Clinical characteristics and resource utilization of patients with bipolar disorder who have frequent psychiatric interventions

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the demographics, clinical characteristics and resource utilization of patients with bipolar disorder who required frequent psychiatric interventions (FPIs) with those needing fewer interventions in the Duke Healthcare System database between 1999 and 2005.

Methods:

This retrospective analysis was conducted using electronic medical records of bipolar patients with FPIs, defined as having ≥4 clinically significant events (CSEs) in any 12-month period while in the Duke University Healthcare System. CSEs were composed of emergency room visits, inpatient hospitalizations, or a change in psychotropic medication due to psychiatric symptoms (score ≥4 on the Clinical Global Impressions–Severity scale). Data were compared between patients with and without FPIs.

Results:

Of 632 patients with bipolar disorder 52.5% were identified as having FPIs. These patients were younger and more often female and African American than those with fewer interventions (p?<?0.01 for all). Patients with FPIs were generally prescribed more psychotropic and non-psychotropic medications, utilized more healthcare resources and experienced more psychiatric co-morbidities than those who did not require FPIs (p?<?0.01 for all).

Limitations:

These results are from a single healthcare system and may not be generalizable to all patients with bipolar disorder. This analysis was retrospective and relied on availability of adequate information recording and coding of diagnoses by physicians.

Conclusions:

Patients with bipolar disorder who required FPIs were significantly different from those with fewer clinically defined interventions with respect to their demographic and clinical characteristics and prescribed medications.     

Comparison of second-generation antipsychotic treatment on psychiatric hospitalization in Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder

Abstract

Objective:

To compare second-generation antipsychotics on time to and cost of psychiatric hospitalization in Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder.

Methods:

Retrospective study using healthcare claims from 10 US state Medicaid programs. Included beneficiaries were aged 18–64, initiated a single second-generation antipsychotic (aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone) between 1/1/2003–6/30/2008 (initiation date?=?index), and had a medical claim with an ICD-9-CM diagnosis code for bipolar disorder. A 360-day post-index period was used to measure time to and costs of psychiatric hospitalization (inpatient claims with a diagnosis code for a mental disorder [ICD-9-CM 290.xx–319.xx] in any position). Cox proportional hazards models and Generalized Linear Models compared time to and costs of psychiatric hospitalization, respectively, in beneficiaries initiating aripiprazole vs each other second-generation antipsychotic, adjusting for beneficiaries’ baseline characteristics.

Results:

Included beneficiary characteristics: mean age 36 years, 77% female, 80% Caucasian, aripiprazole (n?=?2553), mean time to psychiatric hospitalization or censoring?=?85 days; olanzapine (n?=?4702), 81 days; quetiapine (n?=?9327), 97 days; risperidone (n?=?4377), 85 days; ziprasidone (n?=?1520), 82 days. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, time to psychiatric hospitalization in beneficiaries initiating aripiprazole was longer compared to olanzapine (hazard ratio [HR]?=?1.52, p?<?0.001), quetiapine (HR?=?1.40, p?<?0.001), ziprasidone (HR?=?1.33, p?=?0.032), and risperidone, although the latter difference did not reach significance (HR?=?1.18, p?=?0.13). The adjusted costs of psychiatric hospitalization in beneficiaries initiating aripiprazole were significantly lower compared to those initiating quetiapine (incremental per-patient per-month difference?=?$42, 95% CI?=?$16–66, p?<?0.05), but not significantly lower for the other comparisons.

Limitations:

This study was based on a non-probability convenience sample of the Medicaid population. Analyses of administrative claims data are subject to coding and classification error.

Conclusions:

Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder initiating aripiprazole had significantly longer time to psychiatric hospitalization than those initiating olanzapine, quetiapine, or ziprasidone, and significantly lower adjusted costs for psychiatric hospitalization than those initiating quetiapine.     

Impact of initiation of asenapine on patterns of utilization and cost of healthcare resources associated with the treatment of bipolar I disorder

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the impact of initiation of asenapine on “real-world” levels of utilization and cost of healthcare services for the treatment of bipolar I disorder (BPD) in the US.     

Resource utilization and healthcare costs for acute coronary syndrome patients with and without diabetes mellitus

Abstract

Objective:

This study compared differences in healthcare costs and resource utilization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM).

