Treatment discontinuation of long-acting injectables or oral atypical antipsychotics among Medicaid recipients with schizophrenia

Abstract

Aims: Among patients with schizophrenia, poor adherence and persistence with oral atypical antipsychotics (OAA) often results in relapse and hospitalization. Second-generation antipsychotic long-acting injectables (SGA LAI) have demonstrated higher adherence than first-generation antipsychotic LAI and OAA therapies. This study aimed to determine whether SGA LAIs are associated with better persistency compared to OAA among Medicaid recipients with schizophrenia.

Materials and methods: From the MarketScan Medicaid Database (January 1, 2010–June 30, 2016), patients aged ≥18?years with schizophrenia and ≥2 pharmacy claims more than 90?days apart for the same SGA LAI or OAA were selected. New users of the specific antipsychotic agent were classified, based on their index agent, as: OAA, paliperidone palmitate LAI (PPLAI), aripiprazole LAI (ALAI), and risperidone LAI (RLAI). Discontinuation during 1 year of follow-up was defined as a?≥?60-day gap in the index OAA or SGA LAI medication past the exhaustion of the previous claim’s supply. Inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) balanced the cohort characteristics, and weight outliers (<0.1 or >0.9) were excluded. IPTW-weighted Cox proportional hazards regression estimated hazard ratios for discontinuation.

Results: Cohorts included 7,029 OAA, 4,302 PPLAI, 586 ALAI, and 1,456 RLAI patients. Mean age was 38.0–41.0?years and 44.0–46.6% were female. Persistence was significantly longer in the SGA LAI cohorts than in the OAA cohort. Adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for discontinuation were 0.60 (0.56–0.64) for PPLAI, 0.69 (0.60–0.79) for ALAI, and 0.70 (0.64–0.77) for RLAI vs OAA.

Limitations: Results may not be generalizable to patients covered by commercial or Medicare insurance, and limitations inherent to any claims-based retrospective analysis apply.

Conclusions: SGA LAI may be a valuable option for treating schizophrenia given the improvement in persistence.     

Recovery outcomes of schizophrenia patients treated with paliperidone palmitate in a community setting: patient and provider perspectives on recovery

Objectives:

This study evaluated the effect of paliperidone palmitate long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic on recovery-oriented mental health outcomes from the perspective of healthcare providers and patients during the treatment of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders.

Methods:

Archival data for patients with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder receiving ≥6 months of paliperidone palmitate LAI were retrieved from the electronic medical records system at the Mental Health Center of Denver. Mental health recovery was assessed from both a provider’s (Recovery Markers Inventory [RMI]) and patient’s (Consumer Recovery Measure [CRM]) perspective. A three-level hierarchical linear model (HLM) was utilized to determine changes in CRM and RMI scores by including independent variables in the models: intercept, months from treatment (slope), treatment time period (pretreatment and treatment), age, gender, primary diagnosis, substance abuse diagnosis, concurrent medications, and adherence to paliperidone palmitate LAI.

Results:

A total of 219 patients were identified and included in the study. Results of the final three-level HLMs indicated an overall increase in CRM scores (p?<?0.05), an overall increase (p?<?0.01), and an increased rate of change (p?<?0.05) in RMI scores during the paliperidone palmitate LAI treatment period vs the pre-treatment period.

Limitations:

This study contained a retrospective, non-comparative design, and did not adjust for multiplicity

Conclusions:

The current study demonstrates that changes in recovery-oriented mental health outcomes can be detected following the administration of a specific antipsychotic treatment in persons with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders. Furthermore, patients receiving paliperidone palmitate LAI can effectively improve recovery-oriented outcomes, thereby supporting the drug’s use as schizophrenia treatment from a recovery-oriented perspective.     

