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.

Risk of long-term care admissions among Medicare beneficiaries treated with pimavanserin or quetiapine for Parkinson's disease psychosis in USA: a retrospective administrative claims database analysis.

Aim: Risk of long-term care (LTC) admission (LTCA) associated with atypical antipsychotic (AAP) use among patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP) is a major concern. However, no comparative studies have examined the differences in risk of LTC admissions between pimavanserin (PIM), the only FDA-approved AAP for PDP, and other off-label AAPs including quetiapine (QUE). Objective: To examine all-cause LTCA rates and risk among PDP patients treated with AAPs such as QUE or PIM. Methods: Analysis of Parts A, B and D claims (100% Medicare sample; 2013-2019) of Medicare beneficiaries with PDP that initiate ≥12-month continuous PIM or QUE monotherapy from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018 (i.e., index date) without any AAP use in the 12-month pre-index period was conducted. Outcome assessments among 1:1 propensity score-matched (31 variables - age, sex, race, region and 27 Elixhauser comorbidities) beneficiaries on PIM versus QUE included risk of all-cause skilled nursing facility stays (SNF-stays), LTC-stays, and overall LTCA (i.e., SNF-stays or LTC-stays). All-cause LTCA rates and LTCA risk were compared using logistic regression and cox proportional hazards models, respectively, controlling for demographics, comorbidities and co-existing-dementia or insomnia. Results: Of the matched sample (n = 842 for each group) from total sample (n = 9652), overall all-cause LTCA and SNF-stay rates were 23.2 and 20.2% for PIM versus 33.8 and 31.4% for QUE, respectively (p < 0.05, for each). Hazard ratio (95% CI) for risk of SNF-stay and overall LTCA was 0.78 (0.61, 0.98) and 0.80 (0.66, 0.97), respectively, for PIM versus QUE beneficiaries (p < 0.05, for each). Conclusion: The 20% lower risk of LTCA (i.e., greater delay) with PIM versus QUE in this analysis may suggest that PIM should be started early for the treatment of PDP.

Construction of a hydrophobic-hydrophilic open-droplet microfluidic chemosensor towards colorimetric/spectrophotometric recognition of quetiapine fumarate: a cost-benefit method for biomedical analysis using a smartphone.

Quetiapine fumarate (QF) is used to treat a number of mental/emotional diseases, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and abrupt bouts of mania or depression linked to bipolar disorder. This antipsychotic medicine can be deadly if an overdose is given to a person. Therefore, the sensitive identification of QF in bodily fluids is very important. In this study, an innovative low-cost colorimetric chemosensor based on silver nanoprism transfiguration in a phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)/Cl- matrix was developed and successfully tested for the recognition of QF in human-exhaled breath condensate. Using this non-invasive colorimetric chemosensor, a broad linearity range of 0.001-1000 µM and a low limit of quantification of 0.001 µM for QF were attained. Notably, the proposed optical chemosensor is capable of detecting QF from a minimum amount of sample [500 µM in PBS and 0.001 µM in exhaled breath condensate] in the first few seconds of reaction by the naked eye. So, a rapid colorimetric assay for the on-site analysis of QF was developed and validated. Moreover, for the first time, a semi-analytical method was introduced that can provide a rough estimation of the QF concentration. This colorimetric system was, for the first time, integrated in an optimized microfluidic paper-based colorimetric device (µPCD), promising the development of an engineered colorimetric opto-sensor toward real-time and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) assay of drugs in real-world samples.

Patients treated with pimavanserin or quetiapine for Parkinson's disease psychosis: analysis of health resource utilization patterns among Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Pimavanserin (PIM) is the only FDA approved atypical antipsychotic (AAP) for the treatment of Parkinson's Disease Psychosis (PDP) while other off-label AAPs like quetiapine (QUE) are also used. Real-world comparative effects of PIM and QUE on health resource utilization (HCRU) may provide insights about their relative benefits. OBJECTIVES: To examine annual HCRU among newly initiated PIM or QUE monotherapy among patients with PDP. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 100% Medicare (Parts A, B, and D) claims of patients with PDP during 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2019 was conducted. Treatment-naive patients with first prescription for PIM or QUE from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018 were selected if they had ≥12-months continuous monotherapy and had no prior AAP use for ≥12-month pre-index. Post-index 12-month HCRU was compared between 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM) PIM or QUE cohorts. HCRU outcomes included: rates of all-cause and psychiatric-related inpatient hospitalizations by stay-type [i.e., long-term stays (LT-stays), short-term stays (ST-stays), skilled nursing facility stays (SNF-stays)], outpatient hospitalizations, emergency room (ER) visits, and office visits. Relative risk and 95% confidence intervals are reported [RR (95% CI)]. RESULTS: A total of 842 and 7,116 were treated with PIM and QUE, respectively. Mean age and gender distribution were similar among both groups. After PSM, those on PIM (n=842) had significantly lower RR for all-cause: inpatient hospitalizations [RR=0.78 (0.70-0.87)], ST-stays [RR=0.75 (0.66-0.84)], SNF-stays [RR=0.64 (0.54-0.76)], and ER visits [RR=0.91 (0.84-0.97)] vs. QUE (n=842). PIM patients had slightly higher RR for all-cause office visits [RR=1.03 (1.01-1.05)] vs. QUE. Psychiatric-related inpatient hospitalizations were also lower for PIM vs. QUE: [RR=0.63 (0.48-0.82)] ST-stays [RR=0.61 (0.43-0.86)], SNF-stay [RR=0.69 (0.47-1.02)], and ER visits [RR=0.53 (0.37-0.76)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of PDP patients, PIM monotherapy resulted in nearly 22% and 37% lower all-cause hospitalizations and psychiatric-related inpatient hospitalizations compared to QUE.