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study of a large, US employer-based claims database identified adults hospitalized for ACS between 01/01/2005 and 12/31/2006 and categorized them based on DM status. Resource utilization and costs during the index hospitalization and in the 12-month follow-up period were compared for ACS patients with and without DM using the propensity score stratification bootstrapping method, adjusting for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics.

Results:

Of 12,502 patients who met selection criteria, 3,040 (24%) had a history of DM and 9,462 (76%) did not. Patients with DM were older, female, and had higher rates of previous cardiovascular and renal diseases. After the propensity score stratification, patients with DM incurred higher index hospitalization costs ($32,577 vs. $29,150, p?<?0.01) as well as higher total follow-up healthcare costs ($35,400 vs. $24,080, p?<?0.01), including higher inpatient ($17,278 vs. $11,247, p?<?0.01), outpatient ($12,357 vs. $8,853, p?<?0.01), and pharmacy costs ($5,765 vs. $3,980, p?<?0.01).

Limitations:

General limitations exist with any retrospective claims database analysis including potential diagnostic or procedural coding inaccuracies. Additionally, the patient population was representative of a working-age population with employer-sponsored health insurance and results may not be generalizable to other patient populations.

Conclusions:

DM is significantly associated with increased healthcare resource utilization and costs for ACS patients.     

Healthcare costs,treatment patterns,and resource utilization among pancreatic cancer patients in a managed care population

Abstract

Background:

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma has few effective treatment options and poor survival. The objective of this study was to characterize treatment patterns and estimate the costs and resource use associated with its treatment in a commercially-insured US population.

Methods:

In this retrospective claims-based analysis, individuals ≥18 years old with evidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2010 were selected from a managed care database. Treatment phase (either initial non-metastatic or metastatic) was determined using a claims-based algorithm. Patients in the pancreatic cancer population were matched 1:3 to a control population. Resource use (events/person-years), treatment patterns, and healthcare costs (per-patient per-month, PPPM) were determined during a variable length follow-up period (from first pancreatic cancer diagnosis to earliest of death, disenrollment, or study end).

Results:

In this study, 5262 pancreatic cancer patients were matched to 15,786 controls. Rates of office visits, inpatient visits, ER visits, and inpatient stays, and mean total all-cause healthcare costs PPPM ($15,480 vs $1001) were significantly higher among cancer patients than controls (all p?<?0.001). Mean inpatient costs were the single largest cost driver ($9917 PPPM). Also, mean total all-cause healthcare costs were significantly higher during the metastatic treatment phase vs the initial treatment phase of non-metastatic disease ($21,637 vs $10,358, p?<?0.001).

Conclusions:

These results indicate that pancreatic cancer imposes a substantial burden on the US healthcare system, and that treatment of more advanced disease is significantly more costly than initial treatment of non-metastatic disease.

Limitations:

Additional research is needed to validate the accuracy of the claims-based algorithms used to identify the treatment phase.     

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of bipolar I disorder patients with mixed episodes

Objective:

Around one-third of patients with bipolar I disorder (BD-I) experience mixed episodes, characterized by both mania and depression, which tend to be more difficult and costly to treat. Atypical antipsychotics are recommended for the treatment of mixed episodes, although evidence of their efficacy, tolerability, and cost in these patients is limited. This study evaluates, from a UK National Health Service perspective, the cost-effectiveness of asenapine vs olanzapine in BD-I patients with mixed episodes.

Methods:

Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a Markov model. Efficacy was informed by a post-hoc analysis of two short-term clinical trials, with response measured as a composite Young Mania Rating Score and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale end-point. Probabilities of discontinuation and relapse to manic, mixed, and depressive episodes were sourced from published meta-analyses. Direct costs (2012–2013 values) included drug acquisition, monitoring, and resource use related to bipolar disorder as well as selected adverse events. Benefits were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

Results:

For treating mixed episodes, asenapine generated 0.0187 more QALYs for an additional cost of £24 compared to olanzapine over a 5-year period, corresponding to a £1302 incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The higher acquisition cost of asenapine was roughly offset by the healthcare savings conferred through its greater efficacy in treating these patients. The model shows that benefits were driven by earlier response to asenapine during acute treatment and were maintained during longer-term follow-up. Results were sensitive to changes in key parameters including short and longer-term efficacy, unit cost, and utilities, but conclusions remained relatively robust.

