Stimulant Patterns, Alone or with Other Psychotropic Classes, in Medicaid-Insured Youth Continuously Enrolled for 3-8 Years.

Objective: Little U.S. pharmacoepidemiologic study is based on treatment during continuous enrollment for periods more than a year. This study aims to show pediatric patterns of stimulant use (alone or with other psychotropic classes) from Medicaid administrative claims data for stimulant patterns of 3- to 8-year continuous enrollees. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was derived from Medicaid enrollment, pharmacy, and diagnosis claims data (2007-2014) in a mid-Atlantic state. Youth aged 2-17 years with 3-8 years of continuous enrollment treated with stimulants were compared with a date-matched comparison group treated without stimulants. Major outcomes include prevalence and duration of stimulant use and patterns of stimulant polypharmacy across relatively long enrollments (3-8 years). Results: Among 264,518 unique 2- to 17-year olds with 3-8 years of continuous enrollment, 16.5% had stimulant prescription dispensings, doubling the annual national prevalence of 8.1%. Subgroup analysis showed that the highest prevalence of stimulant use was for 6- to 11-year olds (20.4%), foster care eligible youth (42.3%), and those with 7-8 years of continuous enrollment (20.1%). Externalizing psychiatric disorders were far more common in those treated with stimulants than in those treated without stimulants. The duration of stimulant exposure overall was a median of 487 days, half that of foster care stimulant users. Stimulant polypharmacy with two or more psychotropic classes concomitantly characterized 29.8% of stimulant users. Among those with three or four or more class polypharmacy, 85% and 88%, respectively, had concomitant stimulant and antipsychotic use. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of three or more class polypharmacy significantly increased in 12- to 17-year-old age group (AOR = 1.8), foster care eligibility (AOR = 4.5), and among those with the longest enrollment (AOR = 1.7). Conclusions and Relevance: Stimulant prevalence in Medicaid-insured youth with continuous enrollment of 3-8 years was twice as common as in annual data sets. Future research should investigate three to five interclass stimulant polypharmacy effectiveness in reliably diagnosed community populations.

Continuity of Care and Mental Health Service Use Among Medicaid-enrolled Youths.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports of increased national estimates of pediatric psychiatric emergency department (ED) visits and psychiatric hospitalizations emphasize the need to research these utilization patterns. OBJECTIVES: To assess the patient-provider continuity of care (CoC) and compare the risk of psychiatric ED visits or hospitalization according to the CoC level. RESEARCH DESIGN: A cohort design was applied to Medicaid administrative claims data (2007-2014) for 3-16-year olds with a first psychiatric diagnosis between 2009 and 2013 (n=38,825). SUBJECTS: Continuously enrolled youths with (1) ≥1 outpatient psychiatric visits and (2) ≥4 pediatric outpatient visits in the prior 24 months. MEASURES: The authors assessed CoC in the 24 months before the first psychiatric outpatient visit and quantified CoC using the Alpha Index. The authors assessed patient-provider CoC before first psychiatric diagnosis and the odds of psychiatric ED visits or psychiatric hospitalizations in the year after diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 38,825 youths, 88.9% received a first psychiatric diagnosis by age 14. The odds of ED visits were significantly higher among youths with low CoC [6.63%, adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-1.41] or moderate CoC (5.76%; AOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.27) compared with those with high CoC (4.96%). Greater odds of psychiatric hospitalization related to low (7.53%; AOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06-1.29) or moderate CoC (7.01%; AOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.27) compared with high CoC (6.06%). CONCLUSIONS: The odds of potentially disruptive clinical management and costly psychiatric ED visits or hospitalizations were lower for youths with high CoC. The findings support the need to research the impact of CoC on long-term pediatric mental health service use.

