Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52): results from two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) generally have a high symptom burden and poor health-related quality of life, often requiring recurring systemic corticosteroid use and repeated sinus surgery. Dupilumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits signalling of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, key drivers of type 2 inflammation, and has been approved for use in atopic dermatitis and asthma. In these two studies, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with CRSwNP despite previous treatment with systemic corticosteroids, surgery, or both. METHODS: LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52 were two multinational, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies assessing dupilumab added to standard of care in adults with severe CRSwNP. SINUS-24 was done in 67 centres in 13 countries, and SINUS-52 was done in 117 centres in 14 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with bilateral CRSwNP and symptoms despite intranasal corticosteroid use, receiving systemic corticosteroids in the preceding 2 years, or having had sinonasal surgery. Patients in SINUS-24 were randomly assigned (1:1) to subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. Patients in SINUS-52 were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks for 52 weeks, dupilumab every 2 weeks for 24 weeks and then every 4 weeks for the remaining 28 weeks, or placebo every 2 weeks for 52 weeks. All patients were randomly assigned centrally with a permuted block randomisation schedule. Randomisation was stratified by asthma or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease status at screening, previous surgery at screening, and country. Patients with or without comorbid asthma were included. Coprimary endpoints were changes from baseline to week 24 in nasal polyp score (NPS), nasal congestion or obstruction, and sinus Lund-Mackay CT scores (a coprimary endpoint in Japan), done in an intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in a pooled population of both dupilumab groups in SINUS-52 up to week 24 and the dupilumab group in SINUS-24 and the placebo groups in both studies until week 24. The trials are complete and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02912468 and NCT02898454. FINDINGS: Between Dec 5, 2016, and Aug 3, 2017, 276 patients were enrolled in SINUS-24, with 143 in the dupilumab group and 133 in the placebo group receiving at least one study drug dose. Between Nov 28, 2016, and Aug 28, 2017, 448 patients were enrolled in SINUS-52, with 150 receiving at least one dose of dupilumab every 2 weeks, 145 receiving at least one dose of dupilumab every 2 weeks for 24 weeks and every 4 weeks until week 52, and 153 receiving at least one dose of placebo. Dupilumab significantly improved the coprimary endpoints in both studies. At 24 weeks, least squares mean difference in NPS of dupilumab treatment versus placebo was -2·06 (95% CI -2·43 to -1·69; p<0·0001) in SINUS-24 and -1·80 (-2·10 to -1·51; p<0·0001) in SINUS-52; difference in nasal congestion or obstruction score was -0·89 (-1·07 to -0·71; p<0·0001) in SINUS-24 and -0·87 (-1·03 to -0·71; p<0·0001) in SINUS-52; and difference in Lund-Mackay CT scores was -7·44 (-8·35 to -6·53; p<0·0001) in SINUS-24 and -5·13 (-5·80 to -4·46; p<0·0001) in SINUS-52. The most common adverse events (nasopharyngitis, worsening of nasal polyps and asthma, headache, epistaxis, and injection-site erythema) were more frequent with placebo. INTERPRETATION: In adult patients with severe CRSwNP, dupilumab reduced polyp size, sinus opacification, and severity of symptoms and was well tolerated. These results support the benefits of adding dupilumab to daily standard of care for patients with severe CRSwNP who otherwise have few therapeutic options. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Assessing the burden of treatment-emergent adverse events associated with atypical antipsychotic medications.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of schizophrenia and major depressive disorder (MDD) with atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) show improved efficacy and reduced side effect burden compared with older antipsychotic medications. However, a risk of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) remains. TEAEs are hard to quantify and perspectives on the importance of TEAEs differ across patients and between patients and physicians. The current study is a qualitative assessment that investigates TEAEs of AAPs from both patient and physician perspectives to provide better understanding of the occurrence and burden of TEAEs associated with these medications. METHODS: Focus groups comprised of patients with MDD and interviews with patients with schizophrenia were conducted at two qualitative research facilities, along with a physician focus group at one of the facilities. Information collected from patients included an exhaustive list of TEAEs experienced, and the frequency and level of bother of each TEAE; from psychiatrists, information included an exhaustive list of TEAEs based on personal observations and patient report, frequency of TEAEs, clinically important TEAEs, and levels of patient-perceived bother. Standard qualitative analysis methods were used to identify, quantify, characterize, and summarize patterns found in the data collected. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients (25 with MDD and 17 with schizophrenia) and 4 psychiatrists participated in the study. TEAEs reported as bothersome across both patients groups included cognitive issues, weight gain and/or increased appetite, low energy, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and need to sleep/excessive sleep/excessive sleepiness. TEAEs considered more bothersome by patients with schizophrenia were weight gain, low energy, EPS, mental anxiety, and increased positive symptoms; those considered more bothersome by patients with MDD were cognitive issues, somnolence/sedation, and flat/restricted affect. TEAEs considered most clinically important by psychiatrists included metabolic syndrome, weight gain, neutropenia, hyperglycemia, and QT prolongation; those TEAEs considered most bothersome to patients from physicians' perspectives included weight gain, reduced sexual desire or performance, EPS, akathisia, and hormonal issues. CONCLUSIONS: The wide range of TEAEs that are both frequent and bothersome and the variation in perceived burden according to diagnosis highlight the need for a tailored TEAE-awareness approach when choosing an AAP.

