Incorporating clinician insight and care plans into an audit and feedback initiative for antipsychotic prescribing to Medicaid-enrolled youth in Philadelphia.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A/F), which include initiatives like report cards, have an inconsistent impact on clinicians' prescribing behavior. This may be attributable to their focus on aggregate prescribing measures, a one-size-fits-all approach, and the fact that A/F initiatives rarely engage with the clinicians they target. METHODS: In this study, we describe the development and delivery of a report card that summarized antipsychotic prescribing to publicly-insured youth in Philadelphia, which was introduced by a Medicaid managed care organization in 2020. In addition to measuring aggregate prescribing behavior, the report card included different elements of care plans, including whether youth were receiving polypharmacy, proper medication management, and the concurrent use of behavioral health outpatient services. The A/F initiative elicited feedback from clinicians, which we refer to as an "audit and feedback loop." We also evaluate the impact of the report card by comparing pre-post differences in prescribing measures for clinicians who received the report card with a group of clinicians who did not receive the report card. RESULTS: Report cards indicated that many youth who were prescribed antipsychotics were not receiving proper medication management or using behavioral health outpatient services alongside the antipsychotic prescription, but that polypharmacy was rare. In their feedback, clinicians who received report cards cited several challenges related to antipsychotic prescribing, such as the logistical difficulties of entering lab orders and family members' hesitancy to change care plans. The impact of the report card was mixed: there was a modest reduction in the share of youth receiving polypharmacy following the receipt of the report card, while other measures did not change. However, we documented a large reduction in the number of youth with one or more antipsychotic prescription fill among clinicians who received a report card. CONCLUSIONS: A/F initiatives are a common approach to improving the quality of care, and often target specific practices such as antipsychotic prescribing. Report cards are a low-cost and feasible intervention but there is room for quality improvement, such as adding measures that track medication management or eliciting feedback from clinicians who receive report cards. To ensure that the benefits of antipsychotic prescribing outweigh its risks, it is important to promote quality and safety of antipsychotic prescribing within a broader care plan.

Risk assessment for aggressive behaviour in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Aggressive or violent behaviour is often associated with people with schizophrenia in common perceptions of the disease. Risk assessment methods have been used to identify and evaluate the behaviour of those individuals who are at the greatest risk of perpetrating aggression or violence or characterise the likelihood to commit acts. Although many different interventions have been developed to decrease aggressive or violent incidences in inpatient care, staff working in inpatient settings seek easy-to-use methods to decrease patient aggressive events. However, many of these are time-consuming, and they require intensive training for staff and patient monitoring. It has also been recognised in clinical practice that if staff monitor patients' behaviour in a structured manner, the monitoring itself may result in a reduction of aggressive/violent behaviour and incidents in psychiatric settings. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of structured aggression or violence risk assessment methods for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP, on 10 February 2021. We also inspected references of all identified studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing structured risk assessment methods added to standard professional care with standard professional care for the evaluation of aggressive or violent behaviour among people with schizophrenia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data, and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated a standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies and created a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies in the review. The total number of participants was not identifiable, as some studies provided number of participants included, and some only patient days. The studies compared a package of structured assessment methods with a control group that included routine nursing care and drug therapy or unstructured psychiatric observations/treatment based on clinical judgement. In two studies, information about treatment in control care was not available. One study reported results for our primary outcome, clinically important change in aggressive/violent behaviour, measured by the rate of severe aggression events. There was likely a positive effect favouring structured risk assessment over standard professional care (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.85; 1 RCT; 1852 participants; corrected for cluster design: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial reported data for the use of coercive measures (seclusion room). Compared to standard professional care, structured risk assessment may have little or no effect on use of seclusion room as days (corrected for cluster design: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.07; N = 20; low-certainty evidence) or use of seclusion room as secluded participants (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.39 to 8.7; 1 RCT; N = 20; low-certainty evidence). However, seclusion room may be used less frequently in the standard professional care group compared to the structured risk assessment group (incidence) (corrected for cluster design: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.47; 1 RCT; N = 20; substantial heterogeneity, Chi2 = 0.0; df = 0.0; P = 0.0; I2 = 100%; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a clear effect on adverse events of escape (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence); fall down (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence); or choking (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence) when comparing structured risk assessment to standard professional care. There were no useable data for patient-related outcomes such as global state, acceptance of treatment, satisfaction with treatment, quality of life, service use, or costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to conclude that structured aggression or violence risk assessment methods are effective for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses. Future work should combine the use of interventions and structured risk assessment methods to prevent aggressive incidents in psychiatric inpatient settings.