Impact of a Care Management Entity on Use of Psychiatric Services Among Youths With Severe Mental or Behavioral Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Care management entity models have a positive impact on functioning and symptom control among youths with serious emotional and behavioral disorders. However, little is known about whether treatment benefits are sustained after discharge. The study objective was to examine the association between enrollment in a care management entity and mental health outcomes during the year after discharge. METHODS: Data from care management entity administrative claims were linked with Medicaid claims for youths enrolled in a care management entity anytime from December 2009 through December 2013. Inverse probability treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between the youths enrolled in the care management entity and a comparison group. Study outcomes were psychiatry-related hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits during the year after discharge. Two models were used to compare the two groups, one modeling the probability of using any psychiatric service and one modeling the number of visits for each outcome among users of either service. RESULTS: After adjustment with inverse probability treatment weighting, 2,381 youths (care management, N=488; comparison, N=1,893) were identified. Care management was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of any psychiatry-related ED visit (odds ratio [OR]=.65, p=.017) and any psychiatric hospitalization (OR=.60, p=.011). No significant differences in outcomes were observed when the comparison was limited to users of services. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced use of psychiatric inpatient and ED services among youths enrolled in a care management entity was sustainable after discharge. Multiagency collaboration is needed to enrich the ability to assess outcomes across broader domains.

Cardiovascular Events Following Treatment Initiation with Atypical Antipsychotic Medications in Publicly Insured U.S. Youth.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of incident cardiovascular events that led to hospitalizations or emergency department visits following atypical antipsychotic (AAP) treatment initiation in youth according to dose, duration of use, and concomitant use of leading psychotropic medication classes. METHODS: We used computerized Medicaid claims to conduct a retrospective cohort study of youth (5-20 years) who initiated AAP treatment. AAP use was operationalized in a time-dependent manner according to current vs. former use, average daily dose (in risperidone dose equivalents), and duration of use. In a secondary analysis, concomitant use of (1) stimulants and (2) serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRI/SNRIs) with AAPs was also assessed. To account for confounding, disease risk score methodology was used in discrete time failure models. RESULTS: There were 74,700 youth who initiated AAP treatment (average follow-up = 24.8 months). During follow-up, the risk of cardiovascular events was significantly greater during current than former AAP use (RR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.09-2.21). Furthermore, for current users of AAPs, the risk of cardiovascular events intensified with average daily dose (RR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.11-3.77 for >3.75 mg/day vs. ≤1.25 mg/day). The risk of cardiovascular events did not significantly differ according to duration of AAP use. In AAP-treated youth, concomitant SSRI/SNRI use was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events (RR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.01-2.57). By contrast, stimulant use concomitant with AAPs was not significantly associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: In publicly insured U.S. youth, current AAP use was associated with an increased risk of incident cardiovascular events, which intensified with increasing dose and with concomitant SSRI/SNRI use. Prudent interpretation of these findings suggests that further research is needed to identify youth subpopulations with the greatest risk of developing AAP treatment-emergent cardiovascular events.

Patterns of Early Mental Health Diagnosis and Medication Treatment in a Medicaid-Insured Birth Cohort.

Importance: The increased use of psychiatric services in the US pediatric population raises concerns about the appropriate use of psychotropic medications for very young children. Objective: To assess the longitudinal patterns of psychotropic medication use in association with diagnosis and duration of use in a Medicaid-insured birth cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cohort design was applied to computerized Medicaid administrative claims data for 35 244 children born in a mid-Atlantic state in 2007 and followed up for up to 96 months through December 31, 2014. Children were included in the birth cohort if they had an enrollment record at birth or within 3 months of birth and at least 6 months of continuous enrollment from birth. The cohort represents 92.2% of 38 225 Medicaid-insured newborns in 2007. Exposures: Mental health treatments from birth through age 7 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cumulative incidence of first psychiatric diagnosis and psychotropic medication use (monotherapy or concomitant use of psychotropic medications) from birth through age 7 years, total and by sex, and the cumulative incidence of the use of psychosocial services (age, 0-7 years) as well as the annual duration of medication use (ie, number of days of psychotropic medication use among children 3-7 years of age). Results: Of the 35 244 children in the cohort, 17 267 were girls and 17 977 were boys. By age 8 years, 4550 children in the birth cohort (19.7% [percentage adjusted for right censoring]) had received a psychiatric diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 290-319); 2624 of these diagnoses (57.7%) were behavioral (codes 312, 313, or 314). Girls were more likely than boys to receive an incident psychiatric diagnosis of adjustment disorder (355 of 1598 [22.2%] vs 427 of 2952 [14.5%]; P < .001) or anxiety disorder (114 of 1598 [7.1%] vs 120 of 2952 [4.1%]; P < .001). By age 8 years, 2196 children in the cohort (10.2% [percentage adjusted for right censoring]) had received a psychotropic medication. Among medication users, 1763 of 2196 (80.5% [percentage adjusted for right censoring]) received monotherapy, 343 of 2196 (16.4% [percentage adjusted for right censoring]) received 2 medication classes concomitantly, and 90 of 2196 (4.3% [percentage adjusted for right censoring]) received 3 or more medication classes concomitantly for 60 days or more (range, 78-180 days). The annual median number of days of psychotropic medication use among medicated children increased with age, reaching 210 of 365 days for children 7 years of age. Among children 7 years of age, the median number of days of use of an antipsychotic (193 days [interquartile range, 60-266 days]), stimulant (183 days [interquartile range, 86-295 days]), or α-agonist (199 days [interquartile range, 85-305 days]) exceeded half of the year. Conclusions and Relevance: Medicaid-insured children received substantial mental health services and had prolonged exposure to psychotropic medications in the early years of life. These findings highlight the need for outcomes research in pediatric populations.