Risk assessment of accidental falls in patients taking trazodone, quetiapine, or risperidone for insomnia: A single-center, case-control study.

AIM: No consensus has been reached on the association between the risk of falls and antipsychotic and antidepressant drug use. In this study, we evaluated the risk of falls with trazodone, risperidone, and quetiapine, which are recommended for use at Kanazawa Medical University Hospital. METHODS: We reviewed all patients who were admitted to Kanazawa Medical University Hospital between January 1st and December 31st, 2018. We excluded those aged <20 years and those admitted to pediatric, intensive care, and psychiatric wards. Finally, 9273 patients were included. We reviewed the incidence in these patients of accidental falls reported to the medical safety department. We noted whether these patients received trazodone, quetiapine, or risperidone. We also observed whether they were taking a benzodiazepine receptor agonist, which is a known risk factor. We further examined each patient's age, sex, the department they were visiting, and their diseases. Patients were considered to have taken medication if it was administered within 24 hours before an accidental fall. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk of accidental fall. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed that the adjusted odds ratios (OR) for each medication (with 95% confidence intervals) were: trazodone (OR, 0.47 [0.27-0.80]), quetiapine (OR, 1.06 [0.46-2.46]), and risperidone (OR, 0.82 [0.41-1.63]). CONCLUSION: The association of risperidone and quetiapine with accidental falls was unclear. Interestingly, however, trazodone may help reduce the risk, which makes it a potential pharmacologic treatment option for insomnia in patients at high risk for accidental falls.

Systematic Review of Real-World Treatment Patterns of Oral Antipsychotics and Associated Economic Burden in Patients with Schizophrenia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a chronic mental disorder associated with substantial morbidity and mortality affecting 0.25-1.6% of adults in the USA. Antipsychotic treatment is the standard of care for schizophrenia, but real-world treatment patterns and associated costs have not been systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to summarize treatment patterns and associated costs related to oral antipsychotic treatment of patients with schizophrenia in the USA. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline (via PubMed) and Embase to identify relevant observational studies published from January 1, 2008, to June 1, 2018; costs were converted to 2018 US dollars. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: Observational, real-world studies reporting on patterns of treatment and/or associated costs for adult patients with schizophrenia treated with oral antipsychotics in the USA were included. RESULTS: Eighty-one studies were identified. Frequently prescribed oral second-generation antipsychotics were olanzapine (up to 50.9%), risperidone (up to 40.0%), and quetiapine (up to 30.7%). Suboptimal adherence was common across studies. Antipsychotic switching occurred in about half of patients, while antipsychotic combination therapy occurred in nearly 30%; all were associated with increased medication-related costs. Mean annual direct medical costs differed by treatment, with reported costs of $17,115 to $26,138 for patients treated with olanzapine, $18,395 for risperidone, and $17,656 to $28,101 for quetiapine. LIMITATIONS: This systematic review is limited by the variations in definitions of schizophrenia-related clinical terms used between studies and by the inclusion of studies focused on only the US health care system. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of schizophrenia, suboptimal adherence, antipsychotic switching, and antipsychotic augmentation were all associated with high costs of care in comparison to patients who were adherent and did not require antipsychotic switching or augmentation. These findings illustrate the need for the development of new treatments that address efficacy and adherence challenges of currently available therapies.

Schizophrenia is a debilitating mental disorder that affects up to 1.6% of adults in the USA. Antipsychotic medications reduce symptoms of the disease, but many patients with schizophrenia are not fully adherent or choose to discontinue treatment entirely, increasing their risk of hospitalization. In others, efforts to achieve better symptom control or to avoid intolerable side effects may result in switching antipsychotic medications or adding additional medications, leading to higher medical treatment costs. The magnitude of these cost increases is unclear. This study sought to assess medical costs associated with antipsychotic treatment adherence, switching, and adding additional antipsychotics. We reviewed 81 studies published from January 2008 through June 2018 examining treatment adherence in patients with schizophrenia. We calculated rates of adherence, switching, and adding antipsychotics, as well as associated medical costs. Overall adherence to antipsychotic treatment was less than 50%, with up to 50% of patients switching medications and up to 29% adding an additional antipsychotic medication to their current treatment. Patients who were not treatment adherent incurred annual medical costs of $10,316 compared with $5723 in patients who were adherent. The costs of immediate or delayed switching of antipsychotic medications ranged from $21,922 to $28,232, while costs of adding an additional antipsychotic ranged from $24,045 to $29,344. These data suggest that suboptimal medication adherence, along with high rates of patient discontinuation and medication switching, lead to higher treatment costs in the management of patients with schizophrenia.