Conclusions:

Results suggest that asenapine is a cost-effective alternative to olanzapine in mixed episode BD-I patients, and may have specific advantages in this population, potentially leading to healthcare sector savings and improved outcomes. Limitations of the analysis stem from gaps in clinical and economic evidence for these patients and should be addressed by future clinical trials.     

Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and receiving prasugrel or ticagrelor

Abstract

Objective:

To compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and healthcare costs in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor.     

Impact of upper and lower gastrointestinal blood loss on healthcare utilization and costs: a systematic review

Abstract

Objectives:

Gastrointestinal (GI) blood loss is a common medical condition which can have serious morbidity and mortality consequences and may pose an enormous burden on healthcare utilization. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the impact of upper and lower GI blood loss on healthcare utilization and costs.

Methods:

We performed a systematic search of peer-reviewed English articles from MEDLINE published between 1990 and 2010. Articles were limited to studies with patients ≥18 years of age, non-pregnant women, and individuals without anemia of chronic disease, renal disease, cancer, congestive heart failure, HIV, iron-deficiency anemia or blood loss due to trauma or surgery. Two reviewers independently assessed abstract and article relevance.

Results:

Eight retrospective articles were included which used medical records or claims data. Studies analyzed resource utilization related to medical care although none of the studies assessed indirect resource use or costs. All but one study limited assessment of healthcare utilization to hospital use. The mean cost/hospital admission for upper GI blood loss was reported to be in the range $3180–8990 in the US, $2500–3000 in Canada and, in the Netherlands, the mean hospital cost/per blood loss event was €11,900 for a bleeding ulcer and €26,000 for a bleeding and perforated ulcer. Mean cost/ hospital admission for lower GI blood loss was $4800 in Canada, and $40,456 for small bowel bleeding in the US.

Conclusions:

Our findings suggest that the impact of GI blood loss on healthcare costs is substantial but studies are limited. Additional investigations are needed which examine both direct and indirect costs as well as healthcare costs by source of GI blood loss focusing on specific populations in order to target treatment pathways for patients with GI blood loss.     

Medical costs and healthcare resource use in patients with lupus nephritis and neuropsychiatric lupus in an insured population

Abstract

Objective:

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disease that can affect multiple organ systems, including the kidneys (lupus nephritis) and the central nervous system (neuropsychiatric lupus, or NPSLE). The healthcare costs and resource utilization associated with treating lupus nephritis and NPSLE in a large US managed care plan were studied.

Methods:

SLE subjects ≥18 years of age and with claims-based evidence of nephritis or neuropsychiatric conditions were identified from a health plan database. An index date was set as a randomly drawn date from all qualifying claims during 2003–2008 for study subjects. Subjects were matched on the basis of demographic and clinical characteristics to unaffected controls. Costs and resource use were determined during a fixed 12-month post-index period.

Results:

Nine hundred and seven lupus nephritis subjects were matched to controls, and 1062 subjects with NPSLE were matched to controls. Mean overall post-index healthcare costs were significantly higher among subjects with lupus nephritis in comparison to matched controls ($33,472 vs $5347, p?<?0.001). Similarly, mean overall post-index healthcare costs were significantly higher among subjects with NPSLE compared to controls ($30,341 vs $4646, p?<?0.001). Subjects with lupus nephritis or NPSLE had higher mean post-index numbers of ambulatory visits, specialist visits, emergency department visits and inpatient hospital stays, compared to controls (all p?<?0.001).

Limitations:

Additional research, such as medical chart review, could provide validation for the claims-based identification of lupus nephritis and NPSLE subjects. Also, indirect costs were not evaluated in this study.

Conclusion:

Subjects with lupus nephritis or NPSLE have high costs and resource use, compared to unaffected controls.     

Adherence to iron chelation therapy and associated healthcare resource utilization and costs in Medicaid patients with sickle cell disease and thalassemia

Background:

Sub-optimal patient adherence to iron chelation therapy (ICT) may impact patient outcomes and increase cost of care. This study evaluated the economic burden of ICT non-adherence in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) or thalassemia.

