A Cross-Sectional Study of Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Antipsychotics Among Medicaid Beneficiaries with Schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Patient affordability is an important nonclinical consideration for treatment access among patients with schizophrenia. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated and measured out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for antipsychotics (APs) among Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia. METHODS: Adults with a schizophrenia diagnosis, ≥ 1 AP claim, and continuous Medicaid eligibility were identified in the MarketScan® Medicaid Database (1 January 2018-31 December 2018). OOP AP pharmacy costs ($US 2019) were normalized for a 30-day supply. Results were descriptively reported by route of administration [ROA; orals (OAPs), long-acting injectables (LAIs)], generic/branded status within ROAs, and dosing schedule within LAIs. The proportion of total (pharmacy and medical) OOP costs AP-attributable was described. RESULTS: In 2018, 48,656 Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia were identified (mean age 46.7 years, 41.1% female, 43.4% Black). Mean annual total OOP costs were $59.97, $6.65 of which was AP attributable. Overall, 39.2%, 38.3%, and 42.3% of beneficiaries with a corresponding claim had OOP costs > $0 for any AP, OAP, and LAI, respectively. Mean OOP costs per patient per 30-day claim (PPPC) were $0.64 for OAPs and $0.86 for LAIs. By LAI dosing schedule, mean OOP costs PPPC were $0.95, $0.90, $0.57, and $0.39 for twice-monthly, monthly, once-every-2-months, and once-every-3-months LAIs, respectively. Across ROAs and generic/branded status, projected OOP AP costs per-patient-per-year for beneficiaries assumed fully adherent ranged from $4.52 to $13.70, representing < 25% of total OOP costs. CONCLUSION: OOP AP costs for Medicaid beneficiaries represented a small fraction of total OOP costs. LAIs with longer dosing schedules had numerically lower mean OOP costs, which were lowest for once-every-3-months LAIs among all APs.

Budget impact of introducing once-every-6-months paliperidone palmitate in US health care plans.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, most patients with schizophrenia have Medicaid coverage. Antipsychotic treatments are the cornerstone of schizophrenia management; most patients are treated with daily oral antipsychotics but struggle with medication adherence. Evidence suggests that medication adherence is inversely correlated with dosing frequency. Once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP) has been demonstrated to improve adherence compared with oral antipsychotics; transitioning to once-every-3-months PP (PP3M) further improved adherence. In 2021, once-every-6-months PP (PP6M) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to provide even longer between-dose intervals. Public health stakeholders who aim to improve medication adherence are interested in understanding how introducing PP6M to the formulary will impact the budget. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the budget impact of introducing PP6M to the formulary from the perspectives of a hypothetical US multistate health care payer and state Medicaid programs using California, Georgia, and Ohio as examples. METHODS: The budget impact model was developed from a payer perspective, comparing the reference scenario (without PP6M in the market) with a new scenario (with PP6M). The study population included patients with schizophrenia who were eligible to receive PP6M. Market shares were assigned to the reference and new market scenarios. Efficacy was measured by the relative risk of relapse while receiving treatment. Adherence effects were included in the model and affected costs of treatment and relapse rates. A deterministic 1-way sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: Base-case results for a multistate payer with 1 million members demonstrate that adding PP6M to the market results in total incremental plan-level costs ranging from $7,747 in year 1 to $11,501 in year 5. Increased drug costs were offset by administration and relapse cost savings ($105 and $881 in year 5, respectively). The average incremental cost per treated patient per year was stable at $180.06 for each year, and the incremental cost per member per month stayed below $0.01 for each year. The results of the model from the state-level Medicaid scenarios are broadly similar to those of the multistate base-case perspective. The 1-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated the model is most sensitive to the per-package costs of PP6M and PP3M, along with the proportion of patients fully adherent with PP3M. CONCLUSIONS: The budget impact of introducing PP6M as a treatment option is minimal. With the expected cost offsets from reduced administration and relapse costs due to adherence benefits, these results suggest that PP6M can be a viable treatment option from a clinical and a budgetary perspective. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. The study sponsor provided funds to Xcenda and ApotheCom for medical writing, editorial support, and submission of the manuscript. Hilary Phelps was an employee of Janssen Global Services, LLC, at the time of the development and finalization of the manuscript. Alex Keenan is an employee of Janssen Global Services, LLC, and holds stock in Johnson & Johnson, Inc. Dee Lin and Carmela Benson are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and hold stock in Johnson & Johnson, Inc. Aditya Raju was an employee of Xcenda at the time of the development and finalization of the manuscript, and Danmeng Huang is an employee of Xcenda, a health care consulting firm that was contracted by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Chih-Yuan Cheng is an employee of Janssen NV.

