: IRR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.46-2.55, p < .01). The early cohort had statistically significantly lower adjusted all-cause ($21,686 versus $29,033; p = .0002) and psychiatric-specific ($24,414 versus $32,461; p = .0002) healthcare costs versus the late cohort. LIMITATIONS: This study utilized claims data, which are intended for administrative purposes rather than for research. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis extends previous evidence for the benefits of AOM in patients with new episodes of schizophrenia, by demonstrating lower HCRU, risk of hospitalization, and healthcare costs with early AOM initiation compared with later initiation.

Schizophrenia is a costly disease that impacts patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system. Antipsychotic medications are an important component of schizophrenia treatment. These medications reduce symptom severity, improve functioning and reduce costs. Aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM) is a long-acting injectable antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia. This study evaluates whether starting AOM early in the disease course improves outcomes for people with schizophrenia. Outcomes include healthcare resource utilization, risk of hospitalization, and healthcare costs. The study team found that hospitalization and costs were lower for people who started AOM early in the disease course as opposed to later. This study points to the importance of early treatment to improve outcomes for people with schizophrenia.

Excess healthcare resource utilization and healthcare costs among privately and publicly insured patients with major depressive disorder and acute suicidal ideation or behavior in the United States.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and cost burden of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and acute suicidal ideation or behavior (SIB; MDSI) versus those with MDD without SIB and those without MDD. METHODS: Adults were selected from the MarketScan® Databases (10/2015-02/2020). The MDSI cohort received an MDD diagnosis within 6 months of a claim for acute SIB (index date). The index date was a random MDD claim in the MDD without SIB cohort and a random date in the non-MDD cohort. Patients had continuous eligibility ≥12 months pre- and ≥1 month post-index. HRU and costs were compared during 1- and 12-month post-index periods between MDSI and control cohorts matched 1:1 on demographics. RESULTS: The MDSI cohort included 73,242 patients (mean age 35 years, 60.6% female, 37.2% Medicaid coverage). At 1 month post-index, the MDSI cohort versus the MDD without SIB/non-MDD cohorts had 12.8/67.2 times more inpatient admissions and 3.3/8.9 times more emergency department visits; they had 2.9 times more outpatient visits versus the non-MDD cohort (all p < 0.001). The MDSI cohort had incremental mean healthcare costs of $5255 and $6674 per-patient-month versus the MDD without SIB and non-MDD cohorts (all p < 0.001); inpatient costs drove up to 89.5% of incremental costs. At 12 months post-index, HRU and costs remained higher in MDSI versus control cohorts. LIMITATIONS: SIB are underreported in claims; unobserved confounders may cause bias. CONCLUSIONS: MDSI is associated with substantial excess healthcare costs driven by inpatient costs, concentrated in the first month post-index, and persisting during the following year.

Making Sense of the Matrix: A Qualitative Assessment and Commentary on Connecting Psychiatric Symptom Scale Items to the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC).

The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative aims to organize research according to domains of brain function. Dysfunction within these domains leads to psychopathology that is classically measured with rating scales. Examining the correspondence between the specific measures assessed within rating scales and RDoC domains is necessary to assess the needs for new RDoC-focused scales. Such RDoC-focused scales have the potential of allowing translation of this work into the clinical domain of measuring psychopathology and designing treatment. Here, we describe an initial qualitative assessment by a group of 10 clinician-scientists of the alignment between RDoC domains and the items within five commonly used rating scales. In this commentary, we report limited correspondence and make recommendations for future work needed to address these limitations.

Management of Schizophrenia with Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotic Medications: An Assessment of the Educational Needs of Clinicians.

PURPOSE: Schizophrenia is a chronic and serious mental disorder characterized by disturbances in thought, perception, and behavior that impair daily functioning and quality of life. Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic medications may improve long-term outcomes over oral medications; however, LAI antipsychotic medications are often only considered as a last resort late in the disease course. This study sought to assess current clinical practice patterns, clinicians' attitudes, and barriers to the use of LAI antipsychotic medications as well as identify unmet educational needs of psychiatric clinicians in managing patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: A survey was distributed via email to 2330 United States-based clinicians who manage patients with schizophrenia; 379 completed the survey and were included for analysis. The survey included five patient case-based scenarios, with seven decision points. Data were analyzed with qualitative and quantitative methodologies. RESULTS: Clinicians were most confident in determining when to initiate treatment and least confident in transitioning to injectable therapy or administering injectable therapy. Clinicians cited nonadherence, and not wanting to take daily medicine or the "hassle" of frequent treatment, as key factors for which patients were most suitable for an LAI antipsychotic medication. Patient nonadherence was considered the most important barrier to optimal management of patients with schizophrenia. A clinician's perception of relapse was a strong driver of whether or not the clinician would discuss/recommend an LAI antipsychotic medication. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that clinicians may be reluctant to discuss or recommend switching patients to an LAI antipsychotic medication if they are perceived as doing well on current therapy. These results will inform future research and continuing education that aims to improve the confidence, knowledge, and competence of clinicians who provide care for patients with schizophrenia who may benefit from treatment with an LAI antipsychotic medication and clinicians who may be more likely to routinely offer an LAI antipsychotic medication to their patients.

