The economic and humanistic burden of bipolar disorder in adults in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder is associated with functional impairment and diminished health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The purpose of this study was to estimate the annual per patient direct healthcare costs, indirect costs, and HRQoL of patients with bipolar disorder by depressive symptom severity and overall compared to the general population in the US. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used self-reported data from the 2020 US National Health and Wellness Survey. Adult respondents who reported bipolar disorder symptoms in the past 12 months and/or a diagnosis of bipolar disorder were identified (bipolar disorder cohort) and were further classified by depressive symptom severity based on Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores (none/mild = 0-9, moderate = 10-14, severe = 15-27). Annualized direct healthcare costs and indirect costs were calculated from 6-month healthcare resource utilization and work productivity, respectively. A general population cohort was constructed using 2:1 propensity score matching. Multivariate regression models of all-cause hospitalizations in the past 6 months, annualized direct healthcare costs, annualized indirect costs, and HRQoL (eg, EuroQol 5-Dimension Health Questionnaire (EQ-5D)) controlled for confounders (demographic and clinical characteristics). RESULTS: Of 3583 adults meeting pre-specified criteria for bipolar disorder, 1401 (39.1%) reported none/mild, 889 (24.8%) moderate, and 1293 (36.1%) severe depressive symptom severity. Additionally, 3285 (91.7%) were matched to 6570 adults in the general population. Compared to the general population, adjusted mean hospitalizations (0.53 vs. 0.30), annualized per patient direct healthcare costs ($20,846 vs. $11,391), and indirect costs ($14,795 vs. $9274) were significantly greater for the bipolar disorder cohort (all p < 0.001); adjusted HRQoL (EQ-5D: 0.69 vs. 0.79) was significantly worse (p < 0.001). By depressive symptom severity, adjusted mean hospitalizations (none/mild = 0.30, moderate = 0.50, severe = 0.46), direct healthcare costs ($14,389, $22,302, $21,341), and indirect costs ($10,799, $17,109, $18,470) were significantly greater for moderate and severe compared to none/mild depressive symptom severity (all p < 0.01); adjusted HRQoL (EQ-5D: 0.77, 0.67, 0.59) was significantly worse (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among respondents with bipolar disorder, those with moderate to severe depression had greater direct healthcare costs and indirect costs as well as worse HRQoL than those with mild or no depressive symptoms. Treatment targeting reduction in depressive symptoms may reduce the economic and humanistic burden of bipolar disorder.

The Economic Burden of Schizophrenia in the United States.

Aim: The economic burden of schizophrenia in the United States (US) was estimated at $155.7 billion in 2013. Since 2013, the US experienced significant health care reforms and treatment advances. This study analyzed recent data and literature to update the US economic burden estimate for schizophrenia.Methods: Direct and indirect costs associated with schizophrenia were estimated using a prevalence-based approach. Direct health care costs were assessed retrospectively using an exact matched cohort design in the IBM Watson Health MarketScan databases from October 1, 2015, through December 31, 2019. Patients with schizophrenia (identified using ICD-10-CM codes F20 and F25) were exactly matched to controls on demographics, insurance type, and index year. Direct non-health care costs were estimated using published literature and government data. Indirect costs were estimated using a human capital approach and the value of quality-adjusted life-years lost. Cost offsets were estimated to account for basic living costs avoided. Excess costs, comparing costs for individuals with and without schizophrenia, were reported in 2019 USD.Results: The estimated excess economic burden of schizophrenia in the US in 2019 was $343.2 billion, including $251.9 billion in indirect costs (73.4%), $62.3 billion in direct health care costs (18.2%), and $35.0 billion in direct non-health care costs (10.2%). The largest drivers of indirect costs were caregiving ($112.3 billion), premature mortality ($77.9 billion), and unemployment ($54.2 billion). Cost offsets, representing $6.0 billion (1.7%), were subtracted from direct non-health care costs.Conclusions: The estimated burden of schizophrenia in the US doubled between 2013 and 2019 and was $343.2 billion in 2019, highlighting the importance of effective strategies and treatment options to improve the management of this difficult-to-treat patient population.

Burden of EPS in commercial patients with schizophrenia initiating atypical antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES: Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) affect 15% to 30% of patients with schizophrenia treated with antipsychotics and have been associated with poor outcomes. This study examined the incidence and economic burden of EPS in patients with schizophrenia initiating atypical antipsychotics (AAPs). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of secondary deidentified administrative claims database. METHODS: Patients with schizophrenia initiating AAPs with no prior EPS were identified in the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2018. Incidence of EPS (diagnosis or medication use) was assessed in the year following AAP initiation. Annual all-cause and schizophrenia-related health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were assessed in cohorts who did or did not develop EPS in the year following first EPS claim (EPS cohort) or randomly assigned index date (non-EPS cohort). Multivariate regression was used to compare all-cause and schizophrenia-related total health care costs and inpatient admissions between cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 3558 patients with schizophrenia newly initiating AAPs were identified; 22.1% developed EPS in the year following AAP initiation (incidence: 26.9 cases per 100 person-years). Multivariate analyses revealed that patients with EPS had 34% higher odds of all-cause (odds ratio [OR], 1.3361; 95% CI, 1.0770-1.6575; P < .01) and 84% increased odds of schizophrenia-related (OR, 1.8436; 95% CI, 1.0434-2.4219; P < .0001) inpatient admission compared with the non-EPS cohort. The EPS cohort also evidenced significantly higher adjusted all-cause ($26,632 vs $21,273; P < .001) and schizophrenia-related ($9018 vs $4475; P < .0001) costs compared with the non-EPS cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The 20% of patients who developed EPS in the year following AAP initiation evidenced significantly increased HCRU and costs over the postindex period. Schizophrenia therapies with reduced EPS risk are needed to improve patient care.

Impact of lurasidone on health-related quality of life in adults with bipolar depression: a post-hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this post-hoc analysis was to assess the impact of lurasidone monotherapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adults with bipolar depression. METHODS: Data were analyzed from a 6-week randomized, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled trial of lurasidone monotherapy (NCT00868699) and a 6-month open label extension (OLE; NCT00868959). Patients who received lurasidone monotherapy or placebo during the DB trial were eligible to continue or switch to lurasidone monotherapy during the OLE. The 16-item Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF) was collected at DB baseline, DB week 6/OLE baseline, OLE month 3, and OLE month 6. Effect size (ES) and mean changes from baseline were reported for Q-LES-Q-SF total and item scores during the DB trial and OLE, respectively. RESULTS: Of 485 patients in the DB trial (lurasidone monotherapy: n = 323; placebo: n = 162), 316 patients continued or switched to lurasidone monotherapy during the OLE. Significant improvements in Q-LES-Q-SF scores in lurasidone vs. placebo were reported for 13 of 16 items (all p < .05) at DB week 6. The greatest improvements were overall life satisfaction (ES = 0.57), social relationships (0.55), medication satisfaction (0.48), family relationships (0.46), and ability to function in daily life (0.45, all p < .001). Improvements in Q-LES-Q-SF total and item scores were sustained at OLE month 6. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with lurasidone provided a significant improvement across HRQoL items including overall life satisfaction, social and family relationships, medication satisfaction, and ability to function in daily life. Improvements were sustained during the 6-month OLE.

Prospective Evaluation of Exacerbations Associated with Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow Among Stable Outpatients with COPD.

Purpose: A suboptimal peak inspiratory flow (PIF) against a dry powder inhaler (DPI) may result in ineffective inhalation of medications, which may affect outcomes. The primary objective of this study was to examine the association between PIF status and COPD exacerbations among outpatients with moderate to very severe COPD. Patients and Methods: This was a prospective, observational study of patients from 7 US outpatient centers. PIF was measured using an inspiratory flow meter (In-Check™ DIAL G16) set to medium low resistance. Patients were classified by suboptimal (<60 L/min) or optimal PIF (≥60 L/min). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with moderate/severe COPD exacerbations collected by medical record review over 12 months. Secondary outcomes were time to first exacerbation and mortality. Results: Of 474 patients screened, 38.8% had suboptimal PIF, and 71 patients with optimal PIF were excluded from the study. The enrolled sample included 184 and 219 patients with suboptimal and optimal PIF, respectively. Suboptimal PIF was associated with shorter stature (66.6±4.1 vs 67.8±3.8 inches, P = 0.002), female sex (45.1 vs 34.7%, P = 0.033), Black race (27.2 vs 11.0%, P < 0.001), and greater symptom burden (CAT: 22.3±7.7 vs 19.0±7.0, P < 0.001; mMRC: 2.0±1.1 vs 1.7±1.1, P = 0.003). The proportion of patients with COPD exacerbations at 12 months was not significantly different (29.3 vs 27.9%, P = 0.751). Suboptimal PIF was associated with shorter time to first COPD exacerbation (3.8±2.7 vs 4.9±3.0 months, P = 0.048). The mortality rate at 12 months was higher in the suboptimal cohort but not significantly different (6.5 vs 2.8%, P = 0.073). Conclusion: Over one-third of outpatients with stable moderate to very severe COPD had a suboptimal PIF against a medium low resistance DPI. The phenotype of suboptimal PIF was short stature, female, and Black. Suboptimal PIF status was associated with shorter time to moderate/severe COPD exacerbations compared with optimal PIF.

The impact of lurasidone on functioning and indirect costs in adults with bipolar depression: a post-hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to assess the impact of lurasidone monotherapy on functional impairment, productivity, and associated indirect costs in patients with bipolar depression. METHODS: Data were analyzed from a 6-week randomized, double-blind (DB; NCT00868699), placebo-controlled trial of lurasidone monotherapy and a 6-month open label extension (OLE; NCT00868959) study. Patients with bipolar depression who completed the 6-week DB trial were subsequently enrolled in the OLE. Analysis of the OLE was limited to patients who either continued lurasidone (LUR-LUR) or switched from placebo to lurasidone monotherapy (PBO-LUR). The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), which measures functional impairment and productivity, was collected at DB baseline, DB week 6/OLE baseline, OLE month 3, and OLE month 6. Annual indirect costs were calculated based on days lost or unproductive from work/school due to symptoms. Effect sizes (ES) in functioning and days lost/unproductive were reported for the DB trial and mean changes for the OLE. RESULTS: A total of 485 patients were enrolled in the DB trial (lurasidone: n = 323; placebo: n = 162) and 316 were in the lurasidone monotherapy group during the OLE (LUR-LUR: n = 210; PBO-LUR: n = 106). In the DB trial, improvements in functioning (work: ES = 0.36, p = .0071; social: ES = 0.55, p < .0001; family: ES = 0.50, p < .0001) were significantly greater for lurasidone compared to placebo. Reductions in days lost (ES = 0.33, p = .0050) and unproductive (ES = 0.45, p = .0001) were significantly higher for lurasidone vs. placebo. This resulted in a greater reduction in indirect costs for lurasidone vs. placebo (least squares mean (standard error) = -$32,322 ($2,100) vs. -$20,091 ($2,838)). Improvements in functioning and productivity were sustained during the 6-month OLE for both LUR-LUR and PBO-LUR. CONCLUSIONS: Lurasidone monotherapy for the treatment of bipolar depression significantly improved functioning and reduced indirect costs vs. placebo at week 6. Significant improvements in functioning and productivity were sustained for 6 months for both LUR-LUR and PBO-LUR.

Healthcare resource utilization and quality of life by cognitive impairment in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to investigate the association between cognitive impairment and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and quality of life (QoL) among patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Data from the Adelphi Schizophrenia Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of physicians and their patients, were collected in the United States between July-October 2019. Psychiatrists reported on patient cognitive function, HCRU, housing circumstances and employment status for their next 10 consulting adult patients with schizophrenia. Patients were classified as having no/mild or moderate/severe cognitive impairment and asked to complete a QoL questionnaire voluntarily. Multiple regression analysis estimated the association between severity of cognitive impairment and patient outcomes adjusting for patient demographics and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Psychiatrists (n=124) reported on 651 and 484 patients with no/mild and moderate/severe cognitive impairment, respectively. Moderate/severe vs. no/mild cognitive impairment was associated with greater odds of hospitalization related to schizophrenia relapse within the last 12 months (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] [95% CI] = 2.23 [1.53-3.24]) and being unemployed due to disability (aOR = 2.39 [1.65-3.45]). Patients with moderate/severe vs. no/mild cognitive impairment had worse average QoL (EuroQoL 5-dimension [EQ-5D] Health Index: difference = -0.09 [-0.13 to -0.04]; EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale: difference = -7.0 [-13.0 to -1.0]) and overall life satisfaction (Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form: difference = -8.4 [-14.1 to -2.8]). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate/severe cognitive impairment among patients with schizophrenia was associated with worse patient outcomes including greater risk of hospitalizations related to schizophrenia relapse. Treatment to improve cognitive function could benefit the large proportion of patients with schizophrenia who suffer from cognitive impairment.

Point-in-time survey of healthcare resource utilization, employment, quality of life and caregiver status by disease severity in patients with schizophrenia in the US.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this survey was to assess patient outcomes and caregiver status by disease severity among patients with schizophrenia in the United States. METHODS: A point-in-time survey was conducted between July and October 2019 via the Adelphi Schizophrenia Disease Specific Programme. Psychiatrists reported on their next 10 eligible patients with schizophrenia including demographics, disease severity, treatment history and hospitalizations. Patients receiving treatment for schizophrenia were classified as mild, moderate or severe based on disease severity. Regression models adjusted for age, sex and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Psychiatrists (n = 124) reported on 435 mild, 401 moderate and 247 severe patients. Greater severity of schizophrenia was associated with a greater number of hospitalizations related to schizophrenia relapse in the previous 12 months (moderate vs. mild: adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) [95% CI] = 2.17 [1.60-2.94]; severe vs. mild: aIRR = 5.45 [3.59-8.27]), lower full-time employment (moderate vs. mild: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.15 [0.08-0.28]; severe vs. mild: aOR = 0.02 [0.002-0.12]) and greater unemployment due to disability (moderate vs. mild: aOR = 4.24 [3.02-5.97]; severe vs. mild: aOR = 10.85 [6.85-17.17]). Patients with severe vs. mild schizophrenia had lower average quality of life (QoL) measured by the EuroQoL 5-dimension Health Index (difference = -0.16 [-0.23-0.09]). Among patients requiring care, patients with severe vs. mild schizophrenia received more caregiver hours per week (aIRR = 1.89 [1.25-2.84]). CONCLUSIONS: Greater severity of schizophrenia was associated with a significantly greater number of hospitalizations and greater unemployment due to disability. Compared with mild schizophrenia, severe schizophrenia was associated with worse patient QoL and greater caregiver hours.

The incidence and economic burden of extrapyramidal symptoms in patients with schizophrenia treated with second generation antipsychotics in a Medicaid population.

BACKGROUND: Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) are common side-effects of second-generation antipsychotics (SGA), that can negatively impact patient quality-of-life, and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This study examined the incidence and burden of EPS in patients with schizophrenia initiating SGAs. METHODS: Patients with schizophrenia initiating SGAs were identified in the MarketScan Multi-state Medicaid database from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2018. Incidence of EPS (identified via ICD-9/ICD-10 diagnoses and medications) was assessed during the 12-months following SGA initiation. Cohorts with and without EPS were defined. Multivariate models were used to examine all-cause and schizophrenia-related hospitalizations and total costs in the 12 months following the first EPS claim (EPS) or randomly assigned index date (Non-EPS) while controlling for multiple baseline covariates. Logistic regression was used for hospitalization and two-part models were used for skewed cost data. RESULTS: A total of 11,642 patients with schizophrenia filled a prescription for an SGA; of which, 2,468 (21.2%) experienced EPS in the first year. The age- and gender-matched EPS group and non-EPS group included 2,295 and 5,607 patients, respectively. Multivariate analyses confirmed that EPS patients had 25% higher odds of all-cause (OR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.11-1.40) and 75% increased odds of schizophrenia-related (OR = 1.75; 95% CI = 1.53-2.00) inpatient admissions compared to non-EPS patients. Multivariate adjustment of post-period costs between groups also found significant differences in both all-cause (EPS: $27,408 vs. non-EPS: $22,489, p < 0.001) and schizophrenia-related (EPS:$12,833 vs. non-EPS:$8,077, p < 0.0001) costs between the EPS and non-EPS cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Over one-fifth of patients initiating treatment with atypical antipsychotics in this study developed EPS in the 12 months following SGA initiation. Extrapyramidal side-effects associated with atypical antipsychotics increase the risk of hospitalization and contribute to higher healthcare costs. For patients with schizophrenia, treatment options that minimize the risk of EPS may reduce the economic burden associated with the disease.

Hospitalization risk in pediatric patients with bipolar disorder treated with lurasidone vs. other oral atypical antipsychotics: a real-world retrospective claims database study.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence on atypical antipsychotic (AAP) use in pediatric bipolar disorder is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of all-cause and psychiatric hospitalization among pediatric patients with bipolar disorder when treated with lurasidone versus other atypical antipsychotics (AAPs). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used commercial claims data (January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2017) to identify pediatric patients (age ≤17 years) with bipolar disorder treated with oral atypical antipsychotics (N = 16,201). The date of the first claim for an AAP defined the index date, with pre- and post-index periods of 180 days. Each month of the post-index period was categorized as monotherapy treatment with lurasidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone, no/minimal treatment, or other. The risk of all-cause and psychiatric hospitalizations (defined by a psychiatric diagnosis on the facility claim) was analyzed based on treatment in the current month, time-varying covariates (prior treatment-month classification, hospitalization in the prior month, emergency room visit in the prior month), and fixed covariates (age, gender, pervasive development disorder/mental retardation, disruptive behavior/conduct disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, anxiety, adjustment disorder, obesity, diabetes, antidepressants, anxiolytics, other co-medication) using a marginal structural model. RESULTS: Treatment with aripiprazole (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.08-2.36) and olanzapine (OR = 1.68, CI: 1.03-2.71) was associated with significantly higher odds of all-cause hospitalizations compared to lurasidone, but treatment with quetiapine (OR = 1.03, CI: 0.69-1.54) or risperidone (OR = 1.02, CI: 0.68-1.53) was not. Similarly, treatment with aripiprazole (OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.08-2.38) and olanzapine (OR = 1.73, CI: 1.06-2.80) was associated with significantly higher odds of psychiatric hospitalizations compared to lurasidone, but treatment with quetiapine (OR = 1.02, CI: 0.68-1.54) or risperidone (OR = 1.01, CI: 0.67-1.51) was not. CONCLUSION: In usual clinical care, pediatric patients with bipolar disorder treated with lurasidone had a significantly lower risk of all-cause and psychiatric hospitalizations when compared to aripiprazole and olanzapine, but not quetiapine or risperidone.

Hospitalization Risk for Adults with Bipolar I Disorder Treated with Oral Atypical Antipsychotics as Adjunctive Therapy with Mood Stabilizers: A Retrospective Analysis of Medicaid Claims Data.

Background: Atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) with mood stabilizers are recommended as a first-line treatment for patients with bipolar disorder. No studies have compared the inpatient health care resource utilization for patients with bipolar disorder treated with lurasidone as adjunctive therapy with mood stabilizers compared with other oral AAPs. Objective: To compare the risk of hospitalization for adult Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar I disorder when treated with lurasidone compared with other oral AAPs as adjunctive therapy with mood stabilizers. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the MarketScan Research Databases Multi-State Medicaid Database (IBM, Armonk, NY) claims data to assess patients with bipolar I disorder between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2019. Adult patients who initiated oral AAP treatment with mood stabilizers (index date) and who were continuously enrolled 12 months before (pre-index) and 24 months after (post-index) the index date were included. Treatment categories assigned by patient-month included lurasidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone with mood stabilizers; no/minimal treatment; AAP monotherapy; and other. Marginal structural models were performed to estimate the all-cause and psychiatric hospitalization rates and hospital length of stay associated with each adjunctive AAP therapy by controlling for both time-invariant and time-varying confounders. Results: Adults with bipolar I disorder (N = 11,426; mean age = 39.4 years; female=73%) treated with an adjunctive oral AAP with mood stabilizers during the index month were categorized into lurasidone (12%), aripiprazole (17%), olanzapine (7%), quetiapine (32%), risperidone (11%), ziprasidone (7%), or other (15%) treatment groups. The adjusted odds of all-cause and psychiatric hospitalization were significantly higher for olanzapine (all causes: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.13-2.25; psychiatric: aOR = 1.61, 95% CI, 1.12-2.32), quetiapine (all-causes: aOR = 1.27, 95% CI, 1.01-1.58; psychiatric: aOR = 1.28, 95% CI, 1.02-1.59), and ziprasidone (all-causes: aOR = 1.68, 95% CI, 1.05-2.66; psychiatric: aOR = 1.55, 95% CI, 1.02-2.35) compared with lurasidone with mood stabilizers. The adjusted odds of all-cause and psychiatric hospitalizations were numerically lower for lurasidone compared with aripiprazole. The all-cause hospital length of stay per 100 patient-months was significantly higher for olanzapine (20.3 days) and quetiapine (16.0 days) compared with lurasidone (12.2 days, both P values < 0.05). Conclusions: In a Medicaid population, adults with bipolar I disorder treated with lurasidone as adjunctive therapy with mood stabilizers had significantly lower all-cause and psychiatric hospitalization rates compared with olanzapine, quetiapine, and ziprasidone. Fewer hospitalizations may reduce the economic burden associated with bipolar disorder. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2021; 82:XXX-XXX).

Efficacy and tolerability of atypical antipsychotics for acute bipolar depression: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: While clinical trial evidence has firmly established the efficacy of several atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) for treating bipolar depression, no randomized controlled trials (RCT's) comparing AAPs have been conducted. This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the relative efficacy and tolerability of AAP monotherapy in adults with bipolar depression. METHODS: Efficacy measures included change in Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Improvement - Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP), response, and remission. Multiple tolerability outcomes were examined. Results from random effects models were reported as difference in change from baseline for continuous variables or odds ratios for dichotomous variables. Treatments were ranked using the surface under the curve cumulative ranking probabilities. Number needed to treat (NNT) and harm (NNH) were calculated. RESULTS: Eighteen RCT's met inclusion criteria of the systematic literature review. On change in MADRS, lurasidone (- 4.71 [95% Crl - 6.98, - 2.41]), quetiapine (- 4.80 [- 5.93, - 3.72]), olanzapine (- 4.57 [- 5.92, - 3.20]), and cariprazine (- 2.29 [- 3.47, - 1.09]) were more efficacious than placebo. Lurasidone was associated with a significantly greater odds of response (≥50% improvement in MADRS) compared to cariprazine (1.78 [95% Crl 1.08, 2.77]), aripiprazole (2.38 [1.38, 3.85]), and ziprasidone (2.47 [1.41, 3.98]), but was similar to olanzapine (1.68 [0.99,2.65]) and quetiapine (1.25 [0.78, 1.90]). For change in CGI-BP-S-overall score, lurasidone was significantly better than cariprazine (- 0.38 [95% Crl - 0.66,-0.10]) and ziprasidone (- 0.58 [- 0.91,-0.26]), but similar to quetiapine (- 0.08 [- 0.36, 0.19])and olanzapine (- 0.04 [- 1.41, 1.46]). Lurasidone (0.34 kg [95% Crl - 0.22, 0.89]) and aripiprazole (0.20 kg [- 0.59, 1.00]) had a similar weight change compared to placebo, but olanzapine (2.88 kg [2.40, 3.36]), quetiapine (1.17 kg [0.84, 1.49]), and cariprazine (0.65 kg [0.34, 0.96]) were associated with greater weight gain. The NNT for response was the lowest for lurasidone (NNT = 5) followed by quetiapine (NNT = 6), olanzapine (NNT = 10) and cariprazine (NNT = 12). CONCLUSIONS: In this NMA in adults with bipolar depression, which evaluated change in depressive symptoms (assessed by MADRS) across short-term trials, the largest improvement versus placebo was observed for lurasidone, olanzapine and quetiapine with cariprazine, showing a smaller treatment effect. Aripiprazole and ziprasidone were ineffective for the treatment of bipolar depression. Improvement in CGI-BP-S score for lurasidone was larger than cariprazine and ziprasidone but similar to quetiapine and olanzapine. Based on short term studies lurasidone and aripiprazole had similar weight gain compared to placebo.

Clinical Characterization of Nursing Facility Residents With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: To describe clinical characteristics, medication use, and low peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) (< 60 L/min) prevalence in nursing facility residents with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). PATIENTS AND SETTING: Residents 60 years of age and older with a COPD diagnosis and≥ 6 months' nursing facility residence, were enrolled between December 2017 and February 2019 from 26 geographically varied United States nursing facilities. OUTCOME MEASURES: Data, extracted from residents' charts, included demographic/clinical characteristics, COPD-related medications, exacerbations and hospitalizations within the past 6 months, and functional status from the most recent Minimum Data Set. At enrollment, residents completed the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Dyspnea Scale and COPD Assessment Test (CAT™). Spirometry and PIFR were also assessed. RESULTS: Residents' (N = 179) mean age was 78.0 ± 10.6 years, 63.7% were female, and 57.0% had low PIFR. Most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension (79.9%), depression (49.2%), and heart failure (41.9%). The average forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV11) % predicted was 45.9% ± 20.9%. On the CAT, 78.2% scored≥ 10 and on the mMRC Dyspnea Scale, 74.1% scored≥ 2, indicating most residents had high COPD symptom burden. Only 49.2% were receiving a scheduled long-acting bronchodilator (LABD). Among those with low PIFR prescribed a LABD, > 80% used dry powder inhalers for medication delivery. CONCLUSION: This study highlights underutilization of scheduled LABD therapy in nursing facility residents with COPD. Low PIFR was prevalent in residents while the majority used suboptimal medication delivery devices. The findings highlight opportunities for improving management and outcomes for nursing facility residents with COPD.

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.

Healthcare resource utilization, costs and treatment patterns in patients with bipolar disorder treated with lurasidone or cariprazine.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), costs, and treatment adherence and persistence for patients with bipolar disorder treated with lurasidone or cariprazine. METHODS: Adult patients with bipolar disorder who initiated lurasidone or cariprazine as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2019 were identified from the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Database. The date of the first claim for lurasidone or cariprazine was defined as the index date. A difference-in-difference (DID) analysis, which mitigated bias by using each cohort as its own control, compared the changes in HCRU and costs from 6-months pre-treatment (baseline) to 6-months post-treatment (follow-up) between the two cohorts. Treatment adherence (medication possession ratio and proportion of days covered) and persistence (time to discontinuation) were assessed during the 6-month post-treatment period. Adjusted analyses were conducted using inverse probability of treatment weighting on HCRU, costs, and time to discontinuation. RESULTS: A total of 16,683 patients treated with lurasidone and 4,128 patients treated with cariprazine were identified. Average age (39-40) and proportion female (68-71%) were similar between cohorts. Both cohorts had reductions in hospitalizations from baseline to follow-up, and the decrease was significantly greater for the lurasidone cohort compared to the cariprazine cohort (change in the proportions of patients with all-cause hospitalizations: -5.3% vs. -2.5%, DID = -2.8%, p<.001). The total healthcare costs increased from baseline to follow-up in both cohorts, and the increase was significantly lower for the lurasidone cohort (change in total all-cause healthcare cost per person: $3,413 vs. $4,642, DID=-$1,228, p = .022). The lurasidone cohort had significantly lower risk of discontinuing treatment (hazard ratio = 0.86, p<.001) than the cariprazine cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with bipolar disorder treated with lurasidone had greater reductions in hospitalizations from 6-months pre-treatment to 6-months post-treatment and had a lower increase in total costs compared to patients treated with cariprazine.

Healthcare resource utilization and exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treated with nebulized glycopyrrolate in the USA: a real-world data analysis.

AIMS: This study compared medication use, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and exacerbations among individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who initiated glycopyrrolate/eFlow Closed System nebulizer 25 mcg/mL glycopyrrolate (hereafter GLY) in a real-world setting before and after treatment initiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective claims and hospital charge master data were used to identify individuals ≥ 40 years of age diagnosed with COPD who initiated GLY between 1 April 2018 and 28 February 2019 (first prescription claim = index date). Patients were excluded if they had ≥1 asthma diagnosis in the 6-month pre-index period. The proportion of patients with COPD-related medications, other outpatient HRU, hospitalizations, and exacerbations were compared between the 6-month pre-index and 6-month follow-up periods. Among patients utilizing the service, per-person utilization rates were compared between the two periods. RESULTS: Among patients initiating GLY (n = 767), the mean age was 71.4 years, 56.1% were female, and the mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 2.0. The mean number of GLY claims per person was 3.8 during the follow-up period. Compared to the pre-index period, a lower proportion of patients had claims for COPD medications including oral corticosteroids (62.1% vs. 69.1%, p = .0001) and fixed-dose SAMA/SABA (26.1% vs. 33.0%, p < .0001) and a higher proportion of patients had claims for LABA (29.7% vs. 22.6%, p < .0001) during the follow-up period. Fewer patients had ≥1 COPD-related physician office visit (42.4% vs. 49.8%, p < .0001), radiology test (40.7% vs. 46.5%, p = .005), or moderate exacerbation (48.0% vs. 53.2%, p = .01) after initiating GLY. Among patients with linkage to inpatient data (n = 316), fewer were hospitalized (7.9% vs. 13.0%, p = .037) and hospital length of stay was shorter (1.9 vs. 3.6 days, p = .017) after initiating GLY/eFlow. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients initiating GLY in a real-world setting, COPD medications, hospitalizations, other HRU, and exacerbations decreased after treatment initiation compared with the 6-month pre-index period.

Clinically Important Deterioration Among Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Treated with Nebulized Glycopyrrolate: A Post Hoc Analysis of Pooled Data from Two Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Studies.

Purpose: Using a composite endpoint, pooled data from two 12-week Phase III placebo-controlled trials (GOLDEN 3, NCT02347761; GOLDEN 4, NCT02347774) were analyzed to determine whether glycopyrrolate inhalation solution (25 mcg and 50 mcg) administered twice daily (BID) via the eFlow® Closed System nebulizer (GLY) reduced the risk of clinically important deterioration (CID) in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD. Methods: CID was defined as ≥100-mL decrease from baseline in post-bronchodilator trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), or ≥4-unit increase in baseline St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, or moderate/severe exacerbation. The relative treatment effect of GLY versus placebo on the odds of CID (any and by component endpoints) was expressed as the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroups categorized by age (<65/≥65 years), sex, smoking status (current/former), long-acting beta agonist (LABA) use, FEV1 (<50%/≥50%), and peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) (<60 L/min/≥60 L/min) were analyzed. Results: Compared to placebo, GLY 25 mcg and 50 mcg BID over 12 weeks significantly reduced the risk of CID by 50% (OR: 0.50 [0.37-0.68]) and 40% (OR: 0.60 [0.44-0.80]), respectively. Subjects treated with GLY 25 mcg BID were 59% less likely to experience CID in FEV1 (OR: 0.41 [0.27-0.62]) and 48% less likely to perceive CID in health status (OR: 0.52 [0.37-0.73]). Statistically significant reductions were also observed at the higher dose. The incidence of moderate/severe exacerbations was low and comparable among the cohorts. GLY 25 mcg BID was significantly more effective than placebo (p<0.05) in preventing CID irrespective of age, smoking status, LABA use, COPD severity, or PIFR. Subjects <65 years (OR 0.45 [0.29-0.68]) and those with PIFR <60 L/min (OR 0.36 [0.20-0.67]) exhibited the largest benefit. Conclusion: Nebulized GLY over 12 weeks significantly reduced the risk of CID and provided greater short-term stability in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD.

Observational Real-World Study to Assess Clinical Characteristics and Device Satisfaction in Patients with COPD Treated with Glycopyrrolate/eFlow® CS.

Purpose: To assess clinical characteristics and device satisfaction of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treated with glycopyrrolate/eFlow® Closed System (CS) nebulizer (further referred to as eFlow) under real-world conditions. Participants and Methods: Patients with COPD currently using eFlow were identified by the study sponsor. Consenting patients who met study inclusion criteria completed a cross-sectional survey that included a device satisfaction questionnaire. Means, medians, and standard deviations were calculated. Results: Sixty-six patients met inclusion criteria and completed the survey. Participants' mean ± standard deviation age was 64.9 ± 11.9 years and the majority were white (86.4%) and female (59.1%). Almost two-thirds were former smokers. Thirty-nine (59.1%) reported their COPD to be severe/very severe and 38 (57.6%) reported a COPD exacerbation resulting in a hospitalization, ER visit, or medication modification over the past 12 months. Among 55 participants who had previously used another type of nebulizer, 44 (80%) were overall "much more"/"somewhat more" satisfied with the eFlow compared with their previous nebulizer(s). Regardless of prior nebulizer use, 60 (90.9%) participants were "satisfied"/"very satisfied" overall with the eFlow. Assembly and disassembly, operation, and cleaning were perceived as being "easy"/"very easy" by at least 65% of participants. Among all participants, 57 (86.4%) were "confident"/"very confident" of glycopyrrolate administration. On a Likert scale of 1 ("I don't like it") to 7 ("I like it a lot"), mean scores were at least 5.9 for portability, ease of cleaning, size, weight, short administration time, and relative silence of the device. Over 80% of participants said they "probably"/"definitely" would continue to use eFlow. Conclusion: Based on this real-world study, the majority of patients were highly satisfied with, and confident in, using eFlow.

Inhaler device feature preferences among patients with obstructive lung diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bronchodilators administered through inhalation devices are the mainstay treatment for patients with obstructive lung diseases. Patients do not view devices as interchangeable. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined device feature preferences among patients with obstructive lung diseases treated with handheld inhalers. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched to identify publications between 2010 and 2019 that met the following criteria:A manual search extended the study period from 2001 to 2019. Random-effects models were used to generate pooled mean effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for preferred device features. Heterogeneity was measured by the I statistic. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (n = 11,256) were included in this meta-analysis. Average age ranged from 50.4 to 74.3 years. The majority of patients were male (57%) and had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (92%).Patients preferred the following device features: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS:: Adults with obstructive lung diseases preferred small inhaler devices that were portable, durable, perceived as easy to use, and fast in medication administration. Healthcare providers should give due consideration to the patient's device feature preferences when developing a treatment plan that prescribes an inhalation device.

Device use errors with soft mist inhalers: A global systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Inhaled bronchodilators are the cornerstone of treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Soft mist inhalers (SMIs) are devices that deliver bronchodilators. Although correct device use is paramount to successful medication delivery, patient errors are common. This global systematic literature review and meta-analysis examined device use errors with SMIs among patients with obstructive lung diseases. PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched to identify studies published between 2010 and 2019 that met the following inclusion criteria: (a) English language; (b) a diagnosis of COPD, bronchitis, or emphysema; and (c) reported device use errors among adults receiving long-acting bronchodilator treatment with Respimat® SMI (i.e. Spiriva®, Stiolto®, Spiolto®, and Striverdi®). Descriptive statistics examined sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and device use errors. Meta-analysis techniques were employed with random-effects models to generate pooled mean effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall and step-by-step errors. The I2 statistic measured heterogeneity. Twelve studies (n = 1288 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Eighty-eight percent of patients had COPD, and most had moderate/very severe airflow limitation (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease spirometric stages II to IV). Aggregate results revealed that 58.9% (95% CI: 42.4-75.5; I2 = 92.8%) of patients made ≥1 device use errors. Among 11 studies with step-by-step data, the most common errors were failure to (1) exhale completely and away from the device (47.8% (95% CI: 33.6-62.0)); (2) hold breath for up to 10 seconds (30.6% (95% CI: 17.5-43.7)); (3) take a slow, deep breath while pressing the dose release button (27.9% (95% CI: 14.5-41.2)); (4) hold the inhaler upright (22.6% (95% CI: 6.2-39.0)); and (5) turn the base toward the arrows until it clicked (17.6% (95% CI: 3.0-32.2)). Device use errors occurred in about 6 of 10 patients who used SMIs. An individualized approach to inhalation device selection and ongoing training and monitoring of device use are important in optimizing bronchodilator treatment.