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.     

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of schizophrenia in Canada

Objective:

Asenapine is the first tetracyclic antipsychotic approved in Canada for the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ). Asenapine has shown a comparable efficacy profile to other atypical antipsychotics and it is associated with a favourable metabolic profile and less weight gain. This study aimed to assess the economic impact of asenapine compared to other atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of SCZ in Canada.

Methods:

A decision tree combined with a Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-utility of asenapine compared with other atypical antipsychotics. The decision tree takes into account the occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms, the probability of switching to a different antipsychotic, and the probability of gaining weight. The Markov model takes into account long-term metabolic complications including diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart diseases, and stroke. In the base-case analysis, asenapine was compared to olanzapine. Asenapine was also compared with other atypical antipsychotics commonly used in Canada in alternative scenarios. Analyses were conducted from both Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives over a 5-year time horizon.

Results:

In the treatment of SCZ, asenapine is a dominant strategy over olanzapine from both MoH and societal perspectives. Compared to quetiapine, asenapine is also a dominant strategy. Furthermore, asenapine has a favorable economic impact compared to ziprasidone and aripiprazole, as these antipsychotics are not cost-effective compared to asenapine from both MoH and societal perspectives.

Conclusion:

Despite the short time horizon, the lack of compliance data and the assumptions made, this economic evaluation demonstrates that asenapine is a cost-effective strategy compared to olanzapine and to most of the atypical antipsychotics frequently used in Canada.     

Economic and clinical comparison of atypical depot antipsychotic drugs for treatment of chronic schizophrenia in the Czech Republic

Abstract

Purpose:

The Czech Republic is faced with making choices between pharmaceutical products, including depot injectable antipsychotics. A pharmacoeconomic analysis was conducted to determine the cost-effectiveness of atypical depots.

Methods:

An existing 1-year decision-analytic framework was adapted to model drug use in this healthcare system. The average direct costs to the General Insurance Company of the Czech Republic of using paliperidone palmitate (Xeplion®), risperidone (Risperdal Consta®), and olanzapine pamoate (Zypadhera®) were determined. Literature-derived clinical rates populated the model, with costs adjusted to 2012 Euros using the consumer price index. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), days in remission, and proportions hospitalized or visiting emergency rooms. One-way sensitivity analyses were calculated for all important inputs. A multivariate probability analysis was used to examine the stability of results using 10,000 iterations of simulated input over reasonable ranges of all included variables.

Results:

Expected average costs/per patient treated were €5377 for PP-LAI, €6118 for RIS-LAI, and €6537 for OLZ-LAI. Respective QALYs were 0.817, 0.809, and 0.811; ER visits were 0.127, 0.134, and 0.141; hospitalizations were 0.252, 0.298, and 0.289. Results were generally robust in sensitivity analyses. PP-LAI dominated RIS-LAI and OLZ-LAI in 90.2% and 92.1% of simulations, respectively. Results were insensitive to drug prices but sensitive to adherence and hospitalization rates.

Conclusions:

PP-LAI dominated the other two drugs, as it had a lower overall cost and superior clinical outcomes, making it the preferred choice. Using PP-LAI in place of RIS-LAI for chronic relapsing schizophrenia would reduce the overall costs of care for the healthcare system.     

Cost effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate versus risperidone long-acting injectable and olanzapine pamoate for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia in Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To model the cost effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate (paliperidone long-acting injectable; PLAI), a new once-monthly long-acting antipsychotic therapy, compared with risperidone long-acting injectable (RLAI) and olanzapine pamoate (OLAI), in multi-episode patients (two or more relapses) with schizophrenia in Sweden.

Methods:

A Markov decision analytic model was developed to simulate the history of a cohort of multi-episode patients transitioning through different health states on a monthly basis over a 5-year time horizon from the perspective of the Swedish healthcare system. Therapeutic strategies consisted of starting treatment with RLAI (mean dose 37.5?mg every 2 weeks), PLAI (mean dose 75?mg equivalent (eq.) every month) or OLAI (150?mg every 2 weeks or 300?mg every 4 weeks). Probability of relapse, level of adherence, side-effects (extrapyramidal symptoms, tardive dyskinesia, weight gain and diabetes) and treatment discontinuation (switch) were derived from long-term observational data when feasible. Incremental cost-effectiveness outcomes, discounted at 3% annually, included cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and cost per relapse avoided (expressed in 2009 Swedish Krona SEK).

Results:

Relative to RLAI and OLAI, PLAI is economically dominant: more effective (additional QALYs, less relapses) and less costly treatment option over a 5-year time horizon. The results were robust when tested in sensitivity analysis.

Limitations:

The impact of once-monthly treatment on adherence levels is not yet known, and not all variables that could impact on real-world outcomes and costs were included in this model.

Conclusion:

PLAI was cost saving from a Swedish payer perspective compared with RLAI and OLAI in the long-term treatment of multi-episode (two or more relapses) schizophrenia patients.     