Letter to the Editor: Rethinking The Cost Of Antipsychotic Treatment: The Average Cost Of The Drugs Used In Turkey In 2020. / Editöre Mektup: Çildirigideren Ilaç Tedavisinde Maliyeti Yeniden Düsünmek: Türkiye'de Kullanilan Ilaçlarin 2020 Yili Ortalama Tedavi Maliyeti.

Dear Editor, The costs of antipsychotic drugs (APDs) used in the treatment of mental disorders with psychosis are mentioned in treatment guidelines (APA 2021, NICE 2014). While the American Psychiatric Association guideline states that every specialist should make decisions according to the rules and conditions of their country and their region, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guideline emphasizes that drug costs must be taken into consideration in the treatment process. Classical or first-generation antipsychotic drugs (FAPDs) are relatively cheaper in terms of sales prices compared to atypical or second-generation antipsychotic drugs (SAPDs) with a slightly different effect mechanism. The price difference between the two drug groups can be so large that sometimes it may be necessary to consider whether the cost of a second-generation drug is worth its benefit. While deciding on the use of first-generation or second-generation drugs, a multifaceted assessment should be made, such as the patient's level of compliance with the treatment, the possibility of occurrence of side effects, the possible effects of these side effects on body health and treatment compliance, and whether or not the costs are covered. The most important criterion that determines the choice of medication for psychiatrists is of course the multi-dimensional benefit/harm ratio that the drug used will reveal in the long term. We think that in our country, which, in terms of economic indicators is not in a strong position as an importer of pharmaceutical raw materials from abroad, APDs' cost calculation should be considered because drug costs constitute an important part of the direct treatment costs of psychotic disorders in developing countries such as Turkey (Yildiz and Cerit 2006). We calculated the unit (mg) price based on the box prices of the APDs in use in 2020, thinking that it might work when calculating the cost of the illness using APDs as the main component of the treatment and calculated the annual average drug costs with the daily average dosage. Although the daily treatment dose varies with the stage of the illness and the individual characteristics of the patient, the average doses recommended for maintenance treatment were used here (Öztürk and Ulusahin 2018). The daily and annual cost calculations based on the assumption that the average maintenance treatment dose was used with the unit price obtained from (Drug Prices 2020) the drugs in the Turkish pharmaceutical market in September 2020 are shown in Table 1. A similar study was done in 2005 (Yildiz 2005). The purpose of this article is to redetermine the average costs of APDs in the Turkish pharmaceutical market every 15 years and to bring them to the attention of experts in terms of cost-effectiveness studies. When the costs in 2005 are examined, it is seen that the annual costs of the FAPDs were around 450 TRY, and the annual cost of oral preparations of SAPDs was 2,500 TRY (5 times the first generation). In 2005, there was only one depot of SAPD (risperidon consta) that allowed intramuscular (IM) administration, and its average annual cost was 5,400 TRY, 3 times more than the tablet form (1,700 TRY). In 2005, when the price of risperidone consta, which was the first second-generation depot APD, were compared with the prices of the first-generation depot drugs (fluphenazine = 380 TRY, flupentixol = 876 TRY, zuclopentixol = 730 TRY), the cost difference was 6-14 times. This almost-10-fold difference between the cost of the first and second generation APDs was remarkable. It is seen that this difference (risperidone consta = 10,807 TRY, fluphenazine = 916 TRY, flupentixol = 1,007 TRY, zuclopenthixol = 2,372 TRY, and haloperidol deconate 237 TRY) did not change in 2020. In 2020, the average RETHINKING THE COST OF ANTIPSYCHOTIC TREATMENT: THE AVERAGE COST OF THE DRUGS USED IN TURKEY IN 2020 2 Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi 2 Turkish Journal of Psychiatry Letter to the Editor 146 147 annual cost of oral use preparations of FAPDs is 925 TRY, while the average annual cost of oral forms of SAPDs is 2,580 TRY. The 5-fold difference observed in 2005 between the first and second-generation ones of the oral APDs decreased to 2.5 times in 2020. It is clear that while the difference between the cost of oral use of first- and second-generation drugs was halved in 2020, the difference between the costs of depot preparations applied with IM did not change. In 2005, the average dollar rate was 1.34 TRY, and in 2020 it was 7.02 TRY (Republic of