Topiramate prescribing patterns among medicaid patients: diagnosis, comorbidities, and dosing.

BACKGROUND: Routine clinical practice data are useful for payers and formulary decision makers to make sound decisions regarding coverage policy. Based on a literature search, there has been scant research into topiramate prescribing patterns among Medicaid patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe diagnoses, demographic characteristics, additional co-existing diagnoses, and dosing among Medicaid patients prescribed topiramate. METHODS: This descriptive, retrospective database analysis used data from South Carolina (SC) and Texas (TX) ambulatory Medicaid claims dated October 1, 2003, to December 31, 2004. Patients whose data were eligible for inclusion in the study were enrolled in Medicaid during the study period, had >or=2 topiramate prescriptions, were aged <65 years, and had evidence of a topiramate treatment-related diagnosis (possible diagnoses were identified through literature search and drug compendiums). Four cohorts were defined: (1) epilepsy only; (2) migraine only; (3) epilepsy and migraine; and (4) nonepilepsy/nonmigraine. Demographic characteristics, diagnoses, comorbidities, and daily dose of topiramate were summarized using descriptive statistics. The initial study analysis (period 1) was a 180-day window comprising the 90 days before and after the first available topiramate prescription claim was filed. A second, 360-day analysis (period 2) was completed comprising the 180 days before and after the index topiramate prescription date. RESULTS: In the 180-day analysis, 2216 SC and 4766 TX Medicaid patients met the selection criteria. Cohort classification percentages were 32.3% and 39.6% (epilepsy only), 29.7% and 16.4% (migraine only), 10.7% and 9.2% (epilepsy and migraine), and 27.3% and 34.9% (nonepilepsy/nonmigraine) for SC and TX, respectively. Mean (SD) ages were 29.9 (15.9) (SC) and 27.1 (16.1) (TX) years. In the nonepilepsy/nonmigraine cohort, the most common diagnoses were bipolar disorder and depression. The median daily doses in the epilepsy-only cohort were 175 mg/d in the SC group and 200 mg/d in the TX group. In the migraine-only cohort, the median daily dose was 100 mg/d in SC and TX. Results for the 360-day analysis were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In this descriptive study using data from 2 Medicaid populations, the majority of patients using topiramate had a diagnosis of epilepsy and/or migraine. Median dosages ranged from 175 to 200 mg/d in patients with epilepsy and 100 mg/d in those with migraine. Depression was a common comorbidity in the migraine cohort and the nonepilepsy/nonmigraine cohort.

Impact of antidepressant drug adherence on comorbid medication use and resource utilization.

BACKGROUND: Patients with depression are often nonadherent to therapy for depression and chronic comorbid conditions. METHODS: To determine whether improved antidepressant medication adherence is associated with an increased likelihood of chronic comorbid disease medication adherence and reduced medical costs, we conducted a retrospective study of patients initiating antidepressant drug therapy with evidence of dyslipidemia, coronary artery disease (CAD), or both; diabetes mellitus (DM); or CAD/dyslipidemia and DM identified from a claims database. Measures included antidepressant medication adherence, measured by medication possession ratio during 180 days without a 15-day gap before 90 days of therapy; comorbid medication adherence, measured by medication possession ratio during 1 year; and the association between improved antidepressant drug adherence and disease-specific and total medical costs. RESULTS: Of 8040 patients meeting the study criteria, those adherent to antidepressant medication were more likely to be adherent to comorbid therapy vs those nonadherent to antidepressant drug therapy (CAD/dyslipidemia: odds ratio [OR], 2.13; DM: OR, 1.82; and CAD/dyslipidemia/DM: OR, 1.45; P<.001 for all). Patients adherent to antidepressant drug therapy also had significantly lower disease-specific charges vs nonadherent patients (17% lower in CAD/dyslipidemia, P = .02; 8% lower in DM, P = .39; and 14% lower in CAD/dyslipidemia/DM, P = .38). These patients also incurred lower total medical charges (6.4% lower in CAD/dyslipidemia, P = .048; 11.8% lower in DM, P = .04; and 19.8% lower in CAD/dyslipidemia/DM, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressant drug adherence was associated with increased comorbid disease medication adherence and reduced total medical costs for CAD/dyslipidemia, DM, and CAD/dyslipidemia/DM. Future studies should investigate the relationship between increased adherence and costs beyond 1 year.

A comparative pharmacoeconomic assessment of two surfactants for the prevention of respiratory distress syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: The use of exogenous surfactants among preterm infants for the prevention and treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) has led to economic and cost-effectiveness evaluations of these products. Lucinactant (Surfaxin), a novel, peptide-based, synthetic surfactant, has been shown to significantly reduce RDS-related mortality, compared with the most commonly prescribed animal-derived surfactant, beractant (Survanta). Infants who survive expend significant healthcare resources; therefore, the impact of improved survival through 1-year corrected age was evaluated in a prospectively defined pharmacoeconomic analysis. The objectives of this study were to estimate the healthcare resource utilization, economic impact, and cost-effectiveness of lucinactant versus beractant for the prevention of RDS among surviving very low birth weight (VLBW) preterm infants weighing 600 to 1250 grams. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the healthcare resource utilization, economic impact, and cost-effectiveness of lucinactant versus beractant. RESULTS: Infants who received lucinactant had fewer neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) days and fewer NICU days on mechanical ventilation compared with infants who received beractant. Total healthcare costs for the initial stay in the NICU were lower by $8,803 among infants who received lucinactant compared with infants who received beractant. The incremental cost per life saved was $40,309 for lucinactant compared with beractant. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of lucinactant to surviving VLBW preterm infants resulted in fewer NICU days and fewer NICU days on mechanical ventilation compared with beractant. Fewer NICU days translates into lower total costs among infants who received lucinactant. This comprehensive pharmacoeconomic analysis indicates that lucinactant is a cost-effective therapy for the prevention of RDS among preterm infants.