Pharmacogenomics-assisted schizophrenia management: A hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation study protocol to compare the clinical utility, cost-effectiveness, and barriers.

OBJECTIVES: The response to antipsychotic therapy is highly variable. Pharmacogenomic (PGx) factors play a major role in deciding the effectiveness and safety of antipsychotic drugs. A hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation research will be conducted to evaluate the clinical utility (safety and efficacy), cost-effectiveness, and facilitators and barriers in implementing PGx-assisted management compared to standard of care in patients with schizophrenia attending a tertiary care hospital in eastern India. METHODS: In part 1, a randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Adult patients with schizophrenia will be randomized (2: 1) to receive PGx-assisted treatment (drug and regimen selection depending on the results of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in genes DRD2, HTR1A, HTR2C, ABCB1, CYP2D6, CYP3A5, and CYP1A2) or the standard of care. Serum drug levels will be measured. The patients will be followed up for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint is the difference in the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser Side-Effect Rating Scale score between the two arms. In part 2, the cost-effectiveness of PGx-assisted treatment will be evaluated. In part 3, the facilitators and barriers to implementing PGx-assisted treatment for schizophrenia will be explored using a qualitative design. EXPECTED OUTCOME: The study findings will help in understanding whether PGx-assisted management has a clinical utility, whether it is cost-effective, and what are the facilitators and barriers to implementing it in the management of schizophrenia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI/2023/08/056210).

Physician Antipsychotic Overprescribing Letters and Cognitive, Behavioral, and Physical Health Outcomes Among People With Dementia: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Antipsychotics, such as quetiapine, are frequently prescribed to people with dementia to address behavioral symptoms but can also cause harm in this population. Objective: To determine whether warning letters to high prescribers of quetiapine can successfully reduce its use among patients with dementia and to investigate the impacts on patients' health outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of overprescribing letters that began in April 2015 and included the highest-volume primary care physician (PCP) prescribers of quetiapine in original Medicare. Outcomes of patients with dementia were analyzed in repeated 90-day cross-sections through December 2018. Analyses were conducted from September 2021 to February 2024. Interventions: PCPs were randomized to a placebo letter or 3 overprescribing warning letters stating that their prescribing of quetiapine was high and under review by Medicare. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this analysis was patients' total quetiapine use in days per 90-day period (the original trial primary outcome was total quetiapine prescribing by study PCPs). Prespecified secondary outcomes included measures of cognitive function and behavioral symptoms from nursing home assessments, indicators of depression from screening questionnaires in assessments and diagnoses in claims, metabolic diagnoses derived from assessments and claims, indicators of use of the hospital and other health care services, and death. Outcomes were analyzed separately for patients living in nursing homes and in the community. Results: Of the 5055 study PCPs, 2528 were randomized to the placebo letter, and 2527 were randomized to the 3 warning letters. A total of 84 881 patients with dementia living in nursing homes and 261 288 community-dwelling patients with dementia were attributed to these PCPs. There were 92 874 baseline patients (mean [SD] age, 81.5 [10.5] years; 64 242 female [69.2%]). The intervention reduced quetiapine use among both nursing home patients (adjusted difference, -0.7 days; 95% CI, -1.3 to -0.1 days; P = .02) and community-dwelling patients (adjusted difference, -1.5 days; 95% CI, -1.8 to -1.1 days; P < .001). There were no detected adverse effects on cognitive function (cognitive function scale adjusted difference, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03; P = .19), behavioral symptoms (agitated or reactive behavior adjusted difference, -0.2%; 95% CI -1.2% to 0.8% percentage points; P = .72), depression, metabolic diagnoses, or more severe outcomes, including hospitalization and death. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that overprescribing warning letters to PCPs safely reduced quetiapine prescribing to their patients with dementia. This intervention and others like it may be useful for future efforts to promote guideline-concordant care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05172687.

Management of antipsychotics in primary care: Insights from healthcare professionals and policy makers in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: Antipsychotic medication is increasingly prescribed to patients with serious mental illness. Patients with serious mental illness often have cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities, and antipsychotics independently increase the risk of cardiometabolic disease. Despite this, many patients prescribed antipsychotics are discharged to primary care without planned psychiatric review. We explore perceptions of healthcare professionals and managers/directors of policy regarding reasons for increasing prevalence and management of antipsychotics in primary care. METHODS: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 11 general practitioners (GPs), 8 psychiatrists, and 11 managers/directors of policy in the United Kingdom. Data was analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Respondents reported competency gaps that impaired ability to manage patients prescribed antipsychotic medications, arising from inadequate postgraduate training and professional development. GPs lacked confidence to manage antipsychotic medications alone; psychiatrists lacked skills to address cardiometabolic risks and did not perceive this as their role. Communication barriers, lack of integrated care records, limited psychology provision, lowered expectation towards patients with serious mental illness by professionals, and pressure to discharge from hospital resulted in patients in primary care becoming 'trapped' on antipsychotics, inhibiting opportunities to deprescribe. Organisational and contractual barriers between services exacerbate this risk, with socioeconomic deprivation and lack of access to non-pharmacological interventions driving overprescribing. Professionals voiced fears of censure if a catastrophic event occurred after stopping an antipsychotic. Facilitators to overcome these barriers were suggested. CONCLUSIONS: People prescribed antipsychotics experience a fragmented health system and suboptimal care. Several interventions could be taken to improve care for this population, but inadequate availability of non-pharmacological interventions and socioeconomic factors increasing mental distress need policy change to improve outcomes. The role of professionals' fear of medicolegal or regulatory censure inhibiting antipsychotic deprescribing was a new finding in this study.

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.

Variation of Clozapine Use for Treatment of Schizophrenia: Evidence from Pennsylvania Medicaid and Dually Eligible Enrollees.

While clozapine is the most effective antipsychotic treatment for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, it remains underutilized across the United States, warranting a more comprehensive understanding of variation in use at the county level, as well as characterization of existing prescribing patterns. Here, we examined both Medicaid and Medicare databases to (1) characterize temporal and geographic variation in clozapine prescribing and, (2) identify patient-level characteristics associated with clozapine use. We included Medicaid and Fee for Service Medicare data in the state of Pennsylvania from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2019. We focused on individuals with continuous enrollment, schizophrenia diagnosis, and multiple antipsychotic trials. Geographic variation was examined across counties of Pennsylvania. Regression models were constructed to determine demographic and clinical characteristics associated with clozapine use. Out of 8,255 individuals who may benefit from clozapine, 642 received treatment. We observed high medication burden, overall, including multiple antipsychotic trials. We also identified variation in clozapine use across regions in Pennsylvania with a disproportionate number of prescribers in urban areas and several counties with no identified clozapine prescribers. Finally, demographic, and clinical determinants of clozapine use were observed including less use in people identified as non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, or with a substance use disorder. In addition, greater medical comorbidity was associated with increased clozapine use. Our work leveraged both Medicaid and Medicare data to characterize and surveil clozapine prescribing. Our findings support efforts monitor disparities and opportunities for the optimization of clozapine within municipalities to enhance clinical outcomes.

A real-world assessment of healthcare costs associated with agitation in Alzheimer's dementia.

AIMS: To describe and compare clinical characteristics, healthcare costs, and institutionalization/mortality outcomes among patients with and without agitation associated with Alzheimer's dementia (AAD). METHODS: Data from the Reliant Medical Group database (01/01/2016-03/31/2020) were used, including claims, electronic medical records, and clinical information/physician notes abstracted from medical charts. Patients aged ≥55 years with Alzheimer's dementia (AD) were observed during a randomly selected 12-month study period after AD diagnosis. Using information recorded in medical charts, patients were classified into cohorts based on experiencing (agitation cohort) and not experiencing (no agitation cohort) agitated behaviours during the study period. Entropy balancing was used to create reweighted cohorts with similar characteristics. Study outcomes (patient demographic and clinical characteristics, treatments received, healthcare costs, institutionalization and death events) were compared between cohorts; agitation characteristics were described for the agitation cohort only. RESULTS: Among 711 patients included in the study, 240 were classified in the agitation cohort and 471 in the no agitation cohort. After reweighting, several comorbidities were more frequently observed in the agitation versus no agitation cohort, including infection, depression, and altered mental status. Use of antidepressants, anticonvulsants, antipsychotics, and antianxiety medications was more common in the agitation versus no agitation cohort. Common agitated behaviours included hitting (20.8%), pacing/aimless wandering (17.5%), and cursing/verbal aggression (15.0%). Total all-cause healthcare costs were $4287 per-patient-per-year higher in the agitation cohort versus no agitation cohort (p = 0.04), driven by higher inpatient costs. Death was more common and time to death and institutionalization were shorter in the agitation versus no agitation cohort. LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable to the US population with AD. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with AD, agitation was associated with shorter time to death/institutionalization and increased comorbidities, medication use, and healthcare costs, highlighting the additional clinical and economic burden that agitation poses to patients and the healthcare system.

One-Year Medication Treatment Patterns, Healthcare Resource Utilization, and Expenditures for Medicaid Patients with Schizophrenia Starting Oral Atypical Antipsychotic Medication.

Oral atypical antipsychotic (OAAP) medications are the most commonly prescribed treatment for the management of schizophrenia symptoms. This retrospective study, using Medicaid claims data (2016-2020), followed patients for 12 months after initiating OAAP therapy. Study outcomes included OAAP adherence, switching, augmentation, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and expenditures. All-cause and schizophrenia-related HRU and expenditures were compared between adherent and nonadherent cohorts. Among 13,007 included patients (39.1 ± 12.8 years of age, 57.0% male, 36.1% Black, 31.8% White, 9.7% Hispanic), 25.7% were adherent to OAAPs (proportion of days covered [PDC] ≥ 0.8). During the 1-year follow-up period, Black individuals were in possession of an OAAP for an average of 166 days compared to 198 and 202 days for White and Hispanic patients, respectively. Approximately 16% of patients switched OAAP medications and 3.2% augmented therapy with an OAAP added to their index medication. Nearly 40% of patients were hospitalized during follow-up and 68.4% had emergency department (ED) visits. A greater proportion of nonadherent patients had all-cause inpatient (41.7% vs. 34.1%, p < 0.001) and ED visits (71.7% vs. 58.8%, p < 0.001) compared to adherent patients. Annual total healthcare expenditures were $21,020 per patient; $3481 higher for adherent versus nonadherent patients. Inpatient expenditures comprised 44.6% and 30.6% of total expenditures for nonadherent and adherent patients, respectively. Hospitalized patients' total expenditures were $23,261 higher compared to those without a hospitalization. Adherence to OAAP medication is suboptimal and associated with increased utilization of costly hospital and ED resources. Efforts to improve therapies and increase medication adherence could improve clinical and economic outcomes among individuals with schizophrenia.