Health care resource use, short-term disability days, and costs associated with states of persistence on antidepressant lines of therapy.

AIMS: To compare health care resource utilization (HCRU), short-term disability days, and costs between states of persistence on antidepressant lines of therapy after evidence of treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHODS: Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) were identified in the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases (01/01/2013-03/04/2019), Multi-State Medicaid Database (01/01/2013-12/31/2018), and Health Productivity Management Database (01/01/2015-12/31/2018). The index date was the date of the first evidence of TRD during the first observed major depressive episode. The follow-up period was divided into 45-day increments and categorized into persistence states: (1) evaluation (first 45 days after evidence of TRD); (2) persistence on the early line after evidence of TRD; (3) persistence on a late line; and (4) non-persistence. HCRU, short-term disability days, and costs were compared between persistence states using multivariate generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Among 10,053 patients with TRD, the evaluation state was associated with higher likelihood of all-cause inpatient admissions (odds ratio [OR; 95% confidence interval (CI)] = 1.79 [1.49, 2.14]), emergency department visits (OR [95% CI] = 1.23 [1.12, 1.34]), and outpatient visits (OR [95% CI] = 3.83 [3.51, 4.18]; all p < .001) versus persistence on the early-line therapy. This resulted in $374 higher mean PPPM all-cause health care costs (95% CI = 265, 470; p < .001) during evaluation versus persistence on the early line therapy. The evaluation state was associated with 89% more short-term disability days (OR [95% CI] = 1.89 [1.49, 2.57] and $212 higher mean PPPM short-term disability costs (95% CI = 64, 259) relative to persistence on the early line (both p < .001). Moreover, during persistence on a later line, mean PPPM all-cause health care costs were $141 higher (95% CI = 13, 242; p = .028) relative to the early line. LIMITATIONS: Medication may have been dispensed but not actually taken. CONCLUSIONS: Higher costs during the first 45 days after evidence of the presence of TRD and during persistence on a late line relative to persistence on the early-line therapy suggest there are benefits to using more effective treatments earlier.

Prevalence of Pre-existing Conditions Relevant for Adverse Events and Potential Drug-Drug Interactions Associated with Augmentation Therapies Among Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression.

INTRODUCTION: Pre-existing conditions relevant for adverse events (AE) and the potential for drug-drug interactions (DDIs) may limit safe pharmacotherapeutic augmentation options for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). This concern may be heightened among patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), who often have comorbid medical disorders. METHODS: Adults with MDD and ≥ 1 antidepressant claim within the first observed major depressive episode were identified in the MarketScan® Databases. Those initiating a new regimen after two regimens at adequate dose and duration were considered to have TRD. The index date was defined at TRD onset or on a random antidepressant claim among patients with non-TRD MDD. Pre-existing conditions 12 months pre-index and potential DDIs 3 months pre/post-index associated with specific non-antidepressant augmentation therapies, including atypical antipsychotics (APs), buspirone, psychostimulants, anticonvulsants, thyroid hormone, and lithium were compared between 1:1 matched TRD and non-TRD MDD cohorts. RESULTS: Overall, 3414 patients with TRD and non-TRD MDD (mean age 39.7 years, 69% female) were matched. Relative to non-TRD MDD, patients with TRD had 33% higher likelihood of ≥ 1 pre-existing condition relevant for AEs listed in product labels of non-antidepressant augmentation therapies (p < 0.001). Patients with TRD vs. non-TRD MDD had 12.9 and 6.4 times higher likelihood of ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 DDIs, respectively, based on their medication regimen (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pre-existing conditions relevant for listed AEs and potential DDIs limit safe augmentation options in MDD, particularly among patients with TRD. Payer prior authorization policies requiring several augmentation therapy trials to access novel treatments may complicate clinical management of this population.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Galcanezumab Versus Placebo for the Treatment of Episodic and Chronic Migraine Using the Metrics of Number Needed to Treat and Number Needed to Harm.