博思清与维思通治疗精神分裂症的药物经济学分析

目的比较博思清与维思通治疗精神分裂症的成本-效果。方法对50例住院精神分裂症患者应用博思清与维思通进行治疗,疗程6周。采用成本-效果分析法对两组进行分析。结果博思清与维思通治疗精神分裂症的有效率分别为96.0%和92.0%,两者疗效无显著性差异(P>0.05),成本分别为638.16元和647.8元。结论博思清治疗精神分裂症疗效与维思通相当,但起效更快,博思清(阿立哌唑)治疗精神分裂症较经济。     

Impact of risperidone long-acting injectable on hospitalisation and medication use in Canadian patients with schizophrenia

Summary

A retrospective chart review was used to assess hospitalisation and medication switching in patients with schizophrenia initiated on either intramuscular risperidone long-acting injectable (RLAI) (n=69) or oral atypical antipsychotics (n=93) in Canada.

In the RLAI-treated patients, compared with an identical period prior to RLAI use (40.8 months), there were significant decreases in hospitalisation (50.7 vs. 4.3%; p<0.0001) and duration of hospitalisation (23.5 vs. 0.3 days per patient; p<0.0001) when patients were switched to RLAI (mean treatment period 41.5 months). Compared with patients receiving oral atypicals for 57.2 months, RLAI patients had a reduced risk of hospitalisation (95% confidence interval 1.8–16.5% vs. 54.7–76.4%) and medication switching (95% confidence interval 34.6–58.4% vs. 55.7–76.4%).

By virtue of its periodic intramuscular administration, RLAI offers the efficacy and tolerability of an atypical medication without the compliance issues associated with oral drugs, and leads to significant decreases in hospitalisation.     

Annual cost of relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations in adults with schizophrenia: results from a 12-month,double-blind,comparative study of lurasidone vs quetiapine extended-release

Abstract

Purpose:

To model the economic impact of annual relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations among adults with schizophrenia treated with lurasidone or quetiapine extended-release (XR).

Methods:

A probabilistic model estimating per-patient-per-year (PPPY) direct mental healthcare (MH) cost differences due to relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations was developed using relapse and relapse-related hospitalization rates from a 12-month, double-blind, parallel-group, global comparison study of lurasidone vs quetiapine XR (all patients previously treated with lurasidone or quetiapine XR for 6 weeks). Analyses were conducted for both all subjects and clinical responders. Direct costs associated with inpatient and outpatient mental healthcare-related services were obtained from a large, prospective, observational study of schizophrenia treatment in usual-care settings for relapsing and non-relapsing patients, including psychiatric hospitalizations, emergency services, medication management, and outpatient individual therapy. Model robustness was tested using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results:

Model-estimated PPPY MH cost savings associated with relapse-related hospitalization rates in all subjects were $3276 for lurasidone vs quetiapine XR. Lurasidone resulted in PPPY MH cost savings of $2702 vs quetiapine XR in all subjects, using relapse rates. Sensitivity analyses indicated lurasidone had lower 1-year MH costs than quetiapine XR in 100% and 99.7% of simulations, using relapse-related hospitalization rates and relapse rates, respectively, in all subjects. Similar results were seen in clinical responders.

Limitations:

The model represents a simplification of treatment patterns and response to treatment. Cost of treatment with lurasidone and quetiapine XR was not included in the model. Estimates of cost savings are likely conservative, as the model did not assess the impact of long-term cardiometabolic consequences. Indirect costs associated with relapses and non-mental health-related costs were also excluded from the model.

Conclusion:

Adults treated for schizophrenia with lurasidone are predicted to have lower 12-month MH costs compared to those treated with quetiapine XR due to fewer relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations.     

Healthcare utilization and costs of veterans health administration patients with schizophrenia treated with paliperidone palmitate long-acting injection or oral atypical antipsychotics

Abstract

Objective:

This study aimed to compare real world healthcare costs and resource utilization between patients with schizophrenia treated with paliperidone palmitate long-acting injection (PP) and oral atypical antipsychotics (OAT).     

Cost-effectiveness of 3-month paliperidone treatment for chronic schizophrenia in Spain

Background: A 3-month long treatment of paliperidone palmitate (PP3M) has been introduced as an option for treating schizophrenia. Its cost-effectiveness in Spain has not been established.

Aims: To compare the costs and effects of PP3M compared with once-monthly paliperidone (PP1M) from the payer perspective in Spain.