Projecting the economic outcomes of switching patients with schizophrenia from oral atypical antipsychotics to once-monthly, once-every-3-months, and once-every-6-months paliperidone palmitate.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with schizophrenia, nonadherence to oral atypical antipsychotics (OAAs) leads to increased risk of relapses, which entails substantial economic burden. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact on health care costs and relapse rates of switching patients with schizophrenia from OAAs to once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M), with subsequent transitions to once-every-3-months (PP3M) and once-every-6-months paliperidone palmitate (PP6M). METHODS: A 36-month Markov model was developed from a Medicaid payer's perspective. Two non-mutually exclusive subpopulations of adults with schizophrenia who were nonadherent to OAAs were considered: (1) recently relapsed and (2) young adults (aged 18-35). Patients were assumed nonadherent to OAAs until switching treatments, which was permissible multiple times during the 36-month period. Patients switching to PP1M could subsequently transition to PP3M and PP6M. Relapse rates were assumed consistent across treatments based on patients' adherence. Model inputs were literature based. PP6M transition rates were assumed similar to PP3M. Cost savings were reported at the plan level and per patient switched. RESULTS: In a hypothetical health plan of 1 million Medicaid beneficiaries, an estimated 10,053 adults with schizophrenia were nonadherent to OAAs, among whom 7,454 were recently relapsed and 4,002 were young adults. Switching 5% of recently relapsed adults (N = 373) from OAAs to PP1M prior to subsequent relapse resulted in 541 relapses avoided and plan-level savings of $8.2M after 3 years. Incorporating transitions to PP3M/PP6M increased net savings to $9.1M and 631 relapses were avoided. Among young adults, switching 5% (N = 200) from OAAs to PP1M saved $1.8M at the plan level with 178 relapses avoided after 3 years. Including transitions to PP3M/PP6M, 3-year plan-level savings were $2.0M with 223 relapses avoided. Per recently relapsed patient switched to PP1M, and subsequently to PP3M/PP6M, cumulative 3-year cost savings were $22,100 and $24,300, respectively. Among young adults, corresponding 3-year cost savings per patient were $8,900 and $9,800. CONCLUSIONS: Switching nonadherent patients from OAAs to PP1M results in substantial cost savings and reduces relapse rates. Incorporating transitions to PP3M/PP6M leads to incremental cost savings and additional relapses avoided. DISCLOSURES: Financial support for this research was provided by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Ms Morrison, Ms Ghelerter, Ms Vermette-Laforme, Mr Lefebvre, and Mr Pilon are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., a consulting company that has provided paid consulting services to Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC., which funded the development and conduct of this study and manuscript. Dr Lin and Ms Benson are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC., and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson.

Prevalence, incidence and economic burden of schizophrenia among Medicaid beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence, incidence and economic burden of schizophrenia among Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS: Annual prevalence and incidence of schizophrenia among adult Medicaid beneficiaries were estimated during 2012-2017, by state and across six states (IA, KS, MS, MO, NJ and WI). The pooled estimate of the economic burden of schizophrenia was obtained during 1998Q1-2018Q1 across six states; adults with ≥2 diagnoses of schizophrenia were matched 1:1 to schizophrenia-free controls. The last observed schizophrenia diagnosis (schizophrenia cohort) or the last service claim (control cohort) with ≥12 months of continuous Medicaid enrollment before/after it defined the index date. Healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs ($2018 USD) incurred 12 months post-index were compared between cohorts. The economic burden of schizophrenia was also evaluated among young adults (18-34 years). RESULTS: Annual prevalence of schizophrenia ranged between 2.30% and 2.71% and annual incidence between 0.31% and 0.39% during 2012-2016. In 2017, only states with the highest incidence and prevalence rates (KS, MS, MO) had data, resulting in higher prevalence (4.01%) and incidence (0.52%). For the economic burden, adults with schizophrenia (N = 158,763) had higher HRU and incurred $14,087 higher healthcare costs versus controls (mean: $28,644 vs. $14,557), driven by $4677 higher long-term care costs (all p < .001). Young adults with schizophrenia incurred $14,945 higher healthcare costs versus controls, driven by $3473 higher inpatient costs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Annual prevalence and incidence of schizophrenia varied by state but remained stable over time. Adults with schizophrenia incurred greater HRU and costs relative to adults without schizophrenia; the burden appeared comparable among young adults.