Impact of natalizumab on patient-reported outcomes in multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Natalizumab (Tysabri, Biogen Idec and Elan Pharmaceuticals) significantly reduces the relapse rate and disability progression, and improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL), in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. We investigated the impact of natalizumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a real-world setting. METHODS: PRO data were collected from patients enrolled in a longitudinal real-world study using validated measures administered as surveys before the patients initiated natalizumab treatment and after the 3rd, 6th, and 12th monthly infusion. HRQoL, ability to carry out daily activities, disability level, and impact on cognitive functioning and fatigue were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 333 patients completed 12 months of assessments. After 12 months of natalizumab treatment, 69% to 88% of patients reported a positive outcome (either an improvement or no further decline) in all PRO measures assessed. Significant improvements in general and disease-specific HRQoL were observed after three infusions, both with physical (p < .01) and psychological (p < .001) measures, and were sustained after 12 infusions (all p < .001). The impact of multiple sclerosis on cognitive functioning and fatigue was significantly reduced (both p < .001 after 3 and 12 infusions). CONCLUSIONS: PRO measures were improved with natalizumab in a real-world setting. The improvements were observed as early as after 3 months and sustained over a 12-month period. The improvements in PROs show that, in clinical practice, the clinical benefits of natalizumab are translated into patient-reported benefits.

Costs associated with unplanned readmissions among patients with heart failure with and without hyponatremia.

PURPOSE: Costs associated with unplanned readmissions among patients with heart failure with and without hyponatremia were studied. METHODS: This study estimated the costs of patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) discharged with or without corrected sodium. A model was developed to monetize the 30-day readmission risk based on hyponatremia correction. Costs of discharging patient with corrected versus uncorrected hyponatremia were estimated using readmission rates from a previously published study and hospitalization costs from the Healthcare Costs and Utilization Cost Project and the Premier Healthcare Database. RESULTS: Discharging patients with HF and hyponatremia increased costs from $488-$569 per discharge compared to patients with corrected hyponatremia. This range reflected differences in readmission rates and sources of hospitalization costs. Sensitivity analyses showed hospitalization costs and readmission rates had the largest impact on model results. CONCLUSION: A retrospective study supports the value of upfront monitoring and correction of low serum sodium levels before discharge among patients with HF and hyponatremia by presenting an economic argument in addition to the clinical rational for reducing risk of readmission.

Prevalence and humanistic impact of potential misdiagnosis of bipolar disorder among patients with major depressive disorder in a commercially insured population.

