Mental health diagnoses and services utilization vary by wage level.

OBJECTIVES: The relationship between employee wage status and mental health care utilization has not been characterized in large-scale analyses. This study assessed health care utilization and cost patterns for mental health diagnoses according to wage category among employees with health insurance. STUDY DESIGN: This was an observational, retrospective cohort study for the year 2017 among 2,386,844 adult full-time employees (254,851 with mental health disorders; subgroup of 125,247 with depression) enrolled in self-insured plans in the IBM Watson Health MarketScan research database. METHODS: Participants were stratified into annual wage categories: $34,000 or less; more than $34,000 to $45,000; more than $45,000 to $69,000; more than $69,000 to $103,000; and more than $103,000. Health care utilization and costs were analyzed via regression analyses. RESULTS: Prevalence of diagnosed mental health disorders was 10.7% (9.3% in the lowest-wage category); prevalence of depression was 5.2% (4.2% in the lowest-wage category). Severity of mental health, and specifically depression episodes, was greater in lower-wage categories. All-cause utilization of health care services was higher in patients with mental health diagnoses vs the total population. Among patients with mental health diagnoses, specifically depression, utilization was highest in the lowest- vs highest-wage category for hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and prescription drug supply (all P < .0001). All-cause health care costs were higher in the lowest- vs highest-wage category among patients with mental health diagnoses ($11,183 vs $10,519; P < .0001), specifically depression ($12,206 vs $11,272; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Lower mental health condition prevalence and greater use of high-intensity health care resources highlight the need to more effectively identify and manage mental health conditions among lower-wage workers.

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.

Incremental burden of relapse in patients with major depressive disorder: a real-world, retrospective cohort study using claims data.

BACKGROUND: Relapse is common in major depressive disorder (MDD). In this study, we evaluated the incremental health care burden of relapse in patients with MDD. METHODS: This real-world retrospective cohort study used administrative medical and pharmacy claims data to identify commercially insured adult patients in the United States diagnosed with MDD who initiated a new antidepressant between January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2017. All-cause health care resource utilization, total costs, and medication adherence were evaluated in two cohorts: patients with and patients without relapse. Relapse was defined as suicide attempts, psychiatric hospitalization, mental health-related emergency department (ED) visit, use of electroconvulsive therapy, or reinitiation of treatment after a gap ≥6 months. RESULTS: The study population included 14,186 patients (7093 baseline-matched patients per cohort). The mean follow-up period was 27.5 and 26.0 months for patients with and patients without relapse, respectively. Patients with relapse had significantly higher rates of hospitalization (16.6% vs 8.5%; p < .0001) and ED visits (54.8% vs 34.7%; p < .0001) than patients without relapse. The total costs for patients with relapse were significantly higher ($12,594 vs $10,445;  p < .0001). Patients with relapse were also less adherent to antidepressants (mean proportion of days covered, 0.43 vs 0.49; p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Relapse of MDD was associated with increased total costs and health care utilization and lower adherence to antidepressants. Reducing the risk of relapse may result in a reduction of the associated health care burden; however, findings may only be generalizable to patients with commercial insurance.

Characterizing primary care for patients with major depressive disorder using electronic health records of a US-based healthcare provider.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is predominantly managed in primary care. However, primary care providers (PCPs) may not consistently follow evidence-based treatment algorithms, leading to variable patient management that can impact outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed adult patients with MDD seen at Geisinger, an integrated health system. Utilizing electronic health record (EHR) data, we classified patients as having MDD based on International Classification of Disease (ICD)-9/10 codes or a Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 score ≥5. Outcomes assessed included time to first visit with a PCP or behavioral health specialist following diagnosis, antidepressant medication switching, persistence, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and treatment costs. RESULTS: Among the 38,321 patients with MDD managed in primary care in this study, significant delays between diagnosis with antidepressant prescribing and follow-up PCP visits were observed. There was also considerable variation in care following diagnosis. Overall, 34.9% of patients with an ICD-9/10 diagnosis of MDD and 41.3% with a PHQ-9 score ≥15 switched antidepressants. An ICD-9/10 diagnosis, but not moderately severe to severe depression, was associated with higher costs and HRU. More than 75% of patients with MDD discontinued antidepressant medication within 6 months. LIMITATIONS: The study population was comparable with other real-world studies of MDD, but study limitations include its retrospective nature and reliance on the accuracy of EHRs. CONCLUSIONS: Management of patients with MDD in a primary care setting is variable. Addressing these gaps will have important implications for ensuring optimal patient management, which may reduce HRU and treatment medication costs, and improve treatment persistence.