Characteristics and Healthcare Burden of Patients with Schizophrenia Treated in a US Integrated Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is one of 15 major causes of disability worldwide and is responsible for more than USD 150 billion in annual healthcare costs in the United States. Although the burden of schizophrenia as measured by healthcare resource utilization (HRU) is known to be considerable, data generally come from claims databases or healthcare systems/payors representing only a subset of patients, such as Medicare/Medicaid recipients. A broader understanding of HRU across the schizophrenia patient population would help identify underserved groups and inform strategies for improving healthcare delivery. AIMS OF THE STUDY: This observational study examined overall HRU and the influence of sociodemographic factors in adult patients with schizophrenia receiving care in a US integrated healthcare system. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from electronic medical records (EMRs). Patients were required to have at least two diagnostic codes for schizophrenia recorded in the EMR within a 12-month period from January 2009 to June 2018, and to have received active care (≥ 1 in-system healthcare visit every six months) for at least 12 months before and after the index date (the earlier of the schizophrenia diagnosis dates). Patients were followed until no longer receiving active care or the end of the study. Patient characteristics were assessed during the 12-month pre-index period, and inpatient, readmission, emergency room (ER), and outpatient visits and antipsychotic prescriptions were described during follow-up. Findings were reported overall and in subgroups by race/ethnicity, age, and sex. RESULTS: The study cohort included 2,941 patients (mean age, 48.3 years; 54.5% male, 51.8% black, 45.8% with Medicare). During the follow-up period (mean, 4.6 years), inpatient hospital stays were common, with at least one all-cause, mental health-related, or schizophrenia-related inpatient visit occurring for 48.7%, 47.3%, and 38.8% of patients, respectively. Hospital readmissions within 30 days of an all-cause inpatient visit occurred in 20.4% of patients, with 14.5% of patients readmitted within 30 days of a schizophrenia-related inpatient visit. More than two-thirds of patients had ER visits, and 40.7% had schizophrenia-related ER visits. Only 46.7% of patients with a schizophrenia-related inpatient visit and 58.5% of patients with a mental health-related inpatient visit had a 30-day outpatient follow-up visit. Subgroup analyses revealed that a larger proportion of non-Hispanic black vs non-Hispanic white patients had 30-day outpatient follow-up visits, ER visits, mental health specialist visits, and antipsychotic prescriptions. Moreover, older age was associated with fewer ER and mental health specialist visits and less use of injectable and second-generation antipsychotics, and women were less likely than men to receive antipsychotic therapy, particularly injectable medications. DISCUSSION: Patients with schizophrenia receiving care in a US integrated healthcare system had considerable acute HRU and suboptimal rates of routine and follow-up care. Inequities in schizophrenia burden and care were observed in demographic subgroups. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Population health management strategies focusing on efficient resource allocation and improving healthcare quality are needed to reduce the burden of schizophrenia. Differential findings by race/ethnicity, age, and sex indicate the need for optimizing approaches to care in these subgroups.