Methods:

Patients with SCD or thalassemia were identified from six state Medicaid programs (1997–2013). Adherence was estimated using the medication possession ratio (MPR) of ≥0.80. All-cause and disease-specific resource utilization per-patient-per-month (PPPM) was assessed and compared between adherent and non-adherent patients using adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR). All-cause and disease-specific healthcare costs were computed using mean cost PPPM. Regression models adjusting for baseline characteristics were used to compare adherent and non-adherent patients.

Results:

A total of 728 eligible patients treated with ICT in the SCD cohort, 461 (63%) adherent, and 218 in the thalassemia cohort, 137 (63%) adherent, were included in this study. In SCD patients, the adjusted rate of all-cause outpatient visits PPPM was higher in adherent patients vs non-adherent patients (aIRR [95% CI]: 1.05 [1.01–1.08], p?<?0.0001). Conversely, adherent patients incurred fewer all-cause inpatients visits (0.87 [0.81–0.94], p?<?0.001) and ER visits (0.86 [0.78–0.93], p?<?0.001). Similar trends were observed in SCD-related resource utilization rates and in thalassemia patients. Total all-cause costs were similar between adherent and non-adherent patients, but inpatient costs (adjusted cost difference?=??$1530 PPPM, p?=?0.0360) were lower in adherent patients.

Conclusion:

Patients adherent to ICT had less acute care need and lower inpatient costs than non-adherent patients, although they had more outpatient visits. Improved adherence may be linked to better disease monitoring and has the potential to avoid important downstream costs associated with acute care visits and reduce the financial burden on health programs and managed care plans treating SCD and thalassemia patients.     

Pain,health related quality of life and healthcare resource utilization in Spain

Objectives:

The aim of this paper is to consider the relationship between the experience of pain, health related quality of life (HRQoL) and healthcare resource utilization in Spain.

Methods:

The analysis contrasts the contribution of pain severity and frequency of pain reported against respondents reporting no pain in the previous month. Data are from the 2010 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) for Spain. Single equation generalized linear regression models are used to evaluate the association of pain with the physical and mental component scores of the SF-12 questionnaire as well as health utilities generated from the SF-6D. In addition, the role of pain is assessed in its association with self-reported healthcare provider visits, emergency room visits and hospitalizations in the previous 6 months.

Results:

The results indicate that the experience of pain, notably severe and frequent pain, is substantial and is significantly associated with the SF-12 physical component scores, health utilities and all aspects of healthcare resource utilization, which far outweighs the role of demographic and socioeconomic variables, health risk factors (in particular body mass index) and the presence of comorbidities. In the case of severe daily pain, the marginal contribution of the SF-12 physical component score is a deficit of ?17.86 compared to those reporting no pain (population average score 46.49), while persons who are morbidly obese report a deficit of only ?6.63 compared to those who are normal weight. The corresponding association with health utilities is equally dramatic with a severe daily pain deficit of ?0.186 compared to those reporting no pain (average population utility 0.71). The impact of pain on healthcare resource utilization is marked. Severe daily pain increases traditional provider visits by 208.8%, emergency room visits by 373.0% and hospitalizations by 348.5%.

Limitations:

As an internet-based survey there is the possibility of bias towards those with internet access, although telephone sampling is used to supplement responses. Respondents are asked to describe their experience of pain; there is no independent check on the accuracy of responses. Finally, while certain acute pain categories are omitted, the study focuses on pain in the last month and not on pain chronicity.

Conclusions:

The societal burden of severe and frequent pain in Spain is substantial. Although not reported on before, at a national level, the deficit impact of the experience of pain far outweighs the contribution of more traditional explanations of HRQoL deficits as well as being the primary factor associated with increased provider visits, emergency room visits and hospitalizations.     

Clinical comorbidities,treatment patterns,and direct medical costs of patients with osteoarthritis in usual care: a retrospective claims database analysis

Abstract

Objective:

Comorbidities and resource utilization among patients with osteoarthritis (OA) in clinical practice have been infrequently characterized. The purpose of this study was to examine comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and direct medical costs of patients with OA in clinical practice.