Out-of-Pocket Costs for Long-Acting Injectable and Oral Antipsychotics Among Medicare Patients With Schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to describe out-of-pocket (OOP) costs among beneficiaries with schizophrenia differing in Medicare Part D low-income subsidy (LIS) status. METHODS: National 100% Medicare claims were used to identify all adult fee-for-service Medicare Part D beneficiaries with schizophrenia who used antipsychotics in 2019 (N=283,813). Proportions of patients by LIS status, OOP costs per prescription, and annual OOP costs were reported. Results were stratified by type of antipsychotic received (oral antipsychotic [OAP], first-generation long-acting injectable [FGA-LAI], or second-generation long-acting injectable [SGA-LAI]). RESULTS: In the final sample, 90.3% of beneficiaries had full LIS status, paying minimal copayments (29.6% institutionalized full LIS, paying $0; 42.2% noninstitutionalized full LIS, ≤100% federal poverty level [FPL], paying $1.25-$3.80; and 18.5% noninstitutionalized full LIS, >100% FPL, paying $3.40-$8.50). Only 0.9% of the sample received partial LIS status, and 8.8% had a non-LIS status. Non-LIS beneficiaries had the highest OOP costs, followed by partial LIS beneficiaries. Before entering catastrophic coverage, median OOP costs per prescription for generic OAPs, brand-name OAPs, FGA-LAIs, and SGA-LAIs were $10.85, $171.97, $26.09, and $394.28, respectively, for non-LIS beneficiaries and $3.69, $105.82, $9.35, and $229.20, respectively, for partial LIS beneficiaries. The annual total OOP costs varied substantially by LIS status (full LIS, $0-$130.79; partial LIS, $458.96; non-LIS, $998.81). CONCLUSIONS: Most Medicare beneficiaries with schizophrenia qualified for full LIS and faced minimal OOP costs for both OAPs and LAIs. The remainder (i.e., partial LIS and non-LIS beneficiaries) faced substantial OOP costs, both per prescription and annually, especially for SGA-LAIs.

Knowledge and dispensing practice of community pharmacists towards antipsychotic medicines in a Nigerian metropolitan city - a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic drugs are prescription-only-medications which require valid prescriptions before it can be obtained from a pharmacy. On the other hand, community pharmacists in developing countries have sometimes been implicated in over-the-counter dispensing of prescription-only-medications. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the accessibility of antipsychotic drugs without prescriptions from community pharmacies, and the factors responsible for the over-the-counter dispensing of antipsychotics by community pharmacists. METHODS: An exploratory cross-sectional mixed method survey design using pretested structured questionnaires among 119 community pharmacists, simulated patients in 119 community pharmacies, and one-on-one in-depth interview among eleven (11) community pharmacist-owners/superintendent pharmacists were utilized for data collection. The knowledge of the pharmacists on antipsychotics including classification, side effects, and dispensing practices were explored. Qualitative data was analyzed with thematic analysis, while quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Majority of the community pharmacists (87.4%) showed good knowledge of antipsychotics as it relates to the different classes and the side effects peculiar to each class. Antipsychotic medications were dispensed by 85 (71.4%) of community pharmacists without a prescription. One-on-one in-depth interview sessions with community pharmacist owners/superintendent pharmacists demonstrated that community pharmacists are knowledgeable about antipsychotics and their side effects. Reasons given for dispensing this class of drugs without prescription included emergencies, and knowledge of the person as being on the drugs long-term. About 4% pharmacists were adamant on dispensing only with prescription. CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists in Ibadan metropolis readily dispense antipsychotics without valid prescriptions despite having an optimal knowledge about the negative implications of doing so. This could be due to weak legislation and regulation of drug laws. There is a need for more stringent regulations as well as adequate sensitization about the negative effects of inappropriate dispensing of prescription-only-medications.

Assessment of psychotropic medications prescribing pattern in Gebretsadik Shawo General Hospital, South West Ethiopia.