A comparison of treatment patterns,healthcare resource utilization,and costs among young adult Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia treated with paliperidone palmitate or oral atypical antipsychotics in the US

Abstract

Background: Much of the burden associated with schizophrenia is attributed to its early onset and chronic nature. Treatment with once monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) is associated with lower healthcare utilization and better adherence as compared to oral atypical antipsychotics (OAAs). This study aimed to evaluate real-world effectiveness of PP1M and OAA therapies among US-based adult Medicaid patients with schizophrenia, overall and among young adults aged 18–35 years.

Methods: Adult patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and at least two claims for PP1M or OAA between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014 were selected from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan Medicaid Database. Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared between PP1M and OAA treatment groups following inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighting to adjust for potential differences. Utilization and cost outcomes were estimated using OLS and weighted Poisson regression models.

Results: After IPT weighting, the young adult PP1M and OAA cohorts were comprised of 3,095 and 3,155 patients, respectively. PP1M patients had a higher duration of continuous treatment exposure (168.2 vs 132.5 days, p?=?.004) and better adherence on the index medication (proportion of days covered ≥80%: 19.0% vs 17.1%, p?<?.049). Young adults treated with PP1M were 37% less likely to have an all-cause inpatient admission (odds ratio [OR]?=?0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?0.53–0.74) and 33% less likely to have an ER visit (OR?=?0.67, 95% CI?=?0.55–0.81) compared to OAA young adult patients, but 27% more likely to have an all-cause outpatient office visit (OR?=?1.27, 95% CI?=?1.02–1.56). PP1M patients incurred significantly lower medical costs as compared to OAA patients.

Conclusions: Medicaid patients with schizophrenia treated with PP1M have higher medication adherence and have fewer hospitalizations as compared to patients treated with OAAs. PP1M may lead to reduced healthcare utilization and improved clinical outcomes.     

Budget impact analysis of long acting injection for schizophrenia in Japan

Abstract

Aims: To estimate the budgetary impact of providing additional reimbursement for long acting injections for schizophrenia patients in psychiatric hospital settings in Japan to improve patient outcomes in schizophrenia.

Methods: Budget impact analysis of change in reimbursement policy using a prevalence-based model over a five-year time horizon. The results are reported as net change in expenditure and consequent cost/savings in Japanese yen at the time of analysis.

Results: The budget impact analysis shows that an increase in reimbursement for LAIs could lead to cumulative savings of an estimated 36.6 billion JPY over five years. These savings result from a decrease in hospitalization costs and an increased usage of LAI (assumed to be 10%). Based on the sensitivity analysis, the saving estimates are most sensitive to change in market share of generic and branded oral antipsychotics.

Limitations: Historical data were used to estimate the future costs of drug and hospitalization; however, it is not the best predictor of future, hence a source of potential bias. A good level of treatment adherence with oral antipsychotics was assumed, which is generally not the case; therefore, we might have overestimated the effectiveness of oral atypical antipsychotics. Additionally, the drug cost due to reimbursement might have also been overestimated because in clinical setting, the increase of LAI use may not have reached 10% of the market share. Lastly, patients’ behavior was derived from models, which may have loosely approximated the reality.

Conclusions: An additional reimbursement for the use of LAI in schizophrenia patients is likely to be cost neutral/cost saving and should be considered as a policy option to improve patient outcomes and budget sustainability.     

Healthcare resource usage of schizophrenia patients initiating long-acting injectable antipsychotics vs oral

Abstract

Objective:

To compare hospitalizations and incidence of relapses among patients with schizophrenia initiating long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics vs oral antipsychotics.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atypical long-acting antipsychotics for treating chronic schizophrenia in Finland

Abstract

Objective:

In Finland, regional rates of schizophrenia exceed those in most countries, impacting the healthcare burden. This study determined the cost-effectiveness of long-acting antipsychotic (LAI) drugs paliperidone palmitate (PP-LAI), olanzapine pamoate (OLZ-LAI), and risperidone (RIS-LAI) for chronic schizophrenia.