Impact of Coordinated Behavioral Health Management on Quality Measures of Antipsychotic Use.

A state Care Management Entity (CME) using the wraparound practice model provided intensive care coordination for youth with severe mental illness, those most likely to receive antipsychotics. The model has led to improved clinical/functional outcomes, but little is known about the impact on antipsychotic prescribing and safety monitoring. A pre-post study was conducted to evaluate antipsychotic dosing, concomitant antipsychotic use, and metabolic monitoring among CME-enrolled and non-CME-enrolled comparison groups. CME-enrolled youth had greater decrease in concomitant antipsychotic use than non-CME-enrolled youth, but no difference in dosing or metabolic monitoring. More education of prescribing antipsychotics and team-based engagement in care coordination are needed.

Association of Antidepressant Medications With Incident Type 2 Diabetes Among Medicaid-Insured Youths.

Importance: Antidepressants are one of the most commonly prescribed classes of psychotropic medications among US youths. For adults, there is emerging evidence on the increased risk of type 2 diabetes in association with antidepressant use. However, little is known about the antidepressant treatment-emergent risk of type 2 diabetes among youths. Objective: To assess the association between antidepressant use and the risk of incident type 2 diabetes in youths by antidepressant subclass and according to duration of use, cumulative dose, and average daily dose. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Medicaid claims data from 4 geographically diverse, large states of youths 5 to 20 years of age who initiated antidepressant treatment from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009. Exposures: Antidepressant use (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs], tricyclic or other cyclic antidepressants, and other antidepressants) was assessed using the following 4 time-varying measures: current or former use, duration of use, cumulative dose, and average daily dose. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident type 2 diabetes was assessed using discrete-time failure models, adjusting for disease risk score estimated using more than 125 baseline and time-dependent covariates. Results: In this cohort of 119 608 youths aged 5 to 20 years who initiated antidepressant treatment (59 087 female youths and 60 521 male youths; 54.7% between 5 and 14 years of age) with a mean follow-up of 22.8 months, 79 285 [66.3%] had SSRI or SNRI exposure. The risk of type 2 diabetes was significantly greater during current use than former use of SSRIs or SNRIs (absolute risk, 1.29 per 10 000 person-months vs 0.64 per 10 000 person-months; adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.34-2.64) and tricyclic or other cyclic antidepressants (absolute risk, 0.89 per 10 000 person-months vs 0.48 per 10 000 person-months; RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.06-4.36), but not of other antidepressants (absolute risk, 1.15 per 10 000 person-months vs 1.12 per 10 000 person-months; RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.66-1.50). Furthermore, for youths currently using SSRIs or SNRIs, the risk of type 2 diabetes increased with the duration of use (RR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.45-4.88 for >210 days and RR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.29-5.08 for 151-210 days compared with 1-90 days) and with the cumulative dose (RR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.35-4.43 for >4500 mg and RR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.07-4.40 for 3001-4500 mg compared with 1-1500 mg in fluoxetine hydrochloride dose equivalents). By contrast, neither the duration nor the cumulative dose of other antidepressants was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. The risk of type 2 diabetes increased significantly with the average daily dose among youths with more than 150 days of SSRI or SNRI use (RR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.04-5.52 for >15.0 vs ≤15.0 mg/d) but not among youths with 1 to 150 days of SSRI or SNRI use. Conclusions and Relevance: In a large cohort of youths insured by Medicaid, the use of SSRIs or SNRIs-the most commonly used antidepressant subclass-was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes that intensified with increasing duration of use, cumulative dose, and average daily dose.