Economic burden in Medicaid beneficiaries with recently relapsed schizophrenia or with uncontrolled symptoms of schizophrenia not adherent to antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: Patients with schizophrenia struggle with disease relapses and uncontrolled symptoms, which can either result in or be a result of non-adherence to antipsychotics (APs). The economic burden of such patients is hypothesized to be substantial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the economic burden of recently relapsed schizophrenia or of uncontrolled symptoms of schizophrenia with non-adherence to APs in Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS: Adults with ≥ 2 schizophrenia diagnoses and controls without schizophrenia were identified in Medicaid data (1997Q1-2018Q1) from Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. The index date was the last observed schizophrenia diagnosis (cohort with schizophrenia) or the last service claim (control cohort) with ≥ 12 months of continuous Medicaid enrollment before and after it. Cohorts were matched 1:1 using propensity scores. After matching, two subgroups were identified among adults with schizophrenia: (1) patients with schizophrenia and a recent relapse (≥ 1 schizophrenia-related inpatient or emergency department claim ≤ 60 days before or on the index date) and (2) patients with uncontrolled symptoms of schizophrenia (≥ 2 schizophrenia-related hospitalizations) and non-adherence to APs (proportion of days covered < 80%) in the 12-month pre-index period. Previously matched controls were then subset to patients in each subgroup and their matched pairs without schizophrenia, thus maintaining the 1:1 matching ratio. Healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs ($2018 USD) in the 12-month post-index (observation) period were compared between matched pairs using adjusted regression models. RESULTS: Among 158,763 patients with schizophrenia, 18,771 (11.8%) had a recent relapse (mean age 50.5 years; 48.6% female, 51.4% male) and 13,697 (8.6%) were not adherent to APs and had uncontrolled symptoms of schizophrenia (mean age 47.1 years; 48.0% female, 52.0% male). During the observation period, patients with recently relapsed schizophrenia and those non-adherent to APs with uncontrolled symptoms of schizophrenia had significantly higher HRU relative to their controls without schizophrenia. Patients with recently relapsed schizophrenia had mean total healthcare costs $21,862 higher relative to their controls ($37,424 vs $15,563), driven by $8,486 higher mean long-term care costs (all P < 0.001). Patients non-adherent to APs with uncontrolled symptoms of schizophrenia had adjusted mean total healthcare costs $20,787 higher relative to their controls ($38,337 vs $15,241), driven by $8,019 higher adjusted mean inpatient costs (all P < 0.001). Additional total healthcare costs incurred by patients with recently relapsed schizophrenia and those of patients non-adherent to APs with uncontrolled symptoms of schizophrenia exceeded by 55.2% and 47.6%, respectively, incremental total healthcare costs incurred by all patients with schizophrenia ($14,087). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with recently relapsed schizophrenia and those non-adherent to AP therapy with uncontrolled symptoms of schizophrenia incurred higher HRU and costs relative to patients without schizophrenia. Additional healthcare costs of these subgroups of patients with schizophrenia appeared higher than in the overall population with schizophrenia. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. The sponsor was involved in the study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation, and publication decisions. Pilon, Lafeuille, Zhdanava, Côté-Sergent, Rossi, and Lefebvre are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., a consulting company that has provided paid consulting services to Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, which funded the development and conduct of this study and manuscript. Patel, Joshi, and Lin are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson. Part of the material in this manuscript has been presented at the US Psych Congress, October 3-6, 2019, San Diego, CA, and at the Virtual ISPOR Meeting, May 18-20, 2020.

Real-World Evidence of the Clinical and Economic Impact of Long-Acting Injectable Versus Oral Antipsychotics Among Patients with Schizophrenia in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics, compared with oral antipsychotics (OA), have been found to significantly improve patient outcomes, including reduced hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) admissions and increased medication adherence among adult patients with schizophrenia. In turn, the clinical benefits achieved may translate into lower economic burden. Real-world evidence of the comparative effectiveness of LAI is needed to understand the potential benefits of LAI outside of the context of clinical trials. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive synthesis of recent published real-world studies comparing healthcare utilization, costs, and adherence between patients with schizophrenia treated with LAI versus OA in the United States. METHODS: In this systematic literature review, MEDLINE® was searched for peer-reviewed, real-world studies (i.e., retrospective or pragmatic designs) published in English between January 1, 2010 and February 10, 2020. Comparative studies reporting hospitalizations, ER admissions, healthcare costs, or medication adherence (measured by proportion of days covered [PDC]) in adults with schizophrenia treated with LAI versus OA (or pre- vs post-LAI initiation) in the United States were retained. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted among eligible studies to evaluate the association of LAI versus OA use on hospitalizations, ER admissions, healthcare costs, and treatment adherence. A sensitivity analysis among the subset of studies that compared OA with paliperidone palmitate once monthly (PP1M), specifically, was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 1083 articles were identified by the electronic literature search, and two publications were manually added subsequently. Among the 57 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, 25 provided sufficient information for inclusion in the meta-analyses. Compared with patients treated with OA, patients initiated on LAI had lower odds of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.71, n = 7), fewer hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% CI] 0.75 [0.65-0.88], n = 9), and fewer ER admissions (IRR [95% CI] 0.86 [0.77-0.97], n = 6). The initiation of LAI was associated with higher per-patient-per-year (PPPY) pharmacy costs (mean difference [MD] [95% CI] $5603 [3799-7407], n = 6), which was offset by lower PPPY medical costs (MD [95% CI] - $5404 [- 7745 to - 3064], n = 6), resulting in no significant net difference in PPPY total all-cause healthcare costs between patients treated with LAI and those treated with OA (MD [95% CI] $327 [- 1565 to 2219], n = 7). Patients initiated on LAI also had higher odds of being adherent to their medication (PDC ≥ 80%; OR [95% CI] 1.89 [1.52-2.35], n = 9). A sensitivity analysis on a subset of publications evaluating PP1M found results similar to those of the main analysis conducted at the LAI class level. CONCLUSIONS: Based on multiple studies with varying sub-types of patient populations with schizophrenia in the United States published in the last decade, this meta-analysis demonstrated that LAI antipsychotics were associated with improved medication adherence and significant clinical benefit such as reduced hospitalizations and ER admissions compared with OA. The lower medical costs offset the higher pharmacy costs, resulting in a non-significant difference in total healthcare costs. Taken together, these findings provide strong evidence on the clinical and economic benefits of LAI compared with OA for the treatment of schizophrenia in the real world.