Method:

This study adapted a decision tree analysis from Norway for the Finnish National Health Service. Country-specific data were sought from the literature and public documents, guided by clinical experts. Costs of health services and products were retrieved from literature sources and current price lists. This simulation study estimated average 1-year costs for treating patients with each LAI, average remission days, rates of hospitalization and emergency room visits and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY).

Results:

PP-LAI was dominant. Its estimated annual average cost was €10,380/patient and was associated with 0.817 QALY; OLZ-LAI cost €12,145 with 0.810 QALY; RIS-LAI cost €12,074 with 0.809 QALY. PP-LAI had the lowest rates of hospitalization, emergency room visits, and relapse days. This analysis was robust against most variations in input values except adherence rates. PP-LAI was dominant over OLZ-LAI and RIS-LAI in 77.8% and 85.9% of simulations, respectively. Limitations include the 1-year time horizon (as opposed to lifetime costs), omission of the costs of adverse events, and the assumption of universal accessibility.

Conclusion:

In Finland, PP-LAI dominated the other LAIs as it was associated with a lower cost and better clinical outcomes.     

Adherence,persistence, and inpatient utilization among adult schizophrenia patients using once-monthly versus twice-monthly long-acting atypical antipsychotics

Aims: This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU), healthcare costs, adherence, and persistence among adult patients with schizophrenia using once-monthly (OM) vs twice-monthly (TM) atypical long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic (AP) therapy.

Materials and methods: A longitudinal retrospective cohort study was conducted using Medicaid claims data from six states. Patients initiated on aripiprazole or paliperidone palmitate were assigned to the OM cohort; risperidone-treated patients were assigned to the TM cohort. HRU and healthcare costs were assessed during the first 12 months following stabilization on the medication. Adherence was measured using the proportion of days covered (PDC) during the first year of follow-up. Persistence to the index medication was measured during the first 2 years following the index date. Comparison between the cohorts was achieved using multivariable generalized linear models, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics.

Results: Patients in the OM LAI cohort had lower inpatient HRU and medical costs when compared with patients in the TM cohort. Higher medical costs in the TM LAI cohort offset the higher pharmacy costs in the OM LAI cohort. Mean PDC during the first 12 months of follow-up was higher in the OM cohort than in the TM cohort (0.56 vs 0.50, p?<?.01). Median persistence was longer in the OM cohort than in the TM cohort (7.5 months vs 5.5 months), as was the hazard of discontinuing the index medication (hazard ratio?=?0.83, p?=?.01). Kaplan-Meier rates of persistence at 1 year were higher for OM patients than for TM patients (37.6% vs 29.6%, p?<?.01).

Limitations: This was a Medicaid sample with few aripiprazole LAI patients (5.4% of OM cohort). Medication use was inferred from pharmacy claims.

Conclusions: Among Medicaid patients in these six states, OM AP treatment was associated with lower HRU, better adherence and persistence, and similar total costs compared to patients on TM treatment.     

The threshold rate of oral atypical anti-psychotic adherence at which paliperidone palmitate is cost saving

Abstract

Objective:

To identify, estimate, and compare ‘real world’ costs and outcomes associated with paliperidone palmitate compared with branded oral atypical anti-psychotics, and to estimate the threshold rate of oral atypical adherence at which paliperidone palmitate is cost saving.

Methods:

Decision analytic modeling techniques developed by Glazer and Ereshefsky have previously been used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of depot haloperidol, LAI risperidone, and, more recently, LAI olanzapine. This study used those same techniques, along with updated comparative published clinical data, to evaluate paliperidone palmitate. Adherence rates were based on strict Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) criteria. The evaluation was conducted from the perspective of US healthcare payers.