BACKGROUND: Patients with bipolar disorder typically present to physicians in the depressed rather than the manic or hypomanic phase of illness. Because the depressive episodes in bipolar disorder may be indistinguishable from those in major depressive disorder (MDD), misdiagnosis may occur. OBJECTIVES: To estimate from administrative claims data and a telephone survey the prevalence of potential misdiagnosis of bipolar disorder among patients with MDD and the humanistic (health-related quality of life [HRQOL] and disability) effects associated with misdiagnosis in a managed care setting. METHODS: Administrative claims data were used to identify patients with medical claims for MDD from a database of 9 million members of commercial health plans from 3 U.S. regions. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) adults aged 18 years or older; (b) at least 2 medical claims, including a primary or secondary diagnosis of MDD: ICD-9-CM codes 296.2x (MDD, single episode), 296.3x (MDD, recurrent episode), or 311 (depressive disorder, not classified elsewhere) during an identification period from January 1, 2000, through March 31, 2004 (study intake period); (c) at least 12 months of pre-index and 12 months of post-index plan eligibility; and (d) active enrollment through March 31, 2005. The index date was defined as the date of the first claim for MDD during the identification period. Patients with ICD-9-CM codes for bipolar disorder at any time throughout the study period (January 1, 2000, through March 31, 2005) were excluded from this cohort. This cohort was targeted for a telephone survey that was conducted from August 1 through October 30, 2006. From the telephone survey sampling frame of 5,777, a total of 1,360 interviews were completed for a response rate of 23.5%. Respondents were screened for potential bipolar disorder using the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ). The Medical Outcomes 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12), Version 2, a widely used and validated instrument that assesses health-related functioning, and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), which measures depression-related disability, were administered to a convenience subsample of 112 survey respondents to collect HRQOL and disability information, respectively. RESULTS: Of 1,360 adult patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of MDD but without a medical claim for diagnosis of bipolar disorder, 94 (6.9%) screened positive for bipolar disorder on the MDQ. More patients with a positive screen for bipolar disorder reported lifetime histories of obsessive compulsive disorder (24.5% vs. 8.2%, P<0.001), psychotic disorders or hallucinations (9.6% vs. 2.4%, P<0.001), suicidal ideation (61.7% vs. 29.4%, P<0.001), and drug abuse (34.0% vs. 11.1%, P<0.001) than did patients with a negative screen for bipolar disorder. In the subgroup of patients who completed the SF-12 and SDS, patients with a positive screen for bipolar disorder (n=33) had lower scores (i.e., greater impairment) on the social functioning, role emotional, and overall mental component summary scales of the SF-12 than did patients with a negative screen for bipolar disorder (n=79, P<0.001), but did not significantly differ on the physical component summary scale. Patients with a positive screen for bipolar disorder on the MDQ were more likely than patients who screened MDQ-negative to report severe depression-related impairment (scores of 7 and higher on the SDS scale) with work life (54.5% vs. 24.1%, respectively, P=0.002), social life (66.7% vs. 39.2%, P=0.008), and family life (66.7% vs. 34.2%, P=0.002) on the SDS. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients carrying medical claims for a diagnosis of MDD in their administrative claims data, approximately 7% screened positive for bipolar disorder on a validated self-report assessment instrument. Patients with MDD who screened positive for bipolar disorder reported poorer HRQOL and disability scores than did patients with MDD who screened MDQ-negative. These findings may encourage interventions for appropriate screening, diagnosis, and management of potentially misdiagnosed bipolar disorder patients.

Relapse prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis of brexpiprazole treatment in adult patients with schizophrenia in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: This study used a decision-analytic framework to assess the cost-effectiveness of brexpiprazole vs comparator branded therapies for reducing relapses and hospitalizations among adults with schizophrenia from a US payer perspective. METHODS: An economic model was developed to assess patients with stable schizophrenia initiating treatment with brexpiprazole (1-4 mg), cariprazine (1-6 mg), or lurasidone (40-80 mg) over a 1-year period. After 6 months, patients remained on treatment or discontinued due to relapse, adverse events, or other reasons. Patients who discontinued due to relapse or adverse events were assumed to have switched to other therapy, and those who discontinued due to other reasons were assumed to have received no therapy. Primary outcomes were incremental cost per relapse avoided and hospitalization avoided, and the secondary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: Brexpiprazole was associated with the highest per-patient clinical effectiveness (avoided relapses 0.637, avoided hospitalizations 0.719, QALYs 0.707) among comparators, followed by cariprazine (avoided relapses 0.590, avoided hospitalizations 0.683, QALYs 0.683) and lurasidone (avoided relapses 0.400, avoided hospitalizations 0.536, QALYs 0.623). Annual per-patient health-care costs were lowest for brexpiprazole ($20,510), followed by cariprazine ($22,282) and lurasidone ($25,510). Brexpiprazole was the least costly and most effective treatment strategy for all outcomes. Results were sensitive to relapse rates and daily cost of brexpiprazole. Limitations include data principally obtained from drug-specific randomized withdrawal studies and lack of direct-comparison trials. CONCLUSION: This analysis evaluated brexpiprazole treatment for the reduction of schizophrenia relapses and hospitalizations over a 1-year period compared to other recently available branded antipsychotics, and excluded generic antipsychotic treatments. Brexpiprazole treatment may lead to clinical benefits and medical cost savings, and provides a cost-effective treatment option for patients relatively to other branded second-generation antipsychotics.

Utilization and budget impact of tolvaptan in the inpatient setting among patients with heart failure and hyponatremia.

OBJECTIVE: Assess characteristics of patients with heart failure (HF) and hyponatremia (HN) using tolvaptan, a selective vasopressin V2-receptor antagonist, for sodium correction, and estimate the budget impact of tolvaptan use in a hospital. METHODS: The Premier hospital database was analyzed to assess the utilization of tolvaptan, characteristics of users and non-users, and hospitalization costs among patients with HF and HN. Using these findings, a model was developed to estimate tolvaptan costs in proportion to total medical costs of managing patients with HF and HN, and the budget impact of tolvaptan use. Results were regenerated using data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) database, and robustness was assessed in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Tolvaptan was used in 4.96% of inpatient visits among patients with HF and HN, more commonly among sicker patients as reflected in high utilization during intensive care stays (30.46%). Additionally, utilization increased by length of stay, which can serve as a proxy for disease severity. The model estimated that tolvaptan costs accounted for 0.3% of total hospitalization-related costs for patients with HF and HN, and the budget impact was $52.42 per visit. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate that tolvaptan is used infrequently among patients with HF and HN, and is utilized among sicker patients. Tolvaptan accounted for 0.3% of total spending on management of inpatient visits with HF and HN, and had a marginal impact on hospital budget when compared with fluid restriction for HN correction. Availability of tolvaptan can provide an additional therapeutic option for sodium correction.

Cost-effectiveness of brexpiprazole adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a debilitating psychiatric illness with a high cost burden. This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of adjunctive brexpiprazole versus comparator branded adjunctive treatment for MDD and background antidepressant therapy (ADT) alone from a US payer perspective. METHODS: An economic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of brexpiprazole versus comparator adjunctive treatment and ADT alone on total direct medical costs using a 6-week cycle time frame for a total of 48 weeks, with treatment response and remission as primary outcomes. The model consisted of 3 parts, 1 to represent the acute treatment phase and 2 to represent the maintenance stage. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, brexpiprazole as reference treatment resulted in cost per additional responder ranging from $19,442-$48,745 and cost per additional remitter ranging from $27,196-$71,839 versus comparator treatments over 48 weeks. Sensitivity analyses showed treatment with brexpiprazole was more costly, but more clinically effective in all probabilistic simulations. LIMITATIONS: This representation of disease natural history over 48 weeks may not account for all possible health states. Resource utilization on treatment was estimated using the resource use data from previous trials, and may overestimate medical costs compared to the real-world setting. Treatment comparators were limited to branded therapies, and head-to-head studies were not available to obtain data inputs. CONCLUSION: Compared to other branded adjunctive therapies, brexpiprazole increases response and remission at 6 weeks; medical care cost savings were observed with the use of brexpiprazole. These findings may assist clinicians and formulary decision makers when selecting treatment for MDD.

Statin safety: an assessment using an administrative claims database.

The large administrative databases of health plans contain information on drug-related medical adverse events (AE) and constitute an increasingly powerful tool for the assessment of drug safety. We conducted a retrospective observational study using an administrative managed care claims database covering 9 million members from diverse regions of the United States. Patients aged >or=18 years who received >or=2 prescriptions for lipid-lowering drugs between July 1, 2000 and December 1, 2004 were included in the study. Hospitalizations with diagnosis codes (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9]) related to muscle, kidney, and liver were determined for patients exposed to 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins), fibrates, extended-release niacin, cholesterol absorption inhibitors, or statin combination therapy. A total of 473,343 patients contributed 490,988 person-years of monotherapy and 11,624 person-years of combination dyslipidemia therapy. Rates of hospitalization due to AEs in patients on monotherapy with currently available statins were similar, whereas the incidence of hospitalization for muscle disorders increased 6.7-fold with cerivastatin therapy. Patients who received a lipid-lowering medication with a concomitant cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) inhibitor had a 6-fold increased rate of muscle disorders, including rhabdomyolysis. Hypertension was associated with a 5-fold increase in both muscle and renal events, whereas patients with diabetes mellitus had a 2.5-fold increased risk of renal events. No hospitalized cases of the index AEs were observed in study subjects during the 6-month period before initiation of the lipid-lowering drug. Statin monotherapy as currently prescribed is generally well tolerated and safe.

Inpatient resource use and costs associated with switching from oral antipsychotics to aripiprazole once-monthly for the treatment of schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is associated with high direct healthcare costs due to progression of disease and frequent occurrence of relapses. Aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM) has been shown to reduce total psychiatric hospitalizations among patients who switched from oral standard of care (SOC) therapy to AOM in a multicenter, open-label, mirror-image study of patients with schizophrenia. Because of the increasing need to improve patient outcomes while containing costs, it is important to understand the impact of AOM treatment initiation on medical costs associated with psychiatric hospitalizations and antipsychotic pharmacy costs. METHODS: In the current study, an economic model was developed using data from the AOM mirror-image study to evaluate the psychiatric hospitalization-related medical costs and antipsychotic pharmacy costs during a 6-month period before (retrospective period) and after (prospective period) the AOM treatment initiation. The economic model evaluated cost-saving potential of AOM among all patients (n=433) as well as a subset of patients with ≥1 prior hospitalization (n=165) who switched from oral SOC to AOM. Unit cost data were obtained from publicly available sources. RESULTS: Both hospitalizations and hospital days were reduced following a switch from oral SOC to AOM. As a result, psychiatric hospitalization-related costs were lower during the prospective period when compared with the retrospective period. Furthermore, the increase in antipsychotic pharmacy costs due to switching from oral SOC to AOM was offset by a reduction in psychiatric hospitalization-related medical costs. Per-patient costs were reduced by $1,046 (USD) in the overall population and by $20,353 in a subset of patients who had at least 1 psychiatric hospitalization during the retrospective period. Results were most sensitive to changes in hospitalization costs. CONCLUSIONS: AOM is associated with reducing the risk of relapse among patients with schizophrenia. The increase in antipsychotic pharmacy costs due to switching from oral SOC to AOM was offset by a reduction in costs associated with psychiatric hospitalizations, thereby presenting a cost-saving opportunity for health plans.

Pharmacoeconomic comparison of aripiprazole once-monthly and paliperidone palmitate from a head-to-head clinical trial in schizophrenia: a US analysis.

Schizophrenia presents a substantial clinical and economic burden to the health-care system. In QUAlity of LIfe with AbiliFY Maintena (QUALIFY), a randomized head-to-head study of aripiprazole once-monthly 400 mg (AOM 400) compared with paliperidone palmitate (PP; 78-234 mg/mo), AOM 400 demonstrated greater improvement in health-related quality of life and functioning in patients with stable schizophrenia. The present analysis used health economics assessment data collected during the QUALIFY study to determine the direct medical and pharmacy costs and the cost-effectiveness associated with each treatment over 6 months. Compared with those receiving PP, patients receiving AOM 400 incurred significantly lower direct total costs ($8908±186 vs $9675±190, p=0.005) and treatment costs ($7967±113 vs $8706±116, p<0.001). Effectiveness results in the subset of patients included in the cost analyses were similar to the overall population: mean (95% CI) improvement in Heinrichs-Carpenter Quality of Life Scale total score was greater with AOM 400 (5.97 [3.87; 8.08]) compared with PP (2.85 [0.56; 5.08]). Likewise, Clinical Global Impression-Severity improved more in the AOM 400 group (-0.59 [-0.71; -0.47]) compared with PP group (-0.37 [-0.46; -0.27]). Therefore, the analysis of data from stabilized patients with schizophrenia in the QUALIFY study indicated that AOM 400 is associated with lower health-care costs and greater effectiveness compared with PP and thus represents the economically dominant strategy.

Hospital Readmission Rates Among Patients With Schizophrenia Treated With Long-Acting Injectables or Oral Antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed hospital readmission rates of patients with schizophrenia who were treated with long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) or with oral antipsychotics after being discharged from a hospitalization. METHODS: Medical claims of patients with schizophrenia who were ages 18-64 and had a first hospitalization for a serious mental illness (index hospitalization, October 2007 through September 2012) and at least one prescription for a first- or second-generation antipsychotic were analyzed from the Truven Health MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid Database. Analyses were conducted for patients with a sole diagnosis of schizophrenia (N=1,450) and for all patients with schizophrenia (N=15,556), which added patients with a codiagnosis of bipolar disorder or major depressive disorder. Probability of rehospitalization for any cause at 30 and 60 days after the initial hospitalization was assessed with multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching (PSM) methods. The PSM model matched age, preindex use of LAIs or short-acting injectables, and select comorbidities between the LAI and the oral antipsychotics groups. RESULTS: LAIs were associated with significantly lower probability of rehospitalization compared with oral antipsychotics at 60 days for schizophrenia-only patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]=.41-.90) and for all patients (AOR=.70, CI=.52-.95). The absolute difference in probability of rehospitalization for all patients was significantly lower by 5.0% at 60 days in the LAI group compared with the oral antipsychotics group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with use of oral antipsychotics, use of LAIs was associated with fewer readmissions of Medicaid patients with schizophrenia within 60 days after an index hospitalization.

The Economic Burden of Schizophrenia in the United States in 2013.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the US societal economic burden of schizophrenia and update the 2002 reported costs of $62.7 billion given the disease management and health care structural changes of the last decade. METHODS: A prevalence-based approach was used to assess direct health care costs, direct non-health care costs, and indirect costs associated with schizophrenia (ICD-9 codes 295.xx) for 2013, with cost adjustments where necessary. Direct health care costs were estimated using a retrospective matched cohort design using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters, Medicare Supplemental, and Medicaid Multistate databases. Direct non-health care costs were estimated for law enforcement, homeless shelters, and research and training. Indirect costs were estimated for productivity loss from unemployment, reduced work productivity among the employed, premature mortality (ie, suicide), and caregiving. RESULTS: The economic burden of schizophrenia was estimated at $155.7 billion ($134.4 billion-$174.3 billion based on sensitivity analyses) for 2013 and included excess direct health care costs of $37.7 billion (24%), direct non-health care costs of $9.3 billion (6%), and indirect costs of $117.3 billion (76%) compared to individuals without schizophrenia. The largest components were excess costs associated with unemployment (38%), productivity loss due to caregiving (34%), and direct health care costs (24%). CONCLUSIONS: Schizophrenia is associated with a significant economic burden where, in addition to direct health care costs, indirect and non-health care costs are strong contributors, suggesting that therapies should aim at improving not only symptom control but also cognition and functional performance, which are associated with substantial non-health care and indirect costs.

Reduction in inpatient resource utilization and costs associated with long-acting injectable antipsychotics across different age groups of Medicaid-insured schizophrenia patients.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate utilization of inpatient healthcare resources and associated costs after 12 months of treatment using long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic medications among a large sample of Medicaid-insured patients categorized by different age groups. METHOD: Adult patients with schizophrenia were identified from the Thomson Reuters MarketScan Research database (1/1/2006-12/31/2010) before initiation of treatment using LAI antipsychotic agents. Utilization of inpatient healthcare resources and associated direct medical costs were compared for 12-month baseline and 12-month follow-up periods. RESULTS: Among 3,094 Medicaid-insured patients with schizophrenia initiating treatment with LAIs, the mean number of all-cause hospitalizations and hospitalization days were reduced by 24% and 31% (p<0.0001) compared with baseline, respectively, with similar significant reductions among all age groups (18-30, 31-40, 41-50, and 51-60 years). During 12-month follow-up with LAIs, mean reductions in all-cause costs were $4,369 (18-30 years, p<0.0001), $3,681 (31-40 years, p<0.0001), $2,051 (41-50 years, p=0.1332), and $4,492 (51-60 years, p=0.0107). Subanalyses separating first-generation and second-generation medication groups resulted in mean reduction in all-cause costs of $3,561 and $3,645, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this large cohort study provide naturalistic real-world evidence of the utility of LAIs in patients with schizophrenia and suggest that these agents may help to reduce the risk of relapse across all age groups (especially among younger patients). Given that relapse prevention is the ultimate goal of antipsychotic treatment, results from this large Medicaid patient population establish the value of LAIs for the management of schizophrenia.

Lack of tolerable treatment options for patients with schizophrenia.

PURPOSE: Atypical antipsychotics (AAs), an effective treatment for schizophrenia, have a range of pharmacologic properties leading to differences in tolerability as well as heterogeneity in treatment response. Individual patient characteristics must be considered when making treatment choices, especially from an adverse event (AE) or tolerability perspective. Despite the availability of numerous AAs, after appraising patient characteristics at the time of treatment selection, physicians may quickly run out of tolerable treatment options. PATIENTS AND METHODS: AE risk factors, defined as having either a prior history of an AE or a risk factor for that AE, were determined for Medicaid-insured and Commercially insured patients using database analysis. Patients receiving AA treatment between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2012 defined the index date of first observed AA prescription during this period. Nine AAs were evaluated for association with AE risk factors as informed by drug prescribing information from the different manufacturers and published meta-analyses. The proportion of patients with pre-index AE risk factors prescribed an AA associated with that risk factor was then determined. RESULTS: A high proportion of patients (>80%) were prescribed an AA associated with extrapyramidal symptoms or akathisia despite experiencing extrapyramidal symptoms or akathisia prior to AA treatment initiation. Similar trends were observed among patients with diabetes (>60%) and obesity (>40%). From the nine treatment options available, the number of optimal choices for individual patient segments were limited based on their prior history, including those with cardiometabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities (four); experiencing prolactin elevation-related problems (seven); needing to avoid excessive sedation (four); or at risk of extrapyramidal symptoms or akathisia (two). Options were then further restricted among patients in more than one segment when multiple pre-index AE risk factors were combined. CONCLUSION: When combining patient risk profile with antipsychotic AE profile, physicians may quickly run out of tolerable treatment options for individual patients, despite the availability of many AAs, suggesting a need for additional treatment options with better tolerability and without compromising efficacy.

Prevalence of pre-existing risk factors for adverse events associated with atypical antipsychotics among commercially insured and medicaid insured patients newly initiating atypical antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: Atypical antipsychotics (AA) differ from one another in their adverse event (AE) profiles. Patient-specific pre-existing risk factors for AEs, including comorbidities and concomitant medications, may render the use of certain AAs potentially inappropriate, and others relatively safer or more tolerable. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the prevalence of pre-existing risk factors for AEs and potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) associated with AA treatment among patients with schizophrenia (SCZ), bipolar disorder (BD), or major depressive disorder (MDD) newly-initiating AA treatment. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study using US claims databases. Patients identified had newly-initiated on a single AA (1/1/2010-11/30/2011; index date), were aged 18-64 years, had insurance enrolment for 12 months pre- (baseline) and 1 month post-index, and had ≥1 medical claim with an ICD-9-CM diagnosis of SCZ, BD, or MDD during baseline. A comprehensive list of AE risk factors, including potential DDIs, was developed based on AA package inserts. Administrative claims-based identification algorithms flagged the presence of each medical risk factor during baseline and identified concomitant prescribing of medications (90 days pre- to 30 days post-index) potentially causing DDIs with AAs. RESULTS: Of 97,010 patients identified, mean age was 41.2 years and 66.7% were female. Among patients initiating AA treatment, prevalence of pre-existing AE risk factors were aripiprazole 32.2%; olanzapine 51.6%; ziprasidone 75.6%; quetiapine 77.4%; risperidone 82.5%. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability of several AAs to treat psychiatric conditions, pre-existing AE risk factors can limit patient treatment options. Given inter-AA variability in risk factors, open access to AA may help to optimize appropriate prescribing.

Cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole once-monthly compared with paliperidone palmitate once-monthly injectable for the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a decision-analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of initiating maintenance treatment with aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM) vs paliperidone long-acting injectable (PLAI) once-monthly among patients with schizophrenia in the US. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate a hypothetical cohort of patients initiating maintenance treatment with AOM or PLAI. Rates of relapse, adverse events (AEs), and direct medical costs were estimated for 1 year. Patients either remained on initial treatment or discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or other reasons, including non-adherence. Data from placebo-controlled pivotal trials and product prescribing information (PI) were used to estimate treatment efficacy and AEs. Analyses were performed assuming dosing of clinical trials, real-world practice, PIs, and highest therapeutic dose available, because of variation in practice settings. The main outcome of interest was incremental cost per schizophrenia hospitalization averted with AOM vs PLAI. RESULTS: Based on placebo-controlled pivotal trials' dosing, AOM improved clinical outcomes by reducing schizophrenia relapses vs PLAI (0.181 vs 0.277 per person per year [pppy]) at an additional cost of US$1276 pppy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$13,280/relapse averted. When PI dosing was assumed, this ICER increased to US$19,968/relapse averted. When real-world dosing and highest available dosing were assumed, AOM was associated with fewer relapses and lower overall treatment costs vs PLAI. CONCLUSIONS: AOM consistently provided favorable clinical benefits. Under various dosing scenarios, AOM results indicated fewer relapses at lower overall costs or a reasonable cost-effectiveness threshold (i.e., less than the cost of a hospitalization relapse) vs PLAI. Given the heterogeneous nature of schizophrenia and variability in treatment response, health plans may consider open access for treatments like AOM. Since model inputs were based on data from separate placebo-controlled trials, generalization of results to the real-world setting is limited.

Risk of hospitalized rhabdomyolysis associated with lipid-lowering drugs in a real-world clinical setting.