Introduction: due to the widespread prescription of antipsychotic medications, their usage is cumulative. Evidence on the trends of medication use in Ethiopia and other parts of the world is lacking. The scant information on prescription trends and medication usage suggests that drug use is generally not sensible in both industrialized and emerging nations. So, the aim of this study was to assess the psychotropic medications prescribing pattern in Gebretsadik Shawo General Hospital, South West Ethiopia. Methods: from June 1st to July 31st, 2019, a cross-sectional study on prescriptions for psychiatric drugs was conducted at Gebretsadik Shawo General Hospital. Using systematic random sampling, prescription records were obtained from the pharmacy dispensing book. Version 21 of the statistical program for social science was used to code and analyze the data. Results: the study included 355 prescription records containing psychotropic drugs in total. The bulk of those taking the psychotropic medication were aged 20 to 49. The most often administered classes of drugs remained antipsychotic, followed by tricyclic antidepressants, antiepileptics, anxiolytics/sedatives, anticholinergic and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The most often ordered antipsychotic medication, which included 102 (23.18%) medications, was chlorpromazine. Tricyclic antidepressants, which included 56 medicines (12.73%) and 24 medications (5.45%), included amitriptyline and imipramine. Conclusion: the results of this investigation showed that psychiatrists preferred traditional psychotropic medications, such as Antipsychotic tricyclic, antidepressants (TCAs) and phenothiazines, in high amounts possibly because these medications were readily available in this hospital and their prices suited patients' needs. Health care workers' interdisciplinary relationships and coherence would improve for the benefit of patients and services of higher quality.

Racial disparities in utilization of first-generation versus second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics in Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies report racial disparities in antipsychotic prescription patterns. This study assessed demographic and clinical factors associated with the utilization of first-generation (FG) versus second-generation (SG) long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics. METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort analysis used claims data from the IBM MarketScan® Multi-State Medicaid database. The study included adults with an LAI claim between 01-January-2009 and 31-December-2018, an ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM diagnosis of schizophrenia, race recorded as Black or White, and ≥12 months of continuous enrollment before the index LAI. Descriptive analysis detailed the relationship between race and FG or SG LAI initiation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess potential associations with FG vs. SG LAI initiation, including clinical and demographic factors, comorbidities, and index year. RESULTS: A total of 10,773 patients were included: 6659 (62 %) Black and 4114 (38 %) White. Black patients had a higher utilization of FG LAIs than White patients (46.8 % vs. 38.9 %) over the 10 years analyzed. Black patients were more likely to utilize FG LAIs than White patients (odds ratio: 1.47; 95 % CI: 1.34, 1.62) after controlling for index year and covariates (race, age, gender, insurance plan type, Quan-Charlson Comorbidity index score, comorbidities, prior medications). Significant predictors of FG LAI utilization were older age, type of baseline oral antipsychotic (FG vs SG), type of coverage (managed care vs fee for service), and greater comorbidity burden. CONCLUSION: The utilization of FG LAIs was greater in Black compared to White Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia over a 10-year period. These findings suggest that racial disparities exist in LAI initiation, with implications for differential quality of schizophrenia treatment.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotic Use in a National Sample of Medicare Beneficiaries With Schizophrenia.

This cross-sectional study assesses the racial and ethnic disparities in long-acting injectable antipsychotic use in a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries with schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic use among older patients with dementia receiving home health care services: Prevalence, predictors, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic use is a safety concern among older patients in home health care (HHC), particularly for those with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence and predictors of antipsychotic use among older adults with and without ADRD who received HHC, and the association of antipsychotic use with outcomes among patients living with ADRD. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of adults ≥65 years receiving care from an HHC agency in New York in 2019 (N = 6684), we used data from the Outcome and Assessment Information Set, Medicare HHC claims, and home medication review results in the electronic HHC records during a 60-day HHC episode. ADRD was identified by diagnostic codes. Functional outcome was the change in the composite activities of daily living (ADL) score from HHC admission to HHC discharge (measured in 5833 patients), where a positive score means improvement and a negative score means decline. Data were analyzed using logistic (predictors) and linear regression (association with outcome) analyses. RESULTS: The point prevalence of antipsychotic use was 17.2% and 6.6% among patients with and without ADRD, respectively. Among patients living with ADRD, predictors of antipsychotic use included having greater ADL limitations (odds ratio [OR] = 1.30, p = 0.01), taking more medications (OR = 1.04, p = 0.02), having behavioral and psychological symptoms (OR = 5.26, p = 0.002), and living alone (OR = 0.52, p = 0.06). Among patients living with ADRD, antipsychotic use was associated with having less ADL improvement at HHC discharge (ß = -0.70, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: HHC patients living with ADRD were more likely to use antipsychotics and to experience worse functional outcomes when using antipsychotics. Antipsychotics should be systematically reviewed and, if contraindicated or unnecessary, deprescribed. Efforts are needed to improve HHC patients' access to nonpharmacological interventions and to provide education for caregivers regarding behavioral approaches to manage symptoms in ADRD.