Results:

Paliperidone palmitate patients had fewer mean annual days of relapse (8.7 days; 6.0 requiring hospitalization, 2.7 not requiring hospitalization vs 17.8 days; 12.4 requiring hospitalization, 5.4 not requiring hospitalization), and lower annual total cost ($20,995) compared to oral atypicals (mean $22,481). Because paliperidone palmitate was both more effective and less costly, it is considered economically dominant. Paliperidone palmitate saved costs when the rate of adherence of oral atypical anti-psychotics was below 44.9% using strict MEMS criteria. Sensitivity analyses showed results were robust to changes in parameter values. For patients receiving 156?mg paliperidone palmitate, the annual incremental cost was $1216 per patient (ICER?=?$191 per day of relapse averted). Inclusion of generic risperidone (market share 18.6%) also resulted in net incremental cost for paliperidone palmitate ($120; ICER?=?$13). Limitations of this evaluation include use of simplifying assumptions, data from multiple sources, and generalizability of results.

Conclusions:

Although uptake of LAIs in the US has not been as rapid as elsewhere, many thought leaders emphasize their importance in optimizing outcomes in patients with adherence problems. The findings of this analysis support the cost-effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate in these patients.     

Healthcare utilization and costs associated with treatment for opioid dependence

Objective: Opioid use disorder (OUD) can be managed with medication assisted therapy (MAT) (methadone [MET], buprenorphine [BUP], or extended-release naltrexone [XR-NTX]) or counseling alone (non-pharmacological therapy [NPT]). The objective of this study was to evaluate healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with XR-NTX compared with alternative treatments for opioid dependence.

Methods: Adults with a diagnosis of opioid dependence who initiated treatment with XR-NTX, BUP, MET, or NPT between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014 were identified in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial administrative claims database. Healthcare resource utilization, costs (inpatient [IP], emergency department [ED], outpatient [OP], and pharmacy) and adherence were evaluated for each cohort during 12-month baseline and follow-up periods.

Results: A total of 29,235 patients were included in the analysis; 1,041, 20,566, 745, and 6,883 received XR-NTX, BUP, MET, and NPT, respectively. Patients in the XR-NTX cohort were significantly younger and had more comorbidities compared with the other cohorts. Patients in the XR-NTX group had the largest percentage decrease in IP and ED utilization and costs from baseline to follow-up. OP and pharmacy costs increased significantly from baseline to follow-up for all cohorts. Overall, there was no significant change in total healthcare costs for the XR-NTX group, whereas the costs increased significantly for other groups (BUP?=?+43%, MET?=?+47.7%, NPT?=?+38.8%).

Conclusions: Healthcare resource utilization and costs increased from baseline to follow-up in BUP, MET, and NPT patients, whereas patients receiving XR-NTX experienced no such increase. This analysis suggests there may be economic value in the use of XR-NTX for OUD.     

Cost-effectiveness of several atypical antipsychotics in orally disintegrating tablets compared with standard oral tablets in the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Although the use of innovative drug delivery systems, like orally disintegrating antipsychotic tablets (ODT), may facilitate medication adherence and help reduce the risk of relapse and hospitalization, no information is available about the comparative cost-effectiveness of standard oral tablets (SOT) vs ODT formulations in the treatment of schizophrenia. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine ODT and olanzapine SOT in the usual treatment of outpatients with schizophrenia from a US healthcare perspective. The study also compared olanzapine ODT with risperidone and aripiprazole, two other atypical antipsychotics available in both ODT and SOT formulations.

Methods:

Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to populate a 1-year Monte Carlo Micro-simulation model. The model captures clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, treatment discontinuation by reason, relapse with and without inpatient hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment-emergent adverse events, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs. Key outcomes were total annual direct cost per treatment, QALY, and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) per 1 QALY gained.

Results:

Based on model projections, olanzapine ODT therapy was more costly ($9808 vs $9533), but more effective in terms of a lower hospitalization rate (15% vs 16%) and better QALYs (0.747 vs 0.733) than olanzapine SOT therapy. Olanzapine ODT was more cost-effective than olanzapine SOT (ICER: $19,643), more cost-effective than risperidone SOT therapy (ICER: $39,966), and dominant (meaning less costly and more effective) than risperidone ODT and aripiprazole in ODT or SOT formulations.