INTRODUCTION: Subcutaneous galcanezumab was an effective, well-tolerated preventive treatment for adults with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) in 4 phase 3 randomized controlled trials: EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, REGAIN, and CONQUER. Number needed to treat (NNT) and to harm (NNH) are metrics of effect size used to evaluate benefit-risk profiles. This study evaluated NNT, NNH, and benefit-risk profiles (measured as likelihood to be helped or harmed, LHH) of galcanezumab 120 mg versus placebo in patients with EM or CM. METHODS: Primary efficacy outcomes were responses defined as ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 75% reductions from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days in patients with EM (EVOLVE-1; EVOLVE-2; CONQUER) and CM (REGAIN; CONQUER); corresponding NNTs to achieve respective responses; and corresponding NNHs for discontinuations due to adverse events (DCAEs) among the safety population. Secondary efficacy outcomes were responses for patients with ≥ 2 failed prior preventive treatments due to lack of efficacy and/or for tolerability reasons. All LHHs were based on ≥ 50% response and DCAEs. RESULTS: During double-blind treatment periods with galcanezumab 120 mg, NNT to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses ranged from 4 to 10 and NNT to achieve ≥ 75% responses ranged from 5 to 23 in individual trials. NNH ranged from 93 to 1000, while LHH ranged from 18.6 to 104.6. NNTs were generally more robust among patients with EM than with CM; however, in patients with failure of ≥ 2 prior preventive treatments, NNTs to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses were similar between patients with CM and EM. NNHs were imputed as 1000 for both migraine types. Resulting LHHs were 178.8 (EM) and 127 (CM). CONCLUSION: Across 4 trials, galcanezumab 120 mg demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile versus placebo, based on low NNTs to achieve response and high NNHs associated with DCAEs. LHH values consistently far exceeded 1. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EVOLVE-1: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614183; EVOLVE-2: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614196; REGAIN: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614261; CONQUER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03559257.

Assessment of the Impact of Tardive Dyskinesia in Clinical Practice: Consensus Panel Recommendations.

PURPOSE: Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a hyperkinetic movement disorder in which patients experience abnormal involuntary movements that can have profound negative impacts on physical, cognitive, and psychosocial functioning. Use of measures to assess the functional impact of TD in routine clinical practice is lacking. To address this gap, an advisory panel of experts in psychiatry and movement disorder neurology was convened to develop consensus recommendations on assessment of the impact of TD on patients' functioning that can be used in clinical practice. METHODS: An advisory panel provided recommendations using an iterative process, beginning with a narrative literature review regarding current practices for assessing the impact of TD in clinical settings. A detailed summary was generated, and the advisory panel provided comments about the content and answered questions about assessing TD impact in clinical practice. The panelists' responses were discussed during a virtual meeting held on August 28, 2020. A second meeting on September 25, 2020, focused on developing and refining recommendations for assessment of the impact of TD in clinical practice. At the conclusion of the second meeting, general consensus was reached on all recommendation statements. RESULTS: As part of routine clinical practice, it is imperative to assess the impact of TD on the patient's life to help guide treatment decisions. Key domains for assessing the overall impact of TD include social, physical, vocational, and psychological functioning and the impact of TD on the underlying psychiatric disorder. Assessment of TD impact should be performed at every patient visit. Impact assessments should include consultation with patients, caregivers, and family members. Shared decision-making to initiate TD treatment should consider impact. CONCLUSION: The impact of TD should be assessed routinely, including the key domains of social, physical, vocational, and psychological functioning and the impact of TD on the underlying psychiatric disorder.

A Modified Delphi Consensus Study of the Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Tardive Dyskinesia.

OBJECTIVE: A nominal group process followed by a modified Delphi method was used to survey expert opinions on best practices for tardive dyskinesia (TD) screening, diagnosis, and treatment and to identify areas lacking in clinical evidence. PARTICIPANTS: A steering committee of 11 TD experts met in nominal group format to prioritize questions to be addressed and identify core bibliographic materials and criteria for survey panelists. Of 60 invited experts, 29 (23 psychiatrists and 6 neurologists) agreed to participate. EVIDENCE: A targeted literature search of PubMed (search term: tardive dyskinesia) and recommendations of the steering committee were used to generate core bibliographic material. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) review articles, meta-analyses, guidelines, or clinical trials; (2) publication in English between 2007 and 2017; (3) > 3 pages in length; and (4) publication in key clinical journals with impact factors ≥ 2.0. Of 29 references that met these criteria, 18 achieved a score ≥ 5 (calculated as the number of steering committee votes multiplied by journal impact factor and number of citations divided by years since publication) and were included. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Two survey rounds were conducted anonymously through electronic media from November 2017 to January 2018; responses were collected, collated, and analyzed. Respondent agreement was defined a priori as unanimous (100%), consensus (75%-99%), or majority (50%-74%). For questions using a 5-point Likert scale, agreement was based on percentage of respondents choosing ≥ 4 ("agree completely" or "agree"). Round 1 survey included questions on TD screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Round 2 questions were refined per panelist feedback and excluded Round 1 questions with < 25% agreement and > 75% agreement (unless feedback suggested further investigation). CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached that (1) a brief, clinical assessment for TD should be performed at every clinical encounter in patients taking antipsychotics; (2) even mild movements in 1 body area may represent possible TD; (3) management requires an overall evaluation of treatment, including reassessment of antipsychotics and anticholinergics as well as consideration of vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors; and (4) informed discussions with patients/caregivers are essential.