Antipsychotic Adherence, Resource Use, and Costs Before and After the Initiation of Once-monthly Paliperidone Palmitate Therapy Among Medicaid Beneficiaries With Prior Schizophrenia Relapse.

PURPOSE: Patients with schizophrenia often struggle with medication adherence and may benefit from the use of a long-acting injectable antipsychotic, including once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M), which was previously demonstrated to improve outcomes compared with oral antipsychotics. This study assessed the impact of initiating PP1M therapy on medication adherence, health care resource use (HRU), and costs among Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia and a prior schizophrenia relapse. METHODS: A 6-state Medicaid database (from quarter 1 of 2009 to quarter 1 of 2018) was used to identify adults with ≥2 schizophrenia diagnoses who started PP1M therapy on or after January 1, 2010. The index date was the first PP1M claim. Patients had ≥12 months of continuous Medicaid enrollment before and after the index date, ≥1 oral antipsychotic claim in the 12 months before the index date, and ≥1 relapse (proxied as a schizophrenia-related inpatient admission or emergency department [ED] visit) during the 12 months before the index date. Generalized estimating equations were used to compare adherence to antipsychotics (proportion of days covered ≥80%), HRU, and costs (reported in 2018 US dollars) in the 12 months after versus before the index date. Sensitivity analyses were conducted (1) accounting for the minimum and cumulative price inflation Medicaid rebates for pharmacy costs of branded psychiatric medications, (2) among patients with ≥2, ≥3, and ≥4 prior schizophrenia-related inpatient admissions or ED visits, (3) among patients not adherent to antipsychotic treatment before the index date, and (4) among patients switching to PP1M directly from oral risperidone or paliperidone. FINDINGS: A total of 1725 patients met the study inclusion criteria (mean age, 39.5 years; 43% female). After versus before the index date, patients were 93% more likely to be adherent to antipsychotic treatment (P < 0.01). The likelihood of inpatient admissions and ED visits decreased by 89% and 49% (all P < 0.01) after initiating PP1M therapy. The number of inpatient days decreased by 31% (P < 0.01) and the number of ED visits by 16% (P = 0.03). Pharmacy costs increased by $514 per-patient-per-month (PPPM), whereas medical costs, driven by inpatient costs, decreased by $391 PPPM (all P < 0.01). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar trends. Notably, total health care cost savings of $231 PPPM were observed after accounting for the cumulative Medicaid rebate for costs of branded psychiatric medications (P < 0.01). IMPLICATIONS: In Medicaid beneficiaries with relapsed schizophrenia, transitioning from oral antipsychotics to PP1M was associated with improved adherence to antipsychotics and decreased use of inpatient and ED services. Increased pharmacy costs after the initiation of PP1M were offset by decreased medical costs. After applying the cumulative Medicaid rebate, including the price inflation rebate for costs of branded psychiatric medications, initiation of PP1M therapy resulted in statistically significant health care cost savings.

Risk of subsequent relapses and corresponding healthcare costs among recently-relapsed Medicaid patients with schizophrenia: a real-world retrospective cohort study.

AIMS: To compare adherence, rates of subsequent schizophrenia-related relapses, healthcare resource utilization, and healthcare costs among Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia who initiated once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) versus a new oral atypical antipsychotic (OAA) following a recent schizophrenia-related relapse. METHODS: Six-state Medicaid data (01/2009-03/2018) were used to identify adults with schizophrenia initiated on PP1M or OAA (index date) within 30 days following a schizophrenia-related relapse (defined as a schizophrenia-related inpatient or emergency room visit). Patients were required to have 12 months of continuous eligibility before (baseline) and after (observation) the index date. Differences in baseline characteristics between PP1M and OAA patients were accounted for using 1:3 matching. RESULTS: After matching, characteristics were well-balanced between PP1M (N=208, mean age=39 years, 35.6% female) and OAA patients (N=624, mean age=40 years, 34.6% female). During the 12-month observation period, the mean proportion of days covered for the index medication was 41.2% in the PP1M cohort and 34.7% in the OAA cohort (p=.008). Relative to the OAA cohort, PP1M patients were 33% (p=.013) less likely to have a subsequent relapse and had 29% (p=.004) fewer all-cause inpatient admissions per-patient-per-year (PPPY). Consequently, a significant mean reduction of $6273 in medical costs PPPY (p=.028) was observed, which fully offset the $4770 (p<.001) increase in pharmacy costs PPPY and resulted in a numerical but not statistically significant, decrease in total healthcare costs of $1503 PPPY (p=.621) relative to OAA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a recent schizophrenia-related relapse, PP1M was associated with a lower risk of subsequent relapse while remaining a cost neutral therapeutic option compared to OAAs.