Limitations:

Lack of head-to-head randomized studies comparing the three studied atypical antipsychotics required making input assumptions that need further study.

Conclusions:

This micro-simulation found that the utilization of olanzapine ODT for the treatment of schizophrenia is predicted to be more cost-effective than any other ODT or SOT formulations of the studied atypical antipsychotic medications.     

Healthcare utilization and costs among relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients on carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone

Aim: To compare monthly healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among adult patients with multiple myeloma (MM) receiving second or subsequent line of treatment (LOT) with carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone.

Methods and materials: Adult MM patients who received carfilzomib or pomalidomide as second/subsequent LOT between 2006 and 2014 were selected from the MarketScan databases. LOT was determined using Medical/pharmacy claims using a published algorithm. For each patient, first LOT with carfilzomib or pomalidomide was defined as index LOT. Patients with first LOT as index LOT, who received other chemotherapy in combination with carfilzomib or pomalidomide, or who underwent stem cell transplant (STC) during index LOT were excluded. Monthly HRU and costs during index LOT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) based on propensity scores for receipt of carfilzomib estimated by logistic regression with LOT, patient demographics, Charlson index, comorbidities, pre-index healthcare cost, and receipt of prior SCT as covariates.

Results: After weighting, baseline characteristics were well balanced among 114 carfilzomib and 144 pomalidomide patients. Mean (95% CI) numbers of outpatient visits per month were 7.1 (5.2–8.0) with carfilzomib and 4.7 (3.9–6.1) with pomalidomide (p?=?0.006). Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in mean monthly HRU and costs or median time to therapy discontinuation. Mean (95% CI) monthly total healthcare costs were $19,776 (15,322–27,748) with pomalidomide and $17,321 (12,412–21,874) with carfilzomib (p?=?0.522).

Limitations: Comparison of carfilzomib vs pomalidomide may be biased if there are unobserved factors not balanced by IPTW. The relatively small sample size limits the power of analyses to detect potential differences between treatment groups.

Conclusions: Monthly HRU and costs are similar among patients with relapse or refractory MM patients receiving carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone.     

Mail-order pharmacy use and medication adherence among Medicare Part D beneficiaries with diabetes

Abstract

Objective:

To examine medication adherence among Medicare Part D beneficiaries initiating oral anti-diabetic medications and explore whether there is any association of using mail-order pharmacy (vs. retail pharmacy) with better adherence in this patient population.

Research design and methods:

Using administrative pharmacy claims data, we conducted a retrospective cohort study on Medicare Part D beneficiaries who newly initiated oral anti-diabetic treatment between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008. Mail-order pharmacy users were matched to retail pharmacy users via propensity scoring, controlling for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. Adherence with oral anti-diabetic medications during the benefit year of 2009 was assessed using the proportion of days covered (PDC). Comparison of medication adherence between the mail-order pharmacy group and retail pharmacy group was conducted in the propensity matched sample using the paired t-tests and McNemar’s tests.

Results:

A total of 22,546 patients who initiated oral anti-diabetic medications were identified. The average PDC was 0.60 and only 41.6% of the study population attained good adherence (defined as PDC?≥?0.8) with oral anti-diabetic medications during calendar year 2009. The matched sample included 1361 patients in each of the mail-order and retail pharmacy cohorts. Compared with the retail pharmacy group, mail-order pharmacy users demonstrated a significantly higher PDC (0.68 vs. 0.61; P?<?0.001) throughout the benefit year. More patients in the mail-order pharmacy group (49.7%) attained good adherence with their oral anti-diabetic medications compared to 42.8% in the retail pharmacy group (P?<?0.001).

Limitations:

The study was subject to limitations inherent in retrospective claims database analysis.

Conclusions:

Adherence with oral anti-diabetic medications among Medicare Part D beneficiaries is suboptimal. Patients using mail-order pharmacy had better adherence to oral anti-diabetic medications than those who used retail pharmacies. However, the causal relationship between mail-order pharmacy use and adherence should be further examined in a randomized study setting.