Methods: This study used the recently published trial by Savitz et al. as a core model over 1 year. Additional data were derived from the literature. Costs in 2016 Euros were obtained from official lists and utilities from Osborne et al. The authors conducted both cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses. For the former, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated. For the latter, the outcomes were relapses and hospitalizations avoided. To assure the robustness of the analyses, a series of 1-way and probability sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: The expected cost was lower with PP3M (4,780€) compared with PP1M (5,244€). PP3M had the fewest relapses (0.080 vs 0.161), hospitalizations (0.034 v.s 0.065), and emergency room visits (0.045 v.s 0.096) and the most QALYs (0.677 v.s 0.625). In both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, PP3M dominated PP1M. Sensitivity analyses confirmed base case findings. For the primary analysis (cost-utility), PP3M dominated PP1M in 46.9% of 10,000 simulations and was cost-effective at a threshold of 30,000€/QALY gained.

Conclusions: PP3M dominated PP1M in all analyses and was, therefore, cost-effective for treating chronic relapsing schizophrenia in Spain. For patients who require long-acting therapy, PP3M appears to be a good alternative anti-psychotic treatment.     

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.     

Changes in healthcare resource use and costs associated with early versus delayed initiation of atypical antipsychotic adjunctive treatment in major depressive disorder

Aims: The study compared all-cause and major depressive disorder (MDD)-related healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs in patients with MDD treated with atypical antipsychotic (AAP) adjunctive therapy early or later in treatment.

Materials and methods: Adults with MDD and antidepressant treatment (ADT) who newly initiated adjunctive aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, lurasidone, or quetiapine between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015 were identified in the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims database; the index date was the date of the first AAP claim. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: AAP initiated in the first year (Y1); in the second year (Y2); and more than 2 years (Y3) of first ADT use. Within each cohort, HRU and costs were compared between the 12 months before and after the index date. Pre–post changes in HRU and costs were then compared between cohorts.

Results: Five hundred and six (36.7%) patients were categorized as Y1; 252 (18.3%) as Y2; and 622 (45.1%) as Y3. AAP use was associated with significantly decreased rates of all-cause and MDD-related hospitalization and emergency department visits, and increased rates of pharmacy fills and physician office visits; and the magnitude of changes was largest in cohort Y1. Cohort Y1 had the largest reductions in mean (±SD) all-cause medical costs per patient (?$10,496?±?$85,022, p?=?.015) compared to Y2 (?$2,474?±?$85,022, p?=?.572) and Y3 (?$472?±?$31,334, p?=?.823), mainly due to the reduction in hospitalization. After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, the largest reductions in hospitalization and medical costs were observed in cohort Y1. Similar increases in all-cause pharmacy costs were seen in all cohorts. A similar trend in costs was observed in MDD-related healthcare services.

Limitations and conclusions: AAP treatment was associated with reductions in all-cause and MDD-related medical costs, primarily in decreased hospitalization. The reductions were largest among patients who initiated treatment in the first year.     

Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for the treatment of psoriasis

Objective: This study compared real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Optum Clinformatics? claims database. Patients with psoriasis were selected if they had initiated apremilast or biologics between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015; had 12?months of pre-index and post-index continuous enrollment in the database; and were biologic-naive. The index date was defined as the date of the first claim for apremilast or biologic, and occurred between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment without a?>?60-day gap in therapy (discontinuation) or a switch to a different psoriasis treatment during the 12-month post-index period. Adherence was defined as a medication possession ratio (MPR) of ≥ 80% while persistent on the index treatment. Persistence-based MPR was defined as the number of days with the medication on hand measured during the patients’ period of treatment persistence divided by the duration of the period of treatment persistence. Because patients were not randomized, apremilast patients were propensity score matched up to 1:2 to biologic patients to adjust for possible selection bias. Treatment persistence/adherence and all-cause healthcare costs were evaluated. Cost differences were determined using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

Results: In all, 343 biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast were matched to 680 biologic-naive patients initiating biologics. After matching, patient characteristics were similar between cohorts. Twelve-month treatment persistence was similar for biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast vs biologics (32.1% vs 33.2%; p?=?0.7079). While persistent on therapy up to 12?months, per-patient per-month (PPPM) total healthcare costs were significantly lower among biologic-naive cohorts initiating apremilast vs biologics ($2,214 vs $5,184; p?p?p?p?Limitations: Data were limited to individuals with United Healthcare commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance plans, and may not be generalizable to psoriasis patients with other insurance or without health insurance coverage.

Conclusion: Biologic-naive patients with similar patient characteristics receiving apremilast vs biologics had significantly lower PPPM costs, even when they switched to biologics during the 12-month post-index period. These results may be useful to payers and providers seeking to optimize psoriasis care while reducing healthcare costs.     

Cost-effectiveness of 3-month paliperidone therapy for chronic schizophrenia in the Netherlands

Background: A new depot formulation of paliperidone has been developed that provides effective treatment for schizophrenia for 3 months (PP3M). It has been tested in phase-3 trials, but no data on its cost-effectiveness have been published.

Purpose: To determine the cost-effectiveness of PP3M compared with once-monthly paliperidone (PP1M), haloperidol long-acting therapy (HAL-LAT), risperidone microