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

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

Place of care and costs associated with acute episodes and remission in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia imposes significant economic burden on patients, families, caregivers, and society. To our knowledge, place of care and associated costs of acute schizophrenia episodes have not been well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To describe the care settings and costs associated with likely acute episodes and untreated remission periods among patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Adults with schizophrenia were identified using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases (2009-2018); claims for capitated benefits plans were excluded. Acute episode index date was defined as at least 1 inpatient schizophrenia claim or outpatient schizophrenia claim (frequency of claim dependent on visit type, such as hospitalization, emergency department, private practice, clinic, urgent care, or laboratory). Mental health-related medical costs (health plan+patient) associated with acute episodes were collected over a 2-month follow-up period and stratified by setting (inpatient vs outpatient); acute episode data were reported in subgroups of patients without or with prior clozapine use, as an indication of disease severity. Remission index date was defined as at least 1 outpatient claim with a schizophrenia diagnosis with no acute episode and no oral or injectable antipsychotic therapy. Remission costs were assessed over a 3-month period. All data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 14,824 patients with schizophrenia met criteria for an acute episode (12,896 [87.0%] without prior clozapine use; 1,427 [9.6%] with prior clozapine use). Most acute episodes were treated in an outpatient setting (all patients, 76.3%; without prior clozapine use, 74.5%; with prior clozapine use, 87.1%). When treated inpatient, mean (SD) episode medical costs were $17,045 ($28,101) for all patients, $16,060 ($22,786) for those without prior clozapine use, and $22,827 ($55,860) for those with prior clozapine use. When treated outpatient, mean (SD) medical costs for acute episodes were $2,478 ($6,961) for all patients, $2,609 ($7,068) for those without prior clozapine use, and $1,770 ($6,560) for those with prior clozapine use. For all patients with acute episodes, regardless of clozapine use, patient-incurred out-of-pocket costs were approximately 30% of total medical costs. For an untreated period of remission, 6,950 patients with schizophrenia met criteria. Total medical costs were $2,399 for these patients over a 3-month period. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of acute schizophrenia episodes were treated in the outpatient setting. For episodes that required inpatient care, inpatient episodes were approximately 7 times more costly than episodes treated in outpatient-only settings. For acute episodes and remission periods, health plans covered most costs; however, there were additional patient-incurred out-of-pocket costs. DISCLOSURES: All authors met the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria. Neither honoraria nor payments were made for authorship. Dr McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, AbbVie, Atai Life Sciences. Dr McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. Mr Doan, Dr Amari, and Mr Mercer are employees of Genesis Research, which was funded to perform the study. Ms Higa, Dr Gillard, and Dr Harrington were employees of AbbVie at the time of the study and may hold stock. This study was sponsored by AbbVie.

Annual costs among patients with major depressive disorder and the impact of key clinical events.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of major depressive disorder (MDD) is substantial and increasing; however, the impact of key clinical events (eg, hospitalization, suicide attempt/ideation, and treatment changes) on health care resource use and costs are less established. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the health care utilization and costs among patients with MDD, particularly for those with key clinical events. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, administrative health care claims from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database were used to identify adults with a new diagnosis of MDD (January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2017). Patients with 12 months or more of continuous health care coverage before and after the initial medical claim with an MDD diagnosis (index date) and 1 or more pharmacy claims for an antidepressant within 60 days of any qualifying medical claim were included. The effect of post-index date key clinical events (eg, treatment changes, moderate to severe MDD, MDD-related emergency department [ED] visits, MDD-related hospitalizations, suicide attempt/ideation, severe mental health disorder, use of brain stimulation therapies) on all-cause total costs was assessed. Actual allcause costs were summarized descriptively and reported per patient per year (PPPY). Multivariable analyses compared differences in all-cause costs during follow-up, depending on whether patients experienced a key clinical event. RESULTS: A total of 455,082 patients met eligibility criteria. The average age was 41 years and 64% of patients were female. Mean (SD) all-cause PPPY costs during the follow-up period were $10,074 ($25,694). The most common key clinical events were treatment changes, moderate to severe MDD diagnosis, and MDD-related ED visits. The majority of patients (90.1%) experienced at least 1 treatment change, which was most commonly treatment discontinuation. Generally, mean costs for up to 90 days following an event were higher than those preceding the event. In multivariable analyses, patients with any key clinical events had 51% higher PPPY allcause health care costs compared with those who did not have any key clinical events. Compared with patients without key clinical events, follow-up costs were more than 2 times higher among patients with severe mental health disorder, MDD-related hospitalization, and suicide attempt/ideation. The most impactful key clinical event was treatment with electroconvulsive therapy, vagal nerve stimulation, or transcranial magnetic stimulation, in which patients incurred 4.3 times higher follow-up costs than those who did not receive one of these treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Key clinical events exacerbate health care resource use and costs among patients with MDD. Effective therapeutic regimens initiated optimally in the course of treatment may mitigate costly clinical events associated with MDD. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan plc (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie). The sponsor was involved in the study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation, and publication decisions. All authors met the ICMJE authorship criteria. Neither honoraria nor payments were made for authorship. Dr Cutler is a consultant for AbbVie, Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Akili Interactive, Alfasigma, Alkermes, Allergan (now AbbVie), Avanir, BioXcel Therapeutics, BlackThorn Therapeutics, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Ironshore, Janssen, Karuna Therapeutics, Lundbeck, Neurocrine Biosciences, Noven, Otsuka, Sage Therapeutics, Sunovion, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Teva and Tris Pharma; has received speaker/promotional honoraria from AbbVie, Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Alfasigma, Alkermes, Allergan, Avanir, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Ironshore, Janssen, Lundbeck, Neurocrine Biosciences, Noven, Otsuka, Sunovion, Takeda, Teva, and Tris Pharma; and has received research grants from Aevi Genomics, Akili Interactive, Alkermes, Allergan (now AbbVie), Arbor Pharmaceuticals, Biohaven, Ironshore, KemPharm, Lilly, Lundbeck, Neos Therapeutics, Novartis, Otsuka, Purdue Canada, Sunovion, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Takeda and Tris Pharma. Drs Keyloun and Gillard are AbbVie employees and may hold stock. Dr Higa was an employee of AbbVie at the time of the study and may hold stock. Ms Park is an employee of Merative, formerly IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie) to conduct this analysis. Dr Bonafede was an employee of IBM Watson Health, now Merative, which received funding from Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie) to conduct this analysis. Dr Jain has served as a consultant to Addrenex, Allergan (now AbbVie), Avanir, Janssen, Lilly, Lundbeck, Merck, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocrine Biosciences, Otsuka, Pamlab, Pfizer, Shionogi, Shire, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva; has been a paid speaker for Addrenex, Alkermes, Allergan (now AbbVie), Lilly, Lundbeck, Merck, Neos Therapeutics, Otsuka, Pamlab, Pfizer, Rhodes, Shionogi, Shire, Sunovion, Takeda, and Tris Pharmaceuticals; has received research support from Allergan (now AbbVie), AstraZeneca, Lilly, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer, Shire, and Takeda; and has served on the advisory boards for Addrenex, Alkermes, Avanir, Forum, Janssen, Lilly, Lundbeck, Merck, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocrine Biosciences, Otsuka, Pamlab, Pfizer, Shionogi, Shire, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva.

Place of care and costs associated with acute episodes and remission in bipolar I disorder.

AIMS: To our knowledge, literature describing the place of care and associated costs during acute bipolar I disorder (BP-I) episodes is limited. We conducted a claims-based retrospective study to address this gap. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults with BP-I were identified via IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. The acute episode index date was defined by ≥1 inpatient BP-I claim(s) or ≥1 outpatient or ≥3 outpatient BP-I claims (depending on visit type) in a 2-week (manic/mixed) or 4-week (depressive) period. Likely acute episodes were defined as 3- and 6-week periods for manic/mixed and depressive episodes, respectively; total mental health-related medical costs (health plan + patient) were collected during these intervals and stratified by setting (inpatient versus outpatient). Initial and subsequent episodes were captured; data were reported in subgroups without and with clozapine use, a proxy for disease severity. The remission index date was the earliest outpatient claim with a bipolar remission diagnosis with no acute episode or treatment. Remission costs were collected over a 3-month period. All results were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 41,516 patients with 130,221 acute manic/mixed episodes and 47,763 patients with 149,207 acute depressive episodes met the study criteria. Over 84% of acute episodes were treated in outpatient settings. Mental health-related medical costs for manic/mixed episodes were $15,444 for inpatient and $1,577 for outpatient settings; inpatient and outpatient costs for depressive episodes were $17,376 and $2,154, respectively. Health plans covered approximately 78% of medical costs for both episode types with and without prior clozapine use. A total of 8,143 patients met remission criteria; the total 3-month outpatient costs were $1,225. CONCLUSIONS: Most BP-I acute manic/mixed or depressive episodes were treated in the outpatient setting. Episodes with inpatient care were 8-10 times more costly than outpatient-only episodes. Health plans covered most medical costs, but additional patient-incurred out-of-pocket costs remained.

Treatment Patterns During Major Depressive Episodes Among Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: A Retrospective Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder, a highly prevalent mental health condition, can be challenging to treat. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize treatment patterns within and across multiple major depressive episodes in patients receiving treatment for major depressive disorder. METHODS: Adults with newly diagnosed major depressive disorder and one or more major depressive episodes were identified using the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial database. Eligible patients had 12 months of continuous enrollment before and after diagnosis. Lines of therapy were periods of continuous treatment with one or more antidepressant claims. Antidepressant, atypical antipsychotic, or mood stabilizer regimens as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy were characterized by lines of therapy and major depressive episodes. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 455,082 patients were included in the analysis. The majority of treatment regimens were monotherapy, which decreased with subsequent lines of therapy, while adjunctive treatments increased with subsequent lines of therapy. There were 1860 unique adjunctive regimens identified. Of the 40,315 patients (9%) who received adjunctive therapy, 8024 (20%; 2% of all patients) received atypical antipsychotic-adjunctive regimens. Only 19% of patients treated with atypical antipsychotic-adjunctive therapy discontinued treatment versus 42% of monotherapy-treated patients. On average, patients who received an adjunctive atypical antipsychotic received it as their third line of therapy and approximately 400 days after the initial antidepressant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, many patients continued monotherapy major depressive disorder regimens and experienced multiple treatment changes. Few patients were treated with adjunctive therapy. These results suggest underutilization of potentially effective treatments, which represents an opportunity to optimize the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder.

Psoriasis treatment patterns: a retrospective claims study.

Objective: The objective was to characterize psoriasis treatment patterns, including estimating persistence and describing subsequent events (i.e. switching and restarting) for all systemic therapies. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized Truven MarketScan databases from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016 to investigate persistence, switching and restarting in new users of systemic psoriasis medications. Descriptive statistics, time-to-event analyses and a Cox proportional hazards regression were conducted. Results: A total of 5205 patients met inclusion criteria. Regardless of treatment type, >50% lost persistence by 12 months. Patients newly initiating acitretin or non-TNF biologic experienced the highest loss of persistence (85.2%, 73.8%, respectively). Patients initiating a TNF-α inhibitor or apremilast experienced the lowest loss (51.8%, 56.4% respectively). Treatment type had a statistically significant effect on persistence loss (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81, 0.91). Restarting was the most commonly observed event for patients on an oral or biologic (60.2%, 79.9%, respectively). The most common switch from an oral was to a TNF-α inhibitor, while apremilast often followed biologics. Conclusion: Most patients lost persistence on initial treatment by 12 months, and the majority restarted treatment. This may indicate poor compliance or the cyclical nature of psoriasis. More patients switched from an oral to biologic than vice versa, likely due to formulary design and preference for orals. Studies are needed to investigate underlying reasons and patient characteristics that differentiate treatment utilization.