Medication adherence, healthcare resource utilization, and costs among Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia treated with once-monthly paliperidone palmitate or once-every-three-months paliperidone palmitate.

OBJECTIVE: Antipsychotics with reduced dosing frequency may improve adherence and clinical outcomes for patients with schizophrenia. This study compared treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and costs between Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia treated with once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) and those who transitioned to once-every-three-months paliperidone palmitate (PP3M). METHODS: Adults with schizophrenia were identified in a four-state Medicaid database (18 May 2014 to 31 March 2019). The index date was the first PP3M claim (PP3M cohort), or a random PP1M claim (PP1M cohort), following ≥4 months of continuous PP1M treatment among patients with ≥12 months of continuous Medicaid enrollment pre- and post-index. Adherence (proportion of days covered by the index treatment ≥80%), persistence (no gap >90/30 days in the PP3M/PP1M supply), HRU, and costs were compared during the 12-month post-index period between cohorts matched 1:1. RESULTS: Among 2374 patients identified, 374 remained in each cohort after matching (mean age 42 years; 30.5% female). Compared to the PP1M cohort, the PP3M cohort was 2.39 times more likely to be adherent (p < .001), 4.63 times more likely to be persistent (p < .001), 33% less likely to have ≥1 hospitalization (p = .011), and 32% less likely to have ≥1 day with home care services (p = .012). Mean annual medical costs were similar between cohorts ($24,970 in the PP3M cohort and $25,736 in the PP1M cohort; p = .854). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid beneficiaries who transitioned to PP3M had higher adherence and persistence, and a reduced likelihood of hospitalization relative to those who continued treatment with PP1M. The results suggest potential clinical value to transitioning eligible patients to PP3M.

Estimation of Annual Health Care Costs for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes health care resource utilization (HCRU) studies tend to focus on patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) or pool patients with T2D and type 1 diabetes (T1D). There is a paucity of recent data on the cost of treating patients with T1D in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To (a) estimate the per-patient per-year (PPPY) HCRU and costs, from a payer perspective, associated with treating U.S. adults with T1D and (b) compare these with the HCRU and costs for patients with T2D. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used claims data from the Optum Clinformatics database between January 2015 and December 2017. Adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with a diagnosis of T1D were propensity score-matched to adults with T2D. Overall and nondiabetes-related HCRU and costs were assessed for T1D and T2D and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Propensity scores were used to match 10,103 patient pairs from T1D and T2D cohorts (mean ages 54.4 and 56.9 years, respectively). In the T1D cohort, inpatient, emergency department (ED), outpatient, and prescription claims occurred in 14.0%, 17.3%, 85.5%, and 100% of patients, respectively, resulting in a mean total cost of U.S. $18,817 PPPY (diabetes-related = $11,002; nondiabetes-related = $7,816). The T1D cohort had significantly higher mean total costs than the T2D cohort ($18,817 vs. $14,148 PPPY; P < 0.001). When extrapolating these findings to a commercial health plan with 1 million covered lives, the estimated total direct medical costs of T1D would be $103.4 million. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the total annual cost of managing an adult with T1D is significantly higher than that of an adult with T2D. Nondiabetes costs accounted for 40% of the total per-patient cost, similar to patients with T2D, confirming that as patients with T1D live longer lives, they may also be at greater risk for cardiometabolic complications. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi U.S. and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals as part of a business partnership in a diabetes program at the time this study was conducted. Joish and Davies are employees and stockholders of Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Zhou, Preblick, and Paranjape are employees and stockholders of Sanofi. Lin was a postdoctoral fellow at Sanofi through Rutgers University during this project. Deshpande provided consulting services through Communication Symmetry. Verma is an employee of Evidera, which was contracted by Sanofi for work on this study. Pettus is a consultant for Diasome, Insulet, Lexicon, Lilly, Mannkind, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Senseonics.