Incremental burden of comorbid major depressive disorder in patients with type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease: a retrospective claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: The estimated prevalence of comorbid major depressive disorder (. MDD) is 11% in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and 15-20% in those with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Comorbid MDD continues to be a significant source of economic burden to the healthcare system. METHODS: We assessed the incremental healthcare burden of comorbid MDD in patients with T2D or CVD. This real-world, retrospective, administrative claims study analyzed commercially insured adults with T2D or CVD diagnosed on at least 2 separate claims within 12 months of each other (between January 1, 2011, and September 30, 2018). CVD included congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, coronary heart disease, and cerebrovascular disease. The study compared patients with and without MDD with either T2D or CVD. Study assessments included all-cause healthcare resource utilization (proportion of patients with hospitalization, emergency department [ED] visits, and outpatient visits) and cost. RESULTS: Patients were matched by propensity score for demographics and baseline characteristics, resulting in similar baseline characteristics for the respective subcohorts. After matching, 22,892 patients with T2D (11,446 each with and without MDD) and 28,298 patients with CVD (14,149 each with and without MDD) were included. At follow-up, patients with T2D and MDD had significantly higher rates of hospitalization (26.1% vs 17.4%, P < 0.0001) and ED visits (55.3% vs 43.0%, P < 0.0001) than those observed in patients without MDD. The total cost for patients with T2D and MDD at follow-up was significantly higher than for those without MDD ($16,511 vs $11,550, P < 0.0001). Similarly, at follow-up, patients with CVD and MDD had significantly higher rates of hospitalization (45.4% vs 34.1%, P < 0.0001) and ED visits (66.5% vs 55.4%, P < 0.0001) than those observed in patients without MDD. Total cost at follow-up for patients with CVD and MDD was significantly higher than for those without MDD ($25,546 vs $18,041, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with either T2D or CVD and comorbid MDD have higher total all-cause healthcare utilization and cost than similar patients without MDD. Study findings reinforce the need for appropriate management of MDD in patients with these comorbid diseases, which in turn may result in cost reductions for payers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine compared with levomilnacipran and vilazodone in patients with major depressive disorder switching from an initial antidepressant.

Introduction: Many patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not achieve remission with their first antidepressant (AD), resulting in a high burden due to treatment failure. Vortioxetine is a valid treatment option for patients with MDD only partially responding to their first AD. Characterization of vortioxetine's potential benefits versus other approved treatments is important. Areas covered: The cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine, including cognitive outcomes, was modeled in comparison with levomilnacipran and vilazodone for patients switched to these medications after inadequate responses to a first AD. Expert opinion: Vortioxetine was associated with incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains versus levomilnacipran (0.008) or vilazodone (0.009). Vortioxetine was dominant versus levomilnacipran and cost-effective versus vilazodone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER],33,829 USD/QALY). In sensitivity analyses using residual cognitive dysfunction rates (vortioxetine, 49%; levomilnacipran, 58%, and vilazodone, 64%), incremental QALY gains for vortioxetine versus levomilnacipran (0.0085) or vilazodone (0.0109) were found. Vortioxetine remained dominant versus levomilnacipran and cost-effective versus vilazodone (ICER, 27,633 USD/QALY). ICER reduction was found with cognition outcomes inclusion. This model provides additional support for considering vortioxetine for patients requiring a switch of MDD treatments, although its conclusions are limited by the data available for inclusion. Additional research and real-world trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Hospitalization risk factors in antipsychotic-treated schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder or major depressive disorder.

