The Lifetime Burden of Schizophrenia as Estimated by a Government-Centric Fiscal Analytic Framework.

Objective: To estimate the fiscal consequences of schizophrenia compared to the general US population using a "government perspective" fiscal analytic modeling framework capturing lost tax revenue and broader government costs in 2021.Methods: Schizophrenia was modeled from age 23 using a cohort-based Markov chain with 6-week cycles, simulating the effect of antipsychotic treatment sequences on remission and relapse. Markov states were defined using efficacy and safety outcomes from short- and long-term clinical trials. Mortality was based on US lifetables, schizophrenia-related suicide, and cardiovascular risks. A semi-Markov model with annual cycles simulated the likelihood and costs of incarceration and homelessness in community-based individuals. Lifetime fiscal consequences were estimated conditionally to survival, remission/relapse status, and likelihood of socioeconomic outcomes. Costs and life years were discounted at 3.0% annually. Uncertainty was explored in 1-way and scenario analyses.Results: Unemployment, disability, incarceration, homelessness, health care use, and productivity losses were more common in people living with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia was associated with a $1,540,042 per person lifetime fiscal loss to the government, with $56,707 per life year lived with schizophrenia. Health care costs represented 41.9% of the fiscal losses, 39.4% were due to criminal and homelessness costs, and 17.5% related to foregone tax revenue. Considering a 1.19% prevalence of schizophrenia, the estimated annual fiscal burden in the US was $173.6 billion.Conclusions: The fiscal framework illustrates how schizophrenia influences taxation and government transfer payments over time. These findings can be used to augment cost-effectiveness analyses and inform stakeholders of the fiscal impact of schizophrenia to inform priority interventions.

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.

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.

Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis: Efficacy and Safety of Second-Generation Antipsychotics in Youths With Bipolar Depression.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative efficacy and safety of second-generation antipsychotics for treating major depressive episodes in youths with bipolar disorder. METHOD: A systematic literature review using PRISMA guidelines and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of second-generation antipsychotics for bipolar depression in youths 10 to 18 years of age was conducted. Efficacy measures included Children's Depression Rating Scale, Revised (CDRS-R) and Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Disorder-Severity Depression (CGI-BP-S-depression) and Overall (CGI-BP-S-overall) scores. Available safety outcomes included discontinuations (all-cause, lack of efficacy, adverse events), metabolic parameters (weight change, cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose), changes in prolactin, and somnolence. Results from the NMA were reported as mean changes from baseline or odds ratios (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). RESULTS: Four RCTs comparing placebo to lurasidone, quetiapine (1 each for immediate- and extended-release), and the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC) met all of the inclusion criteria. Lurasidone and OFC demonstrated similar and statistically significant improvements in CDRS-R, but quetiapine did not (lurasidone: -5.70 [-8.66, -2.76]; OFC: -5.01 [-8.63, -1.38]; quetiapine: -1.85 [-5.99, 2.27]). Lurasidone was associated with smaller changes in weight, cholesterol, and triglycerides from baseline compared to OFC and quetiapine. There were no differences in changes in glucose levels among antipsychotics. In addition, lurasidone was associated with smaller change in prolactin levels compared to OFC but not quetiapine. CONCLUSION: Evidence from 4 studies in this NMA indicated that lurasidone and OFC, but not quetiapine, were efficacious for the treatment of bipolar depression in youths. Lurasidone was associated with less weight gain and smaller impacts on cholesterol and triglycerides compared with quetiapine and OFC.

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.

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.

The epidemiology of outpatient pain treatment in pediatrics.

BACKGROUND: There is limited real-world, population-level data on the prevalence and treatment of pain in children. An understanding of pediatric pain conditions and its management can help inform provider education, treatment guidelines, and design of pediatric pain studies. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of conditions associated with acute and chronic pain in pediatric patients and to characterize pediatric pain treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, opioids (immediate release or extended release), antidepressants, topical analgesics, anticonvulsants, and other therapies based on a large, real-world sample. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cohort study, we used administrative claims data from the Truven Health MarketScan® Research Databases, which contain data regarding demography, prescription, diagnosis, and procedure performed. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the prevalence of various conditions associated with pediatric pain and to estimate the proportion of patients who received various analgesic and nonanalgesic treatments. All analyses were stratified according to demographics. RESULTS: This study included data on more than 30 million pediatric patients from throughout the US. Overall, among patients with commercial insurance, surgery was the most common pain-related diagnosis, followed by orthopedic conditions, malignancies, trauma, and genetic conditions. For patients with Medicaid, surgery was also the most common diagnosis, followed by traumatic injury, orthopedic conditions, malignancies, and genetic conditions. These diagnoses varied by age, with most showing higher prevalence in older children. Treatment varied substantially by condition, and many children (more than 50% for most of the conditions evaluated) did not receive any prescription pain treatments. For patients with either commercial insurance or Medicaid who were using prescription opioids, immediate-release opioids were the most commonly used analgesic treatment for pain. Overall, prescription pain treatments were more common in the Medicaid population. Extended-release opioids were rarely used. CONCLUSION: The types of pain treatments varied substantially by condition and age of the patient, with the highest prevalence of use in older children.