BACKGROUND: The occurrence of low rates of rhabdomyolysis among patients receiving lipid-lowering drugs (LLDs) in randomized clinical trials may be elucidated with population-based studies. OBJECTIVE: To determine the risk of hospitalized rhabdomyolysis associated with LLD therapy. METHODS: This observational study used claims data from 9 million members of five United States health plans to identify patients (≥18 years) who received >2 statin and nonstatin LLDs during July 2000 to December 2004. Inpatient International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, codes for rhabdomyolysis (791.3, 728.89, and 728.88) were observed during the follow-up period; cases were confirmed with patients' medical records. Rhabdomyolysis events were reported per 10,000 person-years of LLD exposure; multivariate analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The study cohort (N = 473,343) received 490,988 and 11,624 person-years of LLD, and combination therapy, respectively. Medical charts were obtained for 104 of 144 eligible patients with rhabdomyolysis claims; 42 cases were confirmed. With atorvastatin as reference, rhabdomyolysis rates (95% confidence interval) were greatest for cerivastatin, 8.4 (2.3-21.7); no difference among available statins was observed. Rates for other LLD monotherapies were: niacin, 2.1 (0.3-7.7), ezetimibe, 2.1 (0.3-7.8), fenofibrate, 0 (0-1.7), and gemfibrozil, 2.0 (0.5-5.2). Multivariate analysis showed only cerivastatin with a significantly greater risk of rhabdomyolysis (odds ratio 4.74, 95% confidence interval 1.1-21.2, P = .041) versus atorvastatin among the statins. Combination therapies had increased rhabdomyolysis risk (OR 7.1, 1.6-31.6, P = .010) versus LLDs alone. CONCLUSION: The risk of habdomyolysis among hospitalized patients receiving statins was low; no difference among the available statins was evident. Further data are needed to establish the risk profile but current findings already offer guidance to physicians.

Adherence to single-pill combination versus multiple-pill combination lipid-modifying therapy among patients with mixed dyslipidemia in a managed care population.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal adherence to lipid-lowering therapies is associated with and potentially contributes to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Single-pill combination (SPC) lipid-modifying therapies may improve patient adherence due to decreased pill burden and increased convenience for the patient. OBJECTIVE: To compare adherence to SPC versus multi-pill combination (MPC) lipid-modifying medications. METHODS: This retrospective study used pharmacy and medical claims and laboratory result data from a national managed care dataset to evaluate patients who were newly prescribed simvastatin plus ezetimibe, simvastatin plus niacin, and lovastatin plus niacin either as SPC or MPC. Patients were considered adherent to therapy if they had a proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥ 0.80. RESULTS: The mean PDC was 0.76 and 0.70 in the first 3 months of therapy, 0.54 and 0.45 in the second 3 months, and 0.50 and 0.41 for the remaining 30 months of follow-up for the SPC and MPC groups, respectively. SPC patients were 32% (OR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.27-1.36; P < 0.01) more likely to be adherent to treatment than MPC patients. CONCLUSION: Adherence was significantly higher among patients receiving SPC than MPC. Although only associations and not temporality were assessed due to the observational design of this study, the use of SPC may be a successful method for improving adherence in a real-world setting.

Impact of natalizumab on patient-reported outcomes in a clinical practice setting: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: : To assess multiple sclerosis (MS) patients' experience with natalizumab (TYSABRI, Biogen Idec, Inc. and Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) in a clinical practice setting. METHODS: : MS patients who were enrolled in the TOUCH (TYSABRI Outreach Unified Commitment to Health) prescribing program and who had received their third natalizumab infusion participated in this study. Patient-reported measures included an overall quality-of-life (QOL) assessment, an adapted version of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29), and pre-/post-disease level and functional status scores. MSIS-29 responses were modified to measure patient-perceived change since initiating natalizumab. Paired t-tests assessed pre-/post- changes in disease level and functional status, where negative change indicated improvement. RESULTS: : Results from 451 patients in this study indicated that 73% were female and, on average, were diagnosed with MS >11 years previously. Almost all (96%) patients had used one or more MS drugs prior to natalizumab initiation. After receiving natalizumab, 97% of all patients reported an improvement or remained stable in their overall QOL. Despite the short treatment duration, there were significant improvements (mean ± SD change) in disease level (-0.26 ± 0.99, paired t-test = 5.47; p < 0.001) and functional status (-0.33 ± 0.73, paired t-test = 9.40; p < 0.001) scores. More than 80% of patients reported an improvement in one or more MSIS-29 physical items. The physical item on the adapted MSIS-29 with the highest reported improvement (58%) was 'the ability to do physically demanding tasks'. The physical item with the lowest reported improvement (32%) was 'problems using transport'. CONCLUSION: : Overall, the experiences of MS patients with natalizumab were positive in a clinical practice setting. Patients reported improvements in overall QOL, ambulation and functional status as early as after three natalizumab infusions. While preliminary, these early results are suggestive of a beneficial effect of natalizumab in patients with MS and warrant further long-term investigation of the impact of this treatment on patient outcomes.