AIM: To examine hospitalization risk factors in antipsychotic-treated patients with schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder (BD-I) or major depressive disorder (MDD). PATIENTS & METHODS: Using Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial, Medicaid and Medicare Supplemental data (01/01/2012-06/30/2016), logistic regression models were performed to identify risk factors for both psychiatric and all-cause hospitalization in three separate analyses. RESULTS: Significant risk factors included prior hospitalization (schizophrenia: odds ratio [95% CI]: 2.83 [2.50-3.21; psychiatric]; 2.58 [2.31-2.87; all-cause]; BD-I: 2.42 [2.23-2.63]; 2.09 [1.96-2.23]; MDD: 2.81 [2.49-3.16]; 2.21 [2.03-2.40]), previous antipsychotic treatment (schizophrenia: 1.71 [1.52-1.93]; 1.31 [1.18-1.46]; BD-I: 1.33 [1.23-1.44]; 1.22 [1.14-1.30]; MDD: 1.31 (1.11-1.54); 1.17 (1.04-1.32) and substance abuse (schizophrenia: 1.42 [1.27-1.60]; 1.37 [1.23-1.53]; BD-I: 1.72 [1.58-1.86]; 1.61 [1.50-1.72]; MDD: 1.90 [1.68-2.15] and 1.55 [1.41-1.71]). CONCLUSION: Prior hospitalization, previous antipsychotic treatment and substance abuse were associated with increased hospitalization risk in schizophrenia, BD-I or MDD.

Medication Adherence and Discontinuation of Aripiprazole Once-Monthly 400 mg (AOM 400) Versus Oral Antipsychotics in Patients with Schizophrenia or Bipolar I Disorder: A Real-World Study Using US Claims Data.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have compared adherence between long-acting injectable antipsychotics, especially for newer agents like aripiprazole once-monthly 400 mg (AOM 400; aripiprazole monohydrate) and oral antipsychotics, in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder (BD-I) in a real-world setting. METHODS: Two separate retrospective cohort analyses using Truven MarketScan data from January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2016 were conducted to compare medication adherence and discontinuation in patients with schizophrenia or BD-I who initiated treatment with AOM 400 vs. patients changed from one oral antipsychotic monotherapy to another. Adherence was defined as proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥ 0.80 in the year following the index date. Linear regression models examined the association between AOM 400 and oral antipsychotic cohorts and medication adherence. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression estimated time to and risk of discontinuation, while adjusting for baseline covariates. A sensitivity analysis was conducted using a combination of propensity score matching and exact matching to create matched cohorts. RESULTS: Final cohort sizes were as follows-Schizophrenia: AOM 400 n = 408, oral antipsychotic n = 3361; BD-I: AOM 400 n = 413, oral antipsychotic n = 15,534. In patients with schizophrenia, adjusted mean PDC was higher in patients in the AOM 400 cohort vs. the oral antipsychotic cohort (0.57 vs. 0.48 P < 0.001), and patients in the oral antipsychotic cohort had a higher risk of discontinuing treatment vs. the AOM 400 cohort (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.29-1.64). For patients with BD-I, adjusted mean PDC was higher for the AOM 400 cohort (0.59 vs. 0.44, P < 0.001), and patients in the oral antipsychotic cohort had a higher risk of discontinuation (HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.53-1.92). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-word setting, AOM 400 resulted in a significantly higher percentage of patients with a PDC ≥ 0.80 and significantly longer time to treatment discontinuation compared to patients with schizophrenia or BD-I who received treatment with an oral antipsychotic. FUNDING: Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development and Commercialization, Inc. and Lundbeck.

A real-world analysis of healthcare costs and relative risk of hyperprolactinemia associated with antipsychotic treatments in the United States.

AIMS: Antipsychotic medications are associated with an increased risk of hyperprolactinemia, but differ in their propensity to cause this complication. This study aimed to assess the economic burden of hyperprolactinemia, and to compare its risk among adult patients using atypical antipsychotics (AAs) with a mechanism of action associated with no/low vs high/moderate prolactin elevation. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was based on US Commercial and Medicaid claims databases. Healthcare costs were compared between matched hyperprolactinemia and hyperprolactinemia-free cohorts using a two-part model. Risk of hyperprolactinemia was compared between patients receiving AAs with a mechanism of action associated with no/low (no/low prolactin elevation cohort) vs high/moderate prolactin elevation (high/moderate prolactin cohort) using logistic regression. RESULTS: In the commercially insured sample, compared to the hyperprolactinemia-free cohort (n = 499), the hyperprolactinemia cohort (n = 499) was associated with incremental total healthcare costs of $5,732 ($20,081 vs $14,349; p = .004), and incremental medical costs of $3,861 ($13,218 vs $9,357; p = .040), mainly driven by hyperprolactinemia-related costs. In the Medicaid-insured sample, compared to the hyperprolactinemia-free cohort, the hyperprolactinemia cohort was associated with incremental total healthcare costs of $10,773 ($30,763 vs $19,990; p = .004), and incremental medical costs of $9,246 ($20,859 vs $11,613; p = .004), mainly driven by hyperprolactinemia-related and mental health-related costs. The odds of hyperprolactinemia in the no/low prolactin elevation cohort were 4-5-times lower than that in the high/moderate prolactin elevation cohort (odds ratio =0.21; p < .001). LIMITATIONS: Hyperprolactinemia may be under-reported in claims data. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperprolactinemia is associated with substantial healthcare costs. AAs associated with no/low prolactin elevation reduce the risk of hyperprolactinemia by 4-5-times compared to AAs associated with moderate/high prolactin elevation. Treatment options with minimal impact on prolactin levels may contribute to reducing hyperprolactinemia burden in AA-treated patients.

Health Care Resource Use, Costs, and Diagnosis Patterns in Patients With Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder: Real-world Evidence From US Claims Databases.

PURPOSE: Schizophrenia (SCZ) and bipolar disorder (BD) are typically viewed as nonconcurrent psychiatric disorders, yet patients may experience mood and SCZ symptoms simultaneously. Several studies have shown overlap between SCZ and BD symptoms and susceptibility genes. This study explored the following: (1) patterns of administrative claims; (2) demographic characteristics and comorbidities; (3) health care resource use; and (4) health care costs in patients with diagnoses of SCZ, type I BD (BD-I), and both in a real-world setting. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cohort trial using 4.5years (January 1, 2012-June 30, 2016) of Truven MarketScan commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare supplemental databases. We considered a patient to have a new episode of SCZ if he or she had 1 inpatient claim or 2 outpatient claims for SCZ within the identification period (January 1, 2013-June 30, 2015). BD-I was defined in an analogous way. Three study cohorts were defined: (1) SCZ alone (cohort I), met the claims-based diagnostic criteria for SCZ; (2) BD-I alone (cohort II), met the claims-based diagnostic criteria for BD-I; and (3) BD-I and SCZ (cohort III), met the claims-based diagnostic criteria for both SCZ and BD-I. FINDINGS: Of the 63,725 patients in the final sample, 11.5% (n = 7336) had a new episode of SCZ alone (cohort I), 80.8% (n = 51,480) had a new episode of BD-I alone (cohort II), and 7.7% (n = 4909) had new episodes of both SCZ and BD-I (cohort III). Considering cohort III, 18.8% (n = 927) received both diagnoses on the same day. In the year after diagnosis, the cohort having a diagnosis of both SCZ and BD-I (cohort III) had the highest all-cause hospitalization rates (67.4% vs 39.5% in SCZ alone and 33.7% in BD-I alone) and the highest mean (SD) number of emergency department visits (3.44 [7.1] vs 1.39 [3.5] in SCZ alone and 1.29 [3.2] in BD-I alone). All-cause total health care costs were highest in the cohort having a diagnosis of both SCZ and BD-I (mean [SD]), $51,085 [$62,759]), followed by the SCZ alone cohort ($34,204 [$52,995]), and the BD-I alone cohort ($26,396 [$48,294]). IMPLICATIONS: Our analyses indicate that a substantial number of patients received diagnoses of both SCZ and BD-I, based on claims, in a 2.5-year period. Patients with a diagnosis of both SCZ and BD-I had higher health care utilization and costs than patients with either diagnosis alone. We identified differential patient characteristics, utilization of medications and health care services, and health care costs among the cohorts.

Impact of initiating long-acting injectable antipsychotics on hospitalization in patients with bipolar I disorder.

AIM: To compare risk of hospitalization in patients with bipolar I disorder (BD-I) initiating long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs). MATERIALS & METHODS: Using Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® (Medicaid, Commercial and Medicare Supplemental) databases (2012-2016), patients (≥18 years) with BD-I with a LAI (aripiprazole once monthly [AOM 400], fluphenazine-LAI, haloperidol-LAI, risperidone-LAI and paliperidone-4-week-LAI) were identified. RESULTS: The adjusted odds of having hospitalization were significantly higher in haloperidol-LAI (Odds ratio [95% CI]: 1.39 [1.03-1.87] all-cause; p = 0.029; 1.41 [1.03-1.93] psychiatric-specific; p = 0.032) and risperidone-LAI (1.54 [1.12-2.13]; p = 0.009; 1.68 [1.20-2.37]; p = 0.003) users versus AOM 400 users. Risks of hospitalization did not differ comparing fluphenazine-LAI and paliperidone-LAI users with AOM 400 users. CONCLUSION: AOM 400 may be more beneficial at reducing hospitalization rates in BD-I versus haloperidol-LAI and risperidone-LAI.

Budget impact analysis of long-acting injectable aripiprazole once-monthly 400 mg in bipolar I disorder in the USA.

AIM: To estimate the budget impact (BI) of introducing aripiprazole once-monthly 400 mg/300 mg (AOM 400) in the maintenance monotherapy treatment of bipolar I disorder versus long-acting injectables, oral antipsychotics and best supportive care. METHODS: A BI model was developed from a US-payer perspective using treatment-related, hospitalization and adverse event management cost estimates for a hypothetical 1,000,000-member health plan over a 5-year period. RESULTS: Market share of AOM 400 was predicted to increase from 0.6% in Year 1 (current scenario) to 1.3% in Year 5 (predicted scenario), with predicted increases for paliperidone palmitate, asenapine and cariprazine. Treatment-related costs explained the BI increase, while adverse event and hospitalization costs were reduced. The per member per month incremental cost ranged from US$0.06 to US$0.26 in Years 1-5. The largest increases were predicted for paliperidone palmitate. CONCLUSION: As market shares of atypical antipsychotics are predicted to increase, payers may wish to re-evaluate their use.

Cost-effectiveness of long-acting injectable aripiprazole once-monthly 400 mg in bipolar I disorder in the USA.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole once-monthly 400/300 mg (AOM 400) in maintenance monotherapy treatment of bipolar I disorder (BP-I). METHODS: A de novo lifetime Markov model was developed for BP-I using available data for AOM 400 and relevant comparators. Base-case analysis considered costs and outcomes from the US payer perspective. RESULTS: The cost per quality-adjusted life year gained with AOM 400 versus comparators ranged from US$2007 versus oral asenapine to dominance (i.e., lower cost with quality-adjusted life gain) versus long-acting injectable risperidone, paliperidone palmitate, oral cariprazine and best supportive care. Patients treated with AOM 400 were estimated to have fewer mood episodes and hospitalizations per patient (5.37) than comparators (6.33, asenapine or cariprazine; 6.54, risperidone long-acting injectable; 7.64, paliperidone palmitate; and 8.93, best supportive care). Sensitivity analyses showed results were robust to parameter uncertainty. CONCLUSION: AOM 400 may be considered cost effective in the maintenance monotherapy treatment of BP-I in adults.

The economic burden of bipolar I disorder in the United States in 2015.

BACKGROUND: The current societal costs of bipolar I disorder (BDI) have not been comprehensively characterized in the United States, as previous studies are based on data from two decades ago. METHODS: The costs of BDI were estimated for 2015 and comprised direct healthcare costs, non-healthcare costs, and indirect costs, calculated based on a BDI prevalence of 1%. The excess costs of BDI were estimated as the difference between the costs incurred by individuals with BDI and those incurred by individuals without BD or individuals from the general population. Direct healthcare costs were assessed using three large US claims databases for insured individuals and the literature for uninsured individuals. Direct non-healthcare and indirect costs were based on the literature and governmental publications. RESULTS: The total costs of BDI were estimated at $202.1 billion in 2015, corresponding to an average of $81,559 per individual, while the excess costs of BDI were estimated at $119.8 billion, corresponding to an average of $48,333 per individual. The largest contributors to excess costs were caregiving (36%), direct healthcare costs (21%), and unemployment (20%). In sensitivity analyses, excess costs ranged from $101.2 to $124.3 billion. LIMITATIONS: Direct healthcare costs were calculated based on a BDI diagnosis, thus excluding undiagnosed patients. Direct non-healthcare and indirect costs were based on combined estimates from the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Besides direct healthcare costs, BDI was associated with substantial direct non-healthcare and indirect costs. More effective treatments and practices are needed to optimize therapeutic strategies and contain direct and indirect costs.

Medication adherence and discontinuation of long-acting injectable versus oral antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

AIMS: To examine medication adherence and discontinuation in two separate groups of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (BD), who began receiving a long-acting injectable antipsychotic (LAI) versus those who changed to a different oral antipsychotic monotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid claims database was used to identify patients with schizophrenia; Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial and Medicaid claims databases were used to identify patients with BD. The analyses included adult patients (≥18 years) who either began receiving an LAI (no prior LAI therapy) or changed to a different oral antipsychotic (monotherapy). The first day of initiating an LAI or changing to a new oral antipsychotic was the index date. Linear and Cox regression models were conducted to estimate medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC]) and time to medication discontinuation (continuous medication gap ≥60 days), respectively. Models adjusted for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, baseline medication use, and baseline ED or hospitalizations. RESULTS: Patients with schizophrenia (N = 5638) who began receiving LAIs had better medication adherence (5% higher adjusted mean adherence) during the 1 year post-index period and were 20% less likely to discontinue their medication during the entire follow-up period than patients who changed to a different oral antipsychotic monotherapy, adjusting for differences between LAI users and oral users. Similarly, patients with BD (N = 11,344) who began receiving LAIs also had 5% better medication adherence and were 19% less likely to discontinue their medication than those using oral antipsychotics. LIMITATIONS: Clinical differences unmeasurable in this database may have been responsible for the choice of LAI versus oral antipsychotics, and these differences may be responsible for some of the adherence advantages observed. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study suggests that patients with schizophrenia or BD who began receiving LAIs had better medication adherence and lower discontinuation risk than those who changed to a different oral antipsychotic monotherapy.

All-cause hospitalization and associated costs in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder initiating long-acting injectable antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVE: To compare all-cause hospitalization and associated costs among patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (BD) treated with long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs). METHODS: The Truven MarketScan Medicaid claims database was used to identify patients with schizophrenia; MarketScan Medicaid and commercial claims databases were used to identify BD. Adult patients with ≥1 LAI claim from January 1, 2013-June 30, 2014 (ID period) were identified. The first day of LAI initiation was the index date; patients were followed for ≥1 year. Logistic and general linear regression models were used to estimate the risk of hospitalization and associated costs. RESULTS: Adjusted analyses showed that, in the schizophrenia cohort, risks of hospitalization were statistically significantly higher in the haloperidol [OR (95% CI) = 1.51 (1.05-2.16); HR (95% CI) = 1.35 (1.05-1.73)] and risperidone [OR (95% CI) = 1.58 (1.07-2.33); HR (95% CI) = 1.33 (1.01-1.74)] cohorts than in the aripiprazole once monthly extended release (AOM 400) cohort. Similarly, in patients with BD, risks of hospitalization were significantly higher in haloperidol [OR (95% CI) = 1.49 (1.01-2.19); HR (95% CI) = 1.33 (1.03-1.73)] and risperidone [OR (95% CI) = 1.78 (1.19-2.66); HR (95% CI) = 1.33 (1.01-1.75)] than in AOM400. No statistically significant differences in hospitalization costs were observed in either disease group. CONCLUSIONS: Although the study results may be subject to confounding variables that are not contained in claims databases, such as disease severity, it appears that AOM400 may be more effective than haloperidol and risperidone LAIs among patients with schizophrenia or BD.