Concomitant Use of Atypical Antipsychotics With Other Psychotropic Medication Classes and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: More than half of youth treated with atypical antipsychotic (AAP) medications are also treated with concomitant antidepressants or stimulants. This study assessed the association between antidepressant or stimulant use concomitant with AAPs and the risk of incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHOD: Medicaid Analytic eXtract data were used to conduct a retrospective cohort study of youth (aged 5-20 years) who initiated AAP treatment. In AAP-treated youth, concomitant antidepressant (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRI]/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs], tricyclic/other cyclic antidepressants [TCAs], and other antidepressants) or stimulant use was assessed. The risk of incident T2DM was estimated using discrete time failure models, adjusting for disease risk score estimated using >125 baseline and time-dependent covariates. RESULTS: Among 73,224 AAP initiators, 43.0% had concomitant antidepressant use (76.4% were SSRI/SNRIs) and 43.8% had concomitant stimulant use. The study cohort had an average follow-up of 24.8 months (median = 22.0 months, interquartile range [IQR] = 10.0-38.0 months). In current AAP-treated youth, concomitant SSRI/SNRI (relative risk [RR] = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.30-2.59) or TCA use (RR = 2.75, 95% CI = 1.28-5.87) was associated with an increased risk of T2DM. By contrast, concomitant use of other antidepressants or stimulants with AAPs was not associated with an increased risk of T2DM. In concomitant users of AAPs and SSRI/SNRIs, the risk of T2DM increased with the duration of SSRI/SNRI use (RR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.15-4.83 for ≥180 days vs. 1-180 days) as well as with the cumulative SSRI/SNRI dose (RR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.08-3.67 for >2,700 mg vs. 1-2,700 mg fluoxetine dose equivalents), after adjusting for the duration and cumulative dose of AAP use. By contrast, in concomitant users of AAPs and stimulants, neither duration nor cumulative dose of stimulants was associated with an increased risk of T2DM. CONCLUSION: In AAP-treated Medicaid-insured youth, concomitant SSRI/SNRI use was associated with a heightened risk of T2DM, which intensified with increasing duration and dose.

Hispanic Residential Isolation, ADHD Diagnosis and Stimulant Treatment among Medicaid-Insured Youth.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate a conceptual framework that assessed the effect of Hispanic residential isolation on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) health service utilization among 2.2 million publicly insured youth. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Medicaid administrative claims data for ambulatory care services from a US Pacific state linked with US census data. PARTICIPANTS: Youth, aged 2-17 years, continuously enrolled in 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The percent annual prevalence and odds of ADHD diagnosis and stimulant use according to two measures of racial/ethnic residential isolation: 1) the county-level Hispanic isolation index (HI) defined as the population density of Hispanic residents in relation to other racial/ethnic groups in a county (<.5; .5-.64; ≥.65); and 2) the proportion of Hispanic residents in a ZIP code tabulation area (<25%; 25%-50%; >50%). RESULTS: Among the 47,364 youth with a clinician-reported ADHD diagnosis, 60% received a stimulant treatment (N = 28,334). As the county level HI increased, Hispanic residents of ethnically isolated locales were significantly less likely to receive an ADHD diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=.92 [95% CI=.88-.96]) and stimulant use (AOR=.61 [95% CI=.59-.64]) compared with Hispanic youth in less isolated areas. At the ZIP code level, a similar pattern of reduced ADHD diagnosis (AOR=.81 [95% CI=.77-.86]) and reduced stimulant use (AOR=.65 [95% CI=.61-.69]) was observed as Hispanic residential isolation increased from the least isolated to the most isolated ZIP code areas. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the opportunity for Big Data to advance mental health research on strategies to reduce racial/ethnic health disparities, particularly for poor and vulnerable youth. Further exploration of racial/ethnic residential isolation in other large data sources is needed to guide future policy development and to target culturally sensitive interventions.