Method:

This retrospective cohort analysis used medical and pharmacy claims data from the LifeLink? Database. OA patients (ICD-9-CM codes 715.XX) were matched (age, gender, and region) with individuals without OA. Comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and direct medical costs (pharmacy, outpatient, inpatient, total) were examined for the calendar year 2008.

Results:

The sample consisted of 112,951 OA patients and 112,951 controls (mean age: 56.9 [SD?=?9.5] years; 62% female). Relative to controls, OA patients were significantly more likely (p?<?0.0001) to have comorbidities, including musculoskeletal (84.3 vs. 37.1%) and neuropathic pain (22.0 vs. 6.1%) conditions, depression (12.4 vs. 6.4%), anxiety (6.6 vs. 3.5%), and sleep disorders (11.9 vs. 4.2%). OA patients were significantly more likely (p?<?0.0001) to receive pain-related medications, including opioids (40.7 vs. 17.1%), NSAIDs (37.1 vs. 11.5%), tramadol (9.8 vs. 1.8%), and adjunctive medications for treating depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Mean [SD] total direct medical costs were more than two times higher among OA patients ($12,905 [$21,884] vs. $5099 [$13,855]; p?<?0.001) and median costs were more than three times higher ($6188 vs. $1879; p?<?0.0001). Study limitations include potential errors in coding and recording; overestimation of the comorbidity burden; inability to link condition of interest, OA, with prescribed medications; and possible underestimation of the true costs of OA, because indirect costs were not considered and the direct costs were from a third party payer (commercial insurance) perspective.

Conclusion:

The patient burden of OA was characterized by a high prevalence of comorbidities. The payer burden was also substantial, with significantly greater use of pain-related and adjunctive medications, and higher direct medical costs.     

Impact of a step-therapy protocol for pregabalin on healthcare utilization and expenditures in a commercial population

Abstract

Objective:

To compare changes in healthcare resource utilization and costs among members with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), or fibromyalgia (FM) in a commercial health plan implementing pregabalin step-therapy with members in unrestricted plans.

Methods:

Retrospective study of outcomes associated with implementation of a pregabalin step-therapy protocol using claims data from Humana (‘restricted’ cohort) and Thomson Reuters MarketScan (‘unrestricted’ cohort). Members aged 18–65 years receiving treatment for pDPN, PHN, or FM during 2008 or 2009 were identified; cohorts were matched on diagnosis and geographic region. Baseline to follow-up changes in healthcare resource utilization and costs were determined using difference-in-differences (DID) analysis. Statistical models adjusting for covariates explored relationships between restricted access and outcomes.

Results:

A total of 3876 restricted cohort members were identified and matched to 3876 unrestricted cohort members. FM was the predominant diagnosis (84.7%). The unrestricted cohort was older (mean?=?49.0 (SD?=?10.4) years vs 47.6 (SD?=?10.5) years; p?<?0.001), and had greater comorbidity (RxRisk-V score?=?5.4 (SD?=?3.2) vs 4.4 (SD?=?2.9), p?<?0.001) than the restricted cohort. Compared with the unrestricted cohort, the restricted cohort demonstrated a greater year-over-year decrease in pregabalin utilization (?2.6%, p?=?0.008), and greater increases in physical therapy and disease-related outpatient utilization (3.7%, p?=?0.010 and 3.6%, p?=?0.022, respectively). There were no statistically significant net differences in all-cause or disease-related total healthcare, medical, or pharmacy costs between cohorts. After adjusting for baseline compositional differences between cohorts, restricted plan membership was associated with a net increase in all-cause medical ($1222; p?=?0.016) and disease-related healthcare costs ($859; p?=?0.002). Limitations include use of a combined analysis for pDPN, PHN, and FM, especially since the observed results were likely driven by FM; an inability to link the prescribing of a medication with the condition of interest, which is common to claims analyses; and lack of pain severity information.

Conclusions:

Implementation of a pregabalin step-therapy protocol resulted in lower pregabalin utilization, but this restriction was not associated with reductions in total healthcare costs, medical costs, or pharmacy costs.     

Health resource use and costs of vilazodone and other selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors in treating major depressive disorder

Abstract

Objective:

Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are widely prescribed antidepressants. This claims database study compared healthcare resource use and costs among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with vilazodone vs other SSRIs.