Medication Options and Clinical Strategies for Treating Tardive Dyskinesia.

Valbenazine and deutetrabenazine are FDA-approved as treatment for tardive dyskinesia (TD). Both medications are vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors, and both are effective for reducing TD symptoms. Clinicians need to be aware of the adverse effects of valbenazine and deutetrabenazine, as well as other key differences between the two, in order to individualize treatment. Using the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale assists clinicians in assessing progress for each patient. Treating TD effectively with these new medications will reduce the burden of the condition for patients.

Prevalence, treatment patterns, and stay characteristics associated with hospitalizations for major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations for major depressive disorder (MDD) are a significant burden on patients, their families, and to healthcare systems. This study characterized the prevalence of MDD hospitalizations in the US and described clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, length of stay, costs, and MDD-related hospitalization readmissions. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Premier Perspective® Hospital Database was conducted using records of hospital admissions for MDD from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015. To supplement this analysis, healthcare claims data from Truven MarketScan® Research Database were also evaluated between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014. RESULTS: Among adult hospital stays in the Premier network, 1.3% included a primary diagnosis of MDD. The mean length of MDD-related stays was 6 days, with a mean total hospital charge per stay of $6713. Of those with hospital stays, 5.2% of patients had at least 1 readmission for MDD within 30 days of discharge. In the MarketScan database, 4% of adults with MDD had a MDD-related hospital stay, with a mean length of stay of 6 days and total reimbursed amount per stay of $8441. Of those with hospital stays, 5.4% had at least 1 readmission for MDD within 30 days. LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable to hospitals outside of those represented by these databases. CONCLUSIONS: Adult MDD hospitalizations are costly and associated with high rates of readmission. There is a need for new treatments that may help reduce hospitalizations and costs related to hospitalizations in patients with MDD.

Relapse prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis of brexpiprazole treatment in adult patients with schizophrenia in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: This study used a decision-analytic framework to assess the cost-effectiveness of brexpiprazole vs comparator branded therapies for reducing relapses and hospitalizations among adults with schizophrenia from a US payer perspective. METHODS: An economic model was developed to assess patients with stable schizophrenia initiating treatment with brexpiprazole (1-4 mg), cariprazine (1-6 mg), or lurasidone (40-80 mg) over a 1-year period. After 6 months, patients remained on treatment or discontinued due to relapse, adverse events, or other reasons. Patients who discontinued due to relapse or adverse events were assumed to have switched to other therapy, and those who discontinued due to other reasons were assumed to have received no therapy. Primary outcomes were incremental cost per relapse avoided and hospitalization avoided, and the secondary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: Brexpiprazole was associated with the highest per-patient clinical effectiveness (avoided relapses 0.637, avoided hospitalizations 0.719, QALYs 0.707) among comparators, followed by cariprazine (avoided relapses 0.590, avoided hospitalizations 0.683, QALYs 0.683) and lurasidone (avoided relapses 0.400, avoided hospitalizations 0.536, QALYs 0.623). Annual per-patient health-care costs were lowest for brexpiprazole ($20,510), followed by cariprazine ($22,282) and lurasidone ($25,510). Brexpiprazole was the least costly and most effective treatment strategy for all outcomes. Results were sensitive to relapse rates and daily cost of brexpiprazole. Limitations include data principally obtained from drug-specific randomized withdrawal studies and lack of direct-comparison trials. CONCLUSION: This analysis evaluated brexpiprazole treatment for the reduction of schizophrenia relapses and hospitalizations over a 1-year period compared to other recently available branded antipsychotics, and excluded generic antipsychotic treatments. Brexpiprazole treatment may lead to clinical benefits and medical cost savings, and provides a cost-effective treatment option for patients relatively to other branded second-generation antipsychotics.

Epidemiology, Prevention, and Assessment of Tardive Dyskinesia and Advances in Treatment.

​​ Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a disorder characterized by involuntary movements, typically of the orofacial muscles and also of the extremities and other muscle groups. The condition is associated with exposure to dopamine receptor blocking agents, including antipsychotics. Because the indications and off-label uses for these agents have expanded over the last 2 decades, a larger number of patients are receiving antipsychotic medications than in the past. While evidence suggests that patients being treated with second-generation antipsychotics have less risk for developing TD than those treated with first-generation antipsychotics, the decreased risk is not as great as was originally expected. In addition, patients with chronic psychiatric conditions often require long-term use of antipsychotics, putting them at risk for TD. This article addresses the prevalence, risk factors, and prevention of TD; assessment strategies including diagnostic criteria and rating scales; and evidence for TD treatments, including 2 newly approved medications: deutetrabenazine and valbenazine. ​​​.