Turkey Central Bank Exchange Rates, 2021). It is understood that the 5-fold increase in dollar exchange rate is not reflected in all drug prices in the same way. For example, there was a 3 to 4-fold increase in the prices of haloperidol, chlorpromazine, fluphenazine, trifluperazine and zuclopenthixol, while a less than two-fold increase in pimozide, flupenthixol, sulpiride, amisulpride and quetiapine and a decrease in the prices of clozapine, olanzapine, ziprasidone and risperidone in the tablet form. There is also a two-fold increase in the price of risperidone consta. The fluctuations in drug prices in 2005 and 2020 are shown in Table 2 in 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 and 5,000 TRY brackets. It is noteworthy that while some drugs have moved into an upper price bracket in terms of annual costs, some have fallen into a lower price bracket. The prices of the second generation long-acting (depot) antipsycotic drugs (LA-APDs), which were not available in the Turkish pharmaceutical market in 2005, are quite high compared to others. In 2020, the annual cost of all of them, including risperidone consta, is over 10 thousand TRY. It is understood that the underlying reason for such price increase is the fact that the drug is wanted/sought after/new/marketed rather than the dollar exchange rate. For example, while there was a certain increase in the price of FAPDs, the increase in the price of some of the SAPDs (sulpiride, amisulpride, quetiapine tablet) was low, while the price of some others (clozapine, olanzapine, ziprasidone, risperidone tablet) decreased. It should also be taken into account that the effect of generic drugs entering the market during this period may have had an impact on price changes. It is noteworthy that while the annual cost of risperidone consta was approximately 3 times higher than the tablet form (5,400 TRY versus 1,700 TRY) in 2005, this difference reached 14 folds (10,807 TRY versus 742 TRY) in 2020. In 2005, the difference between the lowest daily cost (0.07 TRY) and the highest daily cost (14.80 TRY) was 211 times (Yildiz 2005), this difference had receded to 111 times (0.35 TRY versus 38.72 TRY) in 2020. Still a huge difference, isn't it? Table 1. Current Forms, Box Prices, Daily and Annual Costs in For Maintenance Treatment of Antipsychotic Drugs Available in the Pharmaceutical Market in September 2020 in Turkey No Generic name Trade name Dosage forms (mg) BV Price# TRY/Mg ADD Cost/d Cost/y 2005** 1 Haloperidol Norodol 5, 10, 20 tb 5/50 17.57 0.070 5 0.35 127 26 5, 10 amp 5/5 5.35 0.214 5 1.07 390 - 50, 150 LAI 50/1 9.80 0.196 1/15* 0.65 237 - 2 Chlorpromazine Largactil 25,100 tb 100/30 17.92 0.006 300 1.79 653 197 3 Fluphenazine Prolixin 25 LAI 25/1 17.57 0.703 1/7* 2.51 916 380 4 Trifluoperazine Stilizan 1, 2, 5 drj; 1 amp 5/30 14.52 0.096 10 0.97 354 91 5 Pimozide Nörofren 2 tb 2/30 19.33 0.322 4 1.29 470 365 6 Flupenthixol Fluanxol 3 drj 3/50 65.75 0.438 6 2.63 960 526 20 LAI 20/1 19.33 0.966 1/7* 2.76 1,007 876 7 Zuklopenthixol Clopixol 2, 10, 25 tb 2/50 38.65 0.386 20 7.72 2,817 701 200 LAI, 50 acu 200/1 45.55 0.227 1/7* 6.50 2,372 730 8 Sulpirid Dogmatil 200 tb 200/24 23.15 0.005 600 3.00 1,095 876 9 Amisulpirid Solian 200 tb 200/60 146.92 0.012 600 7.20 2,628 2,387 10 Quetiapine Seroquel 25, 50, 100, 200, 300, 400 tb 300/30 137.17 0.015 600 9.00 3,285 2,628 11 Clozapine Leponex 25, 100 tb 100/50 32.56 0.006 400 2.40 876 1,898 12 Olanzapine Zyprexa 5, 10, 20 tb 10/28 152.96 0.546 10 5.46 1,992 2,606 13 Ziprasidone Zeldox 20, 40, 60, 80 tb 60/56 189.89 0.056 120 6.72 2,452 3,541 14 Sertindole Serdolect 4, 12, 16, 20 tb 16/28 453.53 1.012 16 16.19 5,909 - 15 Risperidone Risperdal 1, 2, 3, 4 tb; 1 sol 2/20 20.34 0.508 4 2.03 741 1,719 Ris. Consta 25, 37.5, 50 LAI 37.5/1 444.17 11.840 1/15* 29.61 10,807 5,402 16 Paliperidone Invega 3, 6, 9 tb 6/28 213.15 1.268 6 7.61 2,777 - Xeplion 50, 75, 100, 150 LAI 100/1 1161.56 11.615 1/30* 38.72 14,132 - Trevicta 175, 263, 350, 525 LAI 350/1 3426.95 9.788 1/90* 38.08 13,899 - 17 Aripiprazole Abilify 5, 10, 15, 20 tb; 1 sol 20/28 113.25 0.404 20 8.08 2,949 - Abilify Main. 400 LAI 400/1 971.17 2.420 1/30* 32.37 11,815 - BV: Baseline value (in mg of the form and the number in the box), Price#: Box price of the base value in TRY, TRY/mg: Value per milligram in Turkish Lira, ADD: Average daily dose, Cost/d: Daily cost in TRY, Cost/y: Annual cost in TRY, mg: Milligram, tb: Tablet, drj: Dragee, amp: Ampoule, LAI: Long-acting injectable, acu: Acuphase, d: Day, TRY: Turkish Lira, *LAI per 7,15,30 or 90 days, **Annual cost in TRY in 2005. 