Antipsychotic prescribing for behavioral disorders in US youth: physician specialty, insurance coverage, and complex regimens.

PURPOSE: To assess antipsychotic prescribing patterns according to insurance coverage type and physician specialty in the outpatient treatment of behavioral disorders (BD) in US youth. METHODS: We used 2003-2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data to compare antipsychotic prescribing in the outpatient treatment of BD in youth (6-19 years) according to insurance coverage (public vs. private) and physician specialty (psychiatrist vs. non-psychiatrist) using population-weighted Chi-square and multivariable analyses. Also, we examined co-prescribing of antipsychotics with other psychotropic medication classes. Subgroup analyses were conducted in BD visits with no other clinician-reported psychiatric diagnosis (non-comorbid BD visits). RESULTS: A large majority (71.0%) of BD visits were provided by non-psychiatrists. However, psychiatrists prescribed antipsychotics far more frequently than non-psychiatrists (24.2% vs. 4.6%; adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 5.1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.8-9.2]) in total BD visits as well as in non-comorbid BD visits (18.6% vs. 3.6%; AOR = 5.8 [95% CI, 3.2-10.5]). Antipsychotic prescribing was nearly two-fold greater in visits by publicly insured 6-12 year olds (11.3% vs. 5.8%; AOR = 1.9 [95% CI, 1.1-3.5]) and 13-19 year olds (16.2% vs. 8.9%; AOR = 2.0 [95% CI, 1.1-3.6]) compared with their privately insured counterparts. In more than one-third of antipsychotic-prescribed BD visits, antipsychotics were prescribed concomitantly with ≥2 psychotropic medication classes regardless of age group, insurance coverage, or even in the absence of psychiatric comorbidities. CONCLUSION: In outpatient visits by youth for BD, antipsychotics were primarily prescribed by psychiatrists, concomitantly, and for the publicly insured. These treatment patterns merit further investigation.

National trends in pediatric use of anticonvulsants.

OBJECTIVE: This research study aimed to assess national trends in pediatric use of anticonvulsants for seizures and psychiatric disorders. METHODS: In a cross-sectional design, data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey were analyzed. Outpatient visit information for youths (ages 0-17 years) was grouped by year for 1996-1997, 2000-2001, 2004-2005, and 2008-2009. Six of the most common anticonvulsant drugs used for psychiatric conditions were examined. Psychiatric diagnoses and seizure or convulsion diagnoses were identified with ICD-9-CM codes. The primary outcome measure was percentage prevalence of visits for anticonvulsants that included a psychiatric diagnosis as a proportion of total youth visits for an anticonvulsant. Total, diagnosis-stratified, and drug-specific visits, as well as visits for concomitant anticonvulsants and psychotropics, were analyzed. RESULTS: As a proportion of total youth visits for anticonvulsants, visits with a psychiatric diagnosis increased 1.7 fold (p<.001), whereas the proportion of seizure-related visits did not change significantly. Regardless of diagnosis, anticonvulsant use significantly increased, from .33% to .68% of total youth visits in the 14-year period. There were significant increases in anticonvulsant use to treat pediatric bipolar disorder and disruptive behavior disorders. Visits noting divalproex decreased while visits noting lamotrigine increased among visits involving a psychiatric diagnosis. The concomitant use of stimulants and anticonvulsants significantly increased in visits noting a psychiatric diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas anticonvulsant use for seizure disorders across the 14-year period was stable, the use of these drugs for psychiatric conditions rose to a dominant position. The growth of concomitant and off-label use to treat behavioral disorders raises questions about effectiveness and safety in community populations of youths.