Identifying patients and clinical scenarios for use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics - expert consensus survey part 1.

OBJECTIVE: To assess expert consensus on barriers and facilitators for long-acting injectable antipsychotic (LAI) use and provide clinical recommendations on issues where clinical evidence is lacking, including identifying appropriate clinical situations for LAI use. METHODS: A 50-question survey comprising 916 response options was distributed to 42 research experts and high prescribers with extensive LAI experience. Respondents rated options on relative appropriateness/importance using a 9-point scale. Consensus was determined using chi-square test of score distributions. Mean (standard deviation) ratings were calculated. Responses to 29 questions (577 options) relating to appropriate patients and clinical scenarios for LAI use are reported. RESULTS: Recommendations aligned with research on risk factors for nonadherence and poor outcomes for patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective or bipolar disorder. Findings suggested, contrary to general practice patterns, that LAI use may be appropriate earlier in the disease course and in younger patients. Results for bipolar disorder were similar to those for schizophrenia but with less consensus. Numerous facilitators of LAI prescribing were considered important, particularly that LAIs may reduce relapses and improve outcomes. CONCLUSION: Findings support wider use of LAIs in patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective and bipolar disorders beyond the setting of poor adherence and earlier use in the disease course.

Initiating/maintaining long-acting injectable antipsychotics in schizophrenia/schizoaffective or bipolar disorder - expert consensus survey part 2.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide recommendations on initiating and maintaining long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) in individuals with schizophrenia/schizoaffective or bipolar disorder. METHODS: A 50-question survey comprising 916 response options was completed by 34 expert researchers and high prescribers with extensive LAI experience, rating relative appropriateness/importance on a 9-point scale. Consensus was determined using chi-square test of score distributions. Results of 21 questions comprising 339 response options regarding LAI initiation, maintenance treatment, adequate trial definition, identifying treatment nonresponse, and switching are reported. RESULTS: Experts agreed that the most important LAI selection factor was patient response/tolerability to previous antipsychotics. An adequate therapeutic LAI trial was defined as the time to steady state ± 1-2 injection cycles. Experts suggested that oral efficacy and tolerability should be established before switching to an LAI, without consensus on the required time, and that the time for oral supplementation and next injection interval should be determined by the time to attainment of therapeutic LAI levels. Most experts agreed that ≥1 adequate LAI trial is needed to identify the lack of efficacy. There was little agreement about strategies for switching between LAIs. CONCLUSION: Expert guidance may aid clinicians in their decisions regarding initiating/maintaining LAIs in individuals with schizophrenia/schizoaffective or bipolar disorder.

Relapse Risk Assessment for Schizophrenia Patients (RASP): A New Self-Report Screening Tool.

OBJECTIVES: The Relapse Assessment for Schizophrenia Patients (RASP) was developed as a six-question self-report screener that measures indicators of Increased Anxiety and Social Isolation to assess patient stability and predict imminent relapse. This paper describes the development and psychometric characteristics of the RASP. METHODS: The RASP and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) were administered to patients with schizophrenia (n=166) three separate times. Chart data were collected on a subsample of patients (n=81). Psychometric analyses of RASP included tests of reliability, construct validity, and concurrent validity of items. Factors from RASP were correlated with subscales from PANSS (sensitivity to change and criterion validity [agreement between RASP and evidence of relapse]). RESULTS: Test-retest reliability returned modest to strong agreement at the item level and strong agreement at the questionnaire level. RASP showed good item response curves and internal consistency for the total instrument and within each of the two subscales (Increased Anxiety and Social Isolation). RASP Total Score and subscales showed good concurrent validity when correlated with PANSS Total Score, Positive, Excitement, and Anxiety subscales. RASP correctly predicted relapse in 67% of cases, with good specificity and negative predictive power and acceptable positive predictive power and sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability and validity data presented support the use of RASP in settings where addition of a brief self-report assessment of relapse risk among patients with schizophrenia may be of benefit. Ease of use and scoring, and the ability to administer without clinical supervision allows for routine administration and assessment of relapse risk.

Attitudes toward antipsychotic treatment among patients with bipolar disorders and their clinicians: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Antipsychotics are recommended as first-line therapy for acute mania and maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder; however, published literature suggests their real-world use remains limited. Understanding attitudes toward these medications may help identify barriers and inform personalized therapy. This literature review evaluated patient and clinician attitudes toward the use of antipsychotics for treating bipolar disorder. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and BIOSIS Previews identified English language articles published between January 1, 2000, and June 15, 2016, that reported attitudinal data from patients, health care professionals, or caregivers; treatment decision-making; or patient characteristics that predicted antipsychotic use for bipolar disorder. Results were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Of the 209 references identified, 11 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. These articles provided attitudinal information from 1,418 patients with bipolar disorder and 1,282 treating clinicians. Patients' attitudes toward antipsychotics were generally positive. Longer duration of clinical stability was associated with positive attitudes. Implementation of psychoeducational and adherence enhancement strategies could improve patient attitudes. Limited data suggest clinicians' perceptions of antipsychotic efficacy and tolerability may have the greatest impact on their prescribing patterns. Because the current real-world evidence base is inadequate, clinician attitudes may reflect a relative lack of experience using antipsychotics in patients with bipolar disorder. CONCLUSION: Although data are very limited, perceived tolerability and efficacy concerns shape both patient and clinician attitudes toward use of antipsychotic drugs in bipolar disorder. Additional studies are warranted.

Plasma concentrations and dosing of 2 long-acting injectable formulations of aripiprazole.

Maintaining therapeutic plasma concentrations of an antipsychotic agent is essential in preventing relapse of symptoms in schizophrenia. Long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations provide extended exposure to antipsychotic therapy and have been useful in addressing treatment nonadherence. Aripiprazole is an atypical antipsychotic used in the treatment of schizophrenia and is available in 2 chemically different (aripiprazole monohydrate and aripiprazole lauroxil [AL]) and pharmaceutically different LAI formulations (aripiprazole once-monthly 400 mg [AOM 400] and AL). The pharmaceutical difference is that AL, unlike AOM 400, is a prodrug that requires additional metabolic steps to form the active drug aripiprazole. We present data demonstrating that aripiprazole plasma concentrations are similar for AOM 400 and the 882 mg dose of AL when administered once every 4 weeks and that both provide similar therapeutic plasma concentrations of aripiprazole when compared with therapeutic oral doses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of tolerable treatment options for patients with schizophrenia.

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