The Lifetime Burden of Schizophrenia as Estimated by a Government-Centric Fiscal Analytic Framework.

Objective: To estimate the fiscal consequences of schizophrenia compared to the general US population using a "government perspective" fiscal analytic modeling framework capturing lost tax revenue and broader government costs in 2021.Methods: Schizophrenia was modeled from age 23 using a cohort-based Markov chain with 6-week cycles, simulating the effect of antipsychotic treatment sequences on remission and relapse. Markov states were defined using efficacy and safety outcomes from short- and long-term clinical trials. Mortality was based on US lifetables, schizophrenia-related suicide, and cardiovascular risks. A semi-Markov model with annual cycles simulated the likelihood and costs of incarceration and homelessness in community-based individuals. Lifetime fiscal consequences were estimated conditionally to survival, remission/relapse status, and likelihood of socioeconomic outcomes. Costs and life years were discounted at 3.0% annually. Uncertainty was explored in 1-way and scenario analyses.Results: Unemployment, disability, incarceration, homelessness, health care use, and productivity losses were more common in people living with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia was associated with a $1,540,042 per person lifetime fiscal loss to the government, with $56,707 per life year lived with schizophrenia. Health care costs represented 41.9% of the fiscal losses, 39.4% were due to criminal and homelessness costs, and 17.5% related to foregone tax revenue. Considering a 1.19% prevalence of schizophrenia, the estimated annual fiscal burden in the US was $173.6 billion.Conclusions: The fiscal framework illustrates how schizophrenia influences taxation and government transfer payments over time. These findings can be used to augment cost-effectiveness analyses and inform stakeholders of the fiscal impact of schizophrenia to inform priority interventions.

Antipsychotic Medication Use In Medicaid-Insured Children Decreased Substantially Between 2008 And 2016.

After the rapid growth of pediatric antipsychotic prescribing in the early 2000s, especially in the Medicaid population, concerns regarding the safety and appropriateness of such prescribing increased. Many states implemented policy and educational initiatives aimed at safer and more judicious antipsychotic use. Antipsychotic use leveled off in the late 2000s, but there have been no recent national estimates of trends in antipsychotic use in children enrolled in Medicaid, and it is unclear how use varied by race and ethnicity. This study observed a sizable decline in antipsychotic use among children ages 2-17 between 2008 and 2016. Although the magnitude of change varied, declines were observed across foster care status, age, sex, and racial and ethnic groups studied. The proportion of children with an antipsychotic prescription who received any diagnosis associated with a pediatric indication that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration increased from 38 percent in 2008 to 45 percent in 2016, which may indicate a trend toward more judicious prescribing.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of monthly, 3-monthly, and 6-monthly long-acting injectable and oral paliperidone in adults with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Paliperidone is among the most cost-effective antipsychotics in adults with schizophrenia, and it has different formulations, including oral paliperidone extended-release (ER) and long-acting injectable (LAI) paliperidone formulations administered every month (PP1M), 3 months (PP3M), or 6 months (PP6M). However, cost-effectiveness analyses comparing different paliperidone formulations were limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness across different paliperidone formulations. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate 1,000 adults aged 40 years with stable schizophrenia transitioning among stable disease-medication adherent, stable disease-medication nonadherent, relapse with hospitalization, relapse with ambulatory care, and death states every 3 months for 5 years. Drug costs were estimated using the prices listed in the Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule, and costs for treating complications were estimated from published studies. All costs were estimated from the US health care system perspective and standardized to 2022 US dollars using the Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using relapse rates from randomized clinical trials and health-related quality of life scores from observational studies. The estimated future costs and QALYs were discounted at 3%. We reported incremental net monetary benefits between alternative formulations at the $50,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold with a positive value indicating cost-effectiveness. The impact of parameter uncertainty on study outcomes was assessed using 1-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In adults with schizophrenia stabilized with paliperidone ER, switching to LAI formulations was associated with increased QALY (PP1M = 0.05, PP3M = 0.14, PP6M = 0.15) and increased cost (PP1M = 49,433, PP3M = 26,698, PP6M = 26,147), leading to a negative incremental net monetary benefit (PP1M = -$46,804, PP3M = -$19,508, PP6M = -$18,886) compared with continuing ER. Among LAI formulations, PP6M was cost-saving with the most QALYs gained (cost = $63,277, QALY = 3.731), followed by PP3M (cost = $63,828, QALY = 3.729) and PP1M (cost = $86,563, QALY = 3.638). At the $50,000 WTP threshold, the probabilities for PP1M, PP3M, and PP6M being cost-effective compared with paliperidone ER were 0.4%, 10.2%, and 9.8%, respectively. The probability of PP6M being cost-effective was 92.6% for the PP6M-PP1M pair and 55.2% for the PP6M-PP3M pair, and 91.1% of PP3M use was cost-effective in the PP3M-PP1M pair. The results were generally robust in the sensitivity analyses, even at the $190,000 WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with schizophrenia stabilized with paliperidone ER, switching to LAI formulations was not cost-effective, suggesting the high drug costs for LAI may not justify the improved quality of life within 5 years. Among LAI formulations, PP6M was cost-effective over PP1M and PP3M.

Treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and costs associated with use of atypical antipsychotics as first vs subsequent adjunctive treatment in major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly prevalent mental health condition associated with substantial economic burden. Inadequate response to first-line antidepressant monotherapy is common, with most patients requiring 1 or more changes in their treatment regimen. Adjunctive treatment with atypical antipsychotics (AAs) is a guideline-recommended treatment option in patients with inadequate response. However, patients often cycle through multiple treatments before receiving adjunctive AAs, and the economic impact of this delay is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To describe adjunctive treatment patterns among patients with MDD and compare health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between patients whose first adjunctive therapy included an AA and those who received an AA after other adjunctive treatments. METHODS: The Merative MarketScan Commercial Database (January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2019) was used to identify patients with administrative claims meeting the following inclusion criteria: adults with newly diagnosed MDD (first observed MDD diagnosis = index diagnosis date); continuous health insurance for at least 6 months pre-index and at least 3 months post-index; and initiation of MDD treatment within 60 days post-index. Lines of therapy (LOTs), HCRU, and costs were analyzed in patients who received AA adjunctive therapy, including those who initiated AAs as the first adjunctive treatment and those who initiated AAs as subsequent adjunctive treatment. RESULTS: Of 508,830 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 121,060 (24%) received adjunctive treatment and 20,797 (4%) received an AA as adjunctive therapy. Mean time to adjunctive therapy initiation was approximately 7.3 months for AA adjunctive therapy. Patients who initiated an AA as their first adjunctive therapy compared with patients who initiated an AA as their subsequent adjunctive therapy had fewer LOTs on average (0.9 LOTs vs 3.9 LOTs) and shorter time between index diagnosis date and initiation of an AA (5 months vs 12 months). Subsequent AA initiators had significantly greater HCRU than first AA initiators (driven primarily by outpatient visits) and incurred significantly higher total health care costs, with mean all-cause and mental health-related health care cost differences per patient per year of $2,441 and $1,762, respectively (both P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Less than 5% of patients in this study received an adjunctive AA as part of their MDD treatment regimen, suggesting underutilization of this recommended therapeutic approach. Patients who received an AA as their first adjunctive treatment regimen had lower HCRU and health care costs than subsequent AA initiators. Along with published evidence of clinical benefits, this potential impact on economic burden should be considered when making treatment choices for patients with inadequate response to antidepressants.