148 Received: 14.01.2021, Accepted: 31.03.2021, Available Online Date: 07.01.2022 1Prof., 2Res. Assis., Kocaeli University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Kocaeli, Turkey. e-mail: myildiz60@yahoo.com https://doi.org/10.5080/u26315 The difference in 2005 between oral FAPDs prices and SAPDs prices seems to have halved in 2020. In 2020, the average daily treatment cost of oral drugs, whether for the first generation or the second generation, is 3 TRY (approximately the same for FAPDs applied with IM), while the daily cost of LA-SAPDs is around 33 TRY. It is seen that the difference between costs is approximately 11 times. This difference increases to 50 times for haloperidol deconate. From here, the following judgment can be made: in order for LA-SAPDs to be preferred, they must be at a value that will constitute at least 11 times higher cost. This cost can and should be taken, especially for patients who are non-adherend with treatment and who do not adapt to LA-FAPDs. Because for clinicians, preventing the multi-dimensional destructiveness of psychosis in the individual, families and the society should be the priority. In this case, calculating the cost should not be a primary consideration. However, it is also known that patients who are non-adherend with treatment gain the ability to understand their illness and make consistent evaluations with its' results. If a psychosocial therapy has been carried out for a patient using IM medication for six months or a year, it is likely that this period provides insight and increases the level of treatment compliance. After one year of IM application, whether or not the patient will comply with oral treatment should be re-evaluated and the transition to oral treatment should be considered. If there is no problem in the patient's oral treatment compliance, it should be taken into account that the benefit of this transition will be at least 11-folds a year with this transition. Naturally, it will be necessary to apply IM for some patients for years. Moreover, there will be patients who need to switch from monthly administration of LA-SAPDs to quarterly usage patterns. However, we can say that most patients using LA-APDs will not need such use after a while, based on our clinical practice, although there is no study done in this field. With this study, we wanted to emphasize that while prescribing drugs used in the treatment of illnesses with psychotic symptoms, they should take into account the side effects of the drugs, as well as the daily, monthly, annual, and lifetime costs of the drugs. The principle of 'using an effective drug recommended for a specific disorder at the required dose, in sufficient time, at the lowest cost' adopted in the rational drug use guidelines should not be forgotten. It is expected that the modification of drug treatments, considering their costs as well as their efficiency, will contribute significantly to the country's economy in the long run. Mustafa Yildiz1, Emre Osman2 REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association (2021) The American Psychiatric Association practice guideline for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Third edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Drug Prices. https://www.ilacrehberi.com/ilac-fihrist/ Accession date: 25th September 2020. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2014) Psychosis and schizophrenia in adults: prevention and management. NICE Guideline CG178; https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg178. Accession date: 4th April 2018. Öztürk MO, Ulusahin NA (2018) Mental Health and Disorders. 18th Edit. Ankara: Nobel Tip Kitapevleri. (In Turkish) Republic of Turkey Central Bank Exchange Rates. https://www.tcmb.gov.tr/kurlar/kurlar_tr.html Accession date: 10th January 2021. Yildiz M (2005) The cost of treatment of psychotic disorders. Turk Psikiyatri Derg 16:146-7. (In Turkish) Yildiz M, Cerit C (2006) Annual cost of treatment for schizophrenia: Estimation from a university hospital data in Turkey. Bulletin of Clinical Psychopharmacology 16:239-44. Table 2. Comparison of the Annual Costs of Antipsychotic Drugs Calculated By The Daily Standard Average Dose Use, at Certain Price Ranges, for the Years 2005 and 2020 Price bracket (TRY) 2005 2020 500 ↓ Haloperidol tb, amp, Trifluoperazine drj, Chlorpromazine tb, Pimozid tb, Fluphenazine LAI Haloperidol tb, amp, depo, Trifluoperazine drj, Pimozid tb 500-1,000 Flupenthixol drj, LAI, Zuklopenthixol tb, acu, LAI, Sulpirid tb Chlorpromazine tb, Fluphenazine LAI, Flupenthixol drj, LAI, Clozapine tb, Risperidone tb 1,000-2,000 Clozapine tb, Risperidone tb Olanzapine tb, Sulpirid tb 2,000-3,000 Amisulpirid tb, Olanzapine tb, Quetiapine tb Zuklopenthixol tb, acu, LAI, Amisulpirid tb, Ziprasidone tb, Paliperidone tb, Aripiprazole tb 3,000-5,000 Ziprasidone tb Quetiapine tb 5,000-10,000 Risperidone consta Sertindole tb 10,000 ↑ Risperidone consta, Paliperidone monthly, Paliperidone 3 monthly, Aripiprazole maintana tb: Tablet, drj: Dragee, amp: Ampoule, LAI: Long-acting injectable, acu: Acuphase.