Real-world utilization of once-daily extended-release abuse deterrent formulation of hydrocodone: a comparison with the pre-approval randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Hydrocodone bitartrate extended release (Hysingla® ER, HYD) was previously studied in a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and a 52-week open-label safety study. Both of these preapproval studies allowed dose titration to efficacy. The purpose of the present analysis was to compare dosing and utilization patterns in these previous clinical trials with real-world data (RWD) usage in a retrospective claim analysis performed 12-14 months post approval in the US. METHODS: In the claim analysis (Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® Research Database), patients prescribed HYD between January 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016, were followed for up to 6 months of continuous HYD use. Daily average consumption (DACON), initial dose, rescue opioid use and total milligram dose over time were also evaluated. RESULTS: HYD daily dose stabilized at ~60 mg dose once daily across all three studies. There was also a reduced need for rescue medication with HYD, resulting in a lower total opioid milligram dose over time. In the claim analysis, the mean monthly HYD dose increased from 49 to 55 mg in month 2 and then remained stable through month 6. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) time on drug was 79.5 days (61.42 days), and DACON was 1.04 pills/day, corresponding to the approved full prescribing information (FPI) and once-daily dosing. CONCLUSION: In 12-14 months post approval, real-world dosing and utilization of HYD mirrored registration and open-label study findings, with stable once-daily dosing of ~60 mg and no increase in rescue medicine utilization.

Buprenorphine transdermal system utilization.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate utilization patterns in patients initiating buprenorphine transdermal system (BTDS), CIII, and estimate the proportion decreasing their total opioid dose over time. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters Database from 1 January 2011 through 31 December 2015. Eligible individuals were adults aged 18-64 years newly dispensed BTDS (index prescription) who had at least six months of insurance coverage prior to (baseline period) and following (study period) the index prescription. RESULTS: Back and neck pain was the most common pain condition in the study population (n = 31,533) and 88% were dispensed opioids in the baseline period. Nearly half (48%) received BTDS in a strength of 10 mcg/hour as their index prescription. Most (80%) patients prescribed BTDS had concomitant prescriptions for other opioids, chiefly immediate-release (IR) opioids (77%). During the baseline period, median opioid dose among patients prescribed opioids was 50 morphine-equivalent doses (MED), with 33% of patients using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and 44% adjuvant analgesics. During the study period, BTDS use lasted a median 30 days and mean 100 days. Median dose of BTDS remained largely constant, and median dose of all opioids during continuous use of BTDS was 65.6 units MED. However, 24% of patients reduced total units MED from the baseline period (median mean dose, 74.5 units MED) until the end of the study period (42.8). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients initiating treatment with BTDS had a history of treatment with IR opioids. Though the average change in total opioid daily dose after patients were prescribed BTDS was modest, an important subpopulation of approximately one-quarter of patients were able to markedly reduce their total units MED compared with prior opioid therapy. BTDS should be investigated as an option to help patients step down from higher opioid doses.

A retrospective cohort study of long-term immediate-release hydrocodone/acetaminophen use and acetaminophen dosing above the Food and Drug Administration recommended maximum daily limit among commercially insured individuals in the United States (2008-2013).

UNLABELLED: Immediate-release (IR) hydrocodone/acetaminophen is the most prescribed opioid in the United States; however, patterns of use, including long-term treatment and dose, are not well described. Duration of use, including the percentage of patients on long-term treatment (>90 days of continuous use), was assessed for patients newly prescribed IR hydrocodone/acetaminophen compared to other opioid analgesics in a national commercial insurance database (January 2008-September 2013). Though only a small percentage of IR hydrocodone/acetaminophen patients continued treatment long-term (1.7%), the number was large (104,839) and was nearly 5 times the number receiving extended-release (ER) morphine (n = 22,338) and nearly 4 times the number receiving ER oxycodone (n = 26,946) long-term. Using a less conservative allowable gap in treatment increased the number of patients meeting the criteria for long-term use (approximately 160,000 for IR hydrocodone/acetaminophen vs <30,000 for ER morphine and ER oxycodone). Most patients meeting these criteria received IR hydrocodone doses between >20 and ≤60 mg/d (n = 56,220, 53.6%) in month 4; 5.5% (n = 5,743) received doses >60 mg/d. Moreover, approximately 15% of IR hydrocodone/acetaminophen patients (n > 900,000) were prescribed total daily acetaminophen doses exceeding 4 g (the limit recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) at their initial IR hydrocodone/acetaminophen prescription or any time during therapy. PERSPECTIVE: Although most patients were prescribed IR hydrocodone/acetaminophen for acute pain, the number of patients prescribed long-term therapy exceeds the number of patients prescribed ER opioids. It is important to consider the benefits and risks inherent with long-term opioid therapy, whether with IR or ER opioids, to ensure safe use of these products.

CMF-regimen preferred as first-course chemotherapy for older and sicker women with breast cancer: Findings from a SEER-Medicare-based population study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, and 5-Fluorouracil (CMF) utilization as a first-course chemotherapy regimen among female Medicare patients with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: A longitudinal study was conducted with women 66 years and older, diagnosed with stage I to III breast cancer from 1993 to 2004, and receiving chemotherapy using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result-Medicare data. First-course CMF chemotherapy was defined as chemotherapy initiation within 6 months of breast cancer diagnosis, with at least 1 claim of CMF each within 1 year of diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to perform the analysis. RESULTS: Older and sicker women, living in census tracts with lower average education, and diagnosed with advanced stage, hormone receptor-negative tumors have a higher probability of CMF administration. Receipt of lymph node dissection and nonreceipt of radiation therapy were also associated with CMF administration. CMF administration has declined over the years and has significant regional variation. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction in CMF use overtime indicates the increased use of newer and more effective systemic therapies among breast cancer patients. In spite of the reduction in CMF use over time, CMF is more frequently administered to older and sicker women, possibly because of higher risk of anthracycline-induced toxicities in these patients. Clinical guidelines have no recommendations for CMF administration in breast cancer patients with certain clinical characteristics. Hence, it is important to understand if the associations observed in this study can be clinically justified in order to reduce unjustified use of less-effective regimens.