Patient perspectives of lithium and quetiapine augmentation treatment in treatment-resistant depression: A qualitative assessment.

BACKGROUND: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) has a profound cost to patients and healthcare services worldwide. Pharmacological augmentation is one therapeutic option for TRD, with lithium and quetiapine currently recommended as first-line agents. Patient opinions about pharmacological augmentation may affect treatment outcomes, yet these have not been systematically explored. AIMS: This study aimed to qualitatively assess patient experiences of lithium and quetiapine augmentation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 patients from the ongoing lithium versus quetiapine open-label trial comparing these augmentation agents in patients with TRD. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis was used to assess patient opinions of each agent. RESULTS: Four main themes were generated from the thematic analysis: 'Initial concerns', 'Experience of side effects', 'Perception of treatment efficacy' and 'Positive perception of treatment monitoring'. Patient accounts indicated a predominantly positive experience of lithium and quetiapine augmentation. Greater apprehension about side effects was reported for lithium prior to treatment initiation, but greater experience of negative side effects was reported for quetiapine. Clinical monitoring was perceived positively. CONCLUSION: Patient accounts suggested treatment augmentation with lithium or quetiapine was acceptable and helpful for most patients. However, anticipation and experiences of adverse side effects may prevent some patients from benefitting from these treatments.

Hospitalization risk among adults with bipolar I disorder treated with lurasidone versus other oral atypical antipsychotics: a retrospective analysis of Medicaid claims data.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of hospitalization for adult Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar I disorder treated with lurasidone vs. other oral atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) as monotherapy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of the IBM MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid Claims database identified adults with bipolar I disorder who initiated an AAP (index date) between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2019. Patients were continuously enrolled 12 months pre- and 24 months post-index date. Each month during the post-index period was categorized as monotherapy with lurasidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine or risperidone, no/minimal treatment, or other. Marginal structural models were performed to estimate hospitalization risk and length of stay (LOS) (all-cause and bipolar I disorder-related) compared to lurasidone. RESULTS: The analysis included 8262 adults. Compared to lurasidone, the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of all-cause hospitalization were significantly higher for olanzapine (aOR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.09-2.10) and quetiapine (aOR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.18-1.89). The risk was significantly higher for bipolar I disorder-related hospitalization for quetiapine (aOR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.10-2.04) and risperidone (aOR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.04-2.56) compared to lurasidone. The bipolar I disorder-related LOS per 100 patient-months was more than twice as long for quetiapine (8.42 days) compared to lurasidone (3.97 days, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Lurasidone-treated adult Medicaid patients with bipolar I disorder had significantly lower risk of all-cause hospitalization than those treated with olanzapine and quetiapine and lower risk of bipolar I disorder-related hospitalization than quetiapine and risperidone. Bipolar I disorder-related hospital LOS was significantly shorter for patients treated with lurasidone compared to quetiapine.

Quetiapine Fumarate Loaded Nanostructured Lipid Carrier for Enhancing Oral Bioavailability: Design, Development and Pharmacokinetic Assessment.

AIMS: The study aimed at developing and characterizing Nanostructured Lipid Carriers (NLC) of Quetiapine Fumarate (QF) by Design of Experiment (DoE) for the enhancement of bioavailability. BACKGROUND: QF, an anti-psychotic drug, has an oral bioavailability of 9% due to hepatic first- pass metabolism necessitating the use of high doses. Its side effects are dose -related and enhancement in bioavailability would result in minimization of side effects. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was the enhancement of bioavailability of the NLC of QF by preferential lymphatic uptake. METHODS: Hot emulsification-ultrasonication was the method of formulation using PrecirolATO5 and Oleic acid as solid and liquid lipids respectively. Poloxamer188 and Phospholipon90G were used as surfactant and stabilizer respectively. Solid:liquid lipid ratio and Phospholipon90G amount were independent variables and percent Entrapment Efficiency (%EE), Particle Size (PS) dependent variables during optimization by Central Composite Design. RESULTS: The optimized formulation showed a %EE of 77.21%, PS of 140.2 nm and surface charge of - 19.9mV. Higuchi kinetic model was followed during the in-vitro release. TEM revealed spherical, smooth nanoparticles. A pharmacokinetic study in rats showed AUC0-∞ of QF-NLC to be 3.93 times that of QF in suspension, suggesting significant enhancement in bioavailability. An increase in AUC0-∞ in cycloheximide untreated rats' group of QF-NLC by 2.43 times as compared to cycloheximide treated group, confirmed lymphatic absorption of QF- NLC. CONCLUSION: The results validated DoE as an appropriate tool for developing QF loaded NLC and proved NLC to be a promising delivery system for the enhancement of oral bioavailability of QF.

Cost of Relapse Management in Patients with Schizophrenia in Italy and Spain: Comparison Between Lurasidone and Quetiapine XR.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Schizophrenia is a low-prevalence mental disorder with a global age-standardized prevalence of 21 million people (2016). Second-generation antipsychotics (lurasidone and quetiapine XR) are recommended as the first-line treatment for schizophrenia. It is interesting to investigate how the results of clinical studies translate into direct medical costs. The objective of this analysis was to assess the direct medical costs related to pharmaceutical treatments and the management of relapses in patients affected with schizophrenia treated with lurasidone (74 mg) vs quetiapine XR (300 mg) assuming the Italian and Spanish National Health Service perspective. METHODS: A health economic model was developed based on a previously published model. The analysis considered direct medical costs related to the pharmacological therapies and inpatient or outpatient management of relapses (direct medical costs referred to 2019). The probability of relapses and related costs were derived from two systematic reviews. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was implemented to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The use of lurasidone (74 mg) compared with quetiapine XR (300 mg) would lead to a reduction in direct medical costs in Italy and Spain, with a lower cost per patient of - 163.7 € (- 9.0%) and - 327.2 € (- 22.7%), respectively. In detail, it would lead to an increase in the cost of therapy of + 53.8% and of + 30.5% in Italy and Spain, respectively, to a decrease in the cost of relapses with hospitalization of - 135.7%, and to an increase in the cost of relapses without hospitalization of + 24.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of lurasidone (74 mg) for the treatment of patients affected with schizophrenia, compared with quetiapine XR (300 mg), would be a cost-saving strategy in the two contexts investigated assuming the National Health Service point of view.

Health Care Cost in Patients With Schizophrenia Treated With Brexpiprazole Versus Other Oral Atypical Antipsychotic Therapy.

PURPOSE: Brexpiprazole is an oral atypical antipsychotic (OAA) for the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ). This study compared all-cause and psychiatric inpatient hospitalization and medical costs in adult patients with SCZ newly treated with brexpiprazole versus other US Food and Drug Administration-approved OAAs in a real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from: (1) the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases, and the MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid database; and (2) the de-identified Optum Clinformatics Datamart. Adult patients were identified if they had SCZ and initiated either brexpiprazole or another OAA during the study identification period (July 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, for MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental and for Optum; July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016, for MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid) and had ≥12 months of continuous enrollment before (baseline) and after (follow-up) the first treatment date. Linear regression analyses were performed to test associations between treatment groups (brexpiprazole vs another OAA) and costs (total and medical); negative binomial regression models were used to estimate number of hospitalizations per year, adjusting for baseline characteristics and medication adherence to index treatment during the 12-month follow-up. FINDINGS: The final study sample consisted of 6254 patients with SCZ: 176 initiated brexpiprazole; 391, ziprasidone; 453, paliperidone; 523, lurasidone; 786, aripiprazole; 1234, quetiapine; 1264, olanzapine; and 1427, risperidone. Controlling for baseline characteristics and medication adherence, the adjusted number of hospitalizations (both all-cause and psychiatric), all-cause total costs, and all-cause medical costs did not differ across groups. Brexpiprazole users had the lowest mean psychiatric costs among all OAA users ($12,013; 95% bootstrap CI, 7488-16,538). Compared with brexpiprazole users, paliperidone (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.52 [1.05-2.19]; P = 0.027) and quetiapine (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.47 [1.04-2.07]; P = 0.029) users had more psychiatric hospitalizations per year. Paliperidone had higher psychiatric costs than brexpiprazole (total, $32,066 [95% bootstrap CI, 28,779-35,353] vs $23,851 [18,907-28,795]; medical, $19,343 [16,294-22,392] vs $12,013 [7488-16,538]). Psychiatric medical costs were also $6744 higher in olanzapine users (95% bootstrap CI, 1694-11,795; P = 0.009) than in brexpiprazole users. IMPLICATIONS: Patients with SCZ treated with brexpiprazole had fewer psychiatric hospitalizations and lower psychiatric costs than those treated with paliperidone. Differences in the number of all-cause hospitalizations and medical costs among treatments were not statistically significant. Although treatment decisions are driven by a number of factors (eg, clinical circumstances and drug costs), choice of OAA may affect health care costs.

Potentially inappropriate prescriptions of anticholinergics drugs in Alzheimer's disease patients.

AIM: Alzheimer's disease is a common cause of dementia, and is usually treated with medications that elevate acetylcholine levels. The objective of the present study was to identify drugs with anticholinergic properties prescribed to patients diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in Colombia. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out in outpatients diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease who were identified from a population database from Colombia, and had been treated with cholinesterase inhibitors and glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists. The anticholinergic burden was evaluated using the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale, and patients were classified on a scale of 0-3 points according to anticholinergic potential, and were grouped into those with mild-to-moderate (1-2 points) or high (≥3 points) anticholinergic load. RESULTS: The study included 4134 Alzheimer's disease patients. The mean age was 81.50 ± 8.16 years, and 67.8% were women. At least 22.9% of patients took anticholinergic drugs. Of these, the most frequently prescribed medication was quetiapine (8.6%). Age >85 years was associated with a high risk of having an anticholinergic burden ≥3 points (OR 2.19, 95%CI 1.159-4.162). Potential interactions between cholinesterase inhibitors and anticholinergic drugs were identified in 7.8% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients who were prescribed anticholinergic drugs were older women, had a significant total anticholinergic burden and had frequent pharmacological interactions with cholinesterase inhibitors. The use of anticholinergics reduces the clinical effectiveness of antidementia drugs and increases the risk of adverse reactions. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2019; 19: 913-917.

Medication Adherence, Health Care Utilization, and Costs in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder Initiating Adjunctive Atypical Antipsychotic Treatment.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare medication adherence, health care utilization, and cost among patients receiving adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) with brexpiprazole, quetiapine, or lurasidone. METHODS: Using Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare Supplemental Databases, we identified adults with MDD initiating adjunctive treatment with brexpiprazole, quetiapine, or lurasidone (index atypical antipsychotic [AAP]). We compared medication adherence and persistence measured by proportion of days covered (PDC) and treatment duration of index AAP, all-cause and psychiatric hospital care (hospitalization or emergency department visit), and medical costs during 6-month follow-up. Models performed included logistic regression for hospital care, linear regression for PDC and cost, and Cox proportional hazards regression for time to discontinuation, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and utilization differences during the 6 months before index AAP. FINDINGS: The total sample included 778 brexpiprazole, 626 lurasidone, and 3458 quetiapine therapy initiators. Adjusting for baseline differences, the risk of discontinuation of index AAP was statistically significantly higher for quetiapine than for brexpiprazole (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25; P = 0.023) and did not differ between lurasidone and brexipiprazole (HR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.00-1.29; P = 0.054). The adjusted rate of all-cause hospitalization or emergency department visit in the postindex period was lowest for brexpiprazole at 27.4% (95% CI, 24.0%-31.0%), compared with 31.1% (95% CI, 27.3%-35.2%) for lurasidone and 35.3% (95% CI, 33.5%-37.1%) for quetiapine (P< 0.001 for all comparisons). Quetiapine users had increased all-cause costs compared with brexpiprazole users (estimate = $2309; 95% CI, $31-$4587; P = 0.047); all-cause medical costs did not differ between lurasidone and brexpiprazole (estimate = $913; 95% CI, $-2033 -$3859; P = 0.543). Adjusted psychiatric hospital care, psychiatric costs, and PDC did not differ significantly among the groups. IMPLICATIONS: In patients with MDD and a variety of insurance types, brexpiprazole use was associated with statistically significantly lower risks of discontinuation, risk of hospital care (hospitalization and ED visits), and all-cause medical costs compared with adjunctive quetiapine. Differences between brexpiprazole and lurasidone were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that drug choice is associated with subsequent health care utilization and costs.

Comparative economic evaluation of quetiapine plus lamotrigine combination vs quetiapine monotherapy (and folic acid vs placebo) in patients with bipolar depression (CEQUEL).

OBJECTIVES: Although not licensed for acute bipolar depression, lamotrigine has evidence for efficacy in trials and its use is recommended in guidelines. So far there had been no prospective health economic evaluation of its use. METHODS: Cost-utility analysis of the CEQUEL trial comparing quetiapine plus lamotrigine vs quetiapine monotherapy (and folic acid vs placebo in an add-on factorial design) for patients with bipolar depression (n = 201) from the health and social care perspective. Differences in costs together with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between the groups were assessed over 52 weeks using a regression-based approach. RESULTS: Health-related quality of life improved substantially for all randomization groups during follow-up with no significant difference in QALYs between any of the comparisons (mean adjusted QALY difference: lamotrigine vs placebo -0.001 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.05), folic acid vs placebo 0.002 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.05)). While medication costs in the lamotrigine group were higher than in the placebo group (£647, P < 0.001), mental health community/outpatient costs were significantly lower (-£670, P < 0.001). Mean total costs were similar in the groups (-£180, P = 0.913). CONCLUSIONS: Lamotrigine improved clinical ratings in bipolar depression compared with placebo. This differential effect was not detected using the EQ-5D-3L. The additional cost of lamotrigine was balanced by significant savings in some other medical costs which made its use cost neutral to the health service. Compared to placebo, folic acid produced neither clinical nor significant health economic benefits. The study supports the use of lamotrigine in combination with other drugs to treat bipolar depression.

Effect of Peer Comparison Letters for High-Volume Primary Care Prescribers of Quetiapine in Older and Disabled Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Antipsychotic agents, such as quetiapine fumarate, are frequently overprescribed for indications not supported by clinical evidence, potentially causing harm. Objective: To investigate if peer comparison letters targeting high-volume primary care prescribers of quetiapine meaningfully reduce their prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial (intent to treat) conducted from 2015 to 2017 of prescribers and their patients nationwide in the Medicare program. The trial targeted the 5055 highest-volume primary care prescribers of quetiapine in 2013 and 2014 (approximately 5% of all primary care prescribers of quetiapine). Interventions: Prescribers were randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive a placebo letter or 3 peer comparison letters stating that their quetiapine prescribing was high relative to their peers and was under review by Medicare. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the total quetiapine days supplied by prescribers from the intervention start to 9 months. Secondary outcomes included quetiapine receipt from all prescribers by baseline patients, quetiapine receipt by patients with low-value or guideline-concordant indications for therapy, mortality, and hospital use. In exploratory analyses, the study followed outcomes to 2 years. Results: Of the 5055 prescribers, 231 (4.6%) were general practitioners, 2428 (48.0%) were in family medicine, and 2396 (47.4%) were in internal medicine; 4155 (82.2%) were male. All were included in the analyses. Over 9 months, the treatment arm supplied 11.1% fewer quetiapine days per prescriber vs the control arm (2456 vs 2864 days; percentage difference, 11.1% fewer days; 95% CI, -13.1% to -9.2% days; P < .001; adjusted difference, -319 days; 95% CI, -374 to -263 days; P < .001), which persisted through 2 years (15.6% fewer days; 95% CI, -18.1% to -13.0%; P < .001). At the patient level, individuals in the treatment arm received 3.9% (95% CI, -5.0% to -2.9%; P < .001) fewer days of quetiapine from all prescribers over 9 months, with a larger decrease among patients with low-value vs guideline-concordant indications (-5.9% [95% CI, -8.0% to -3.9%] vs -2.4% [95% CI, -4.0% to -0.9%], P = .01 for test that effects were equal for both patient groups). There was no evidence of substitution to other antipsychotics, and 9-month mortality and hospital use were similar between the treatment vs control arms. Conclusions and Relevance: Peer comparison letters caused substantial and durable reductions in quetiapine prescribing, with no evidence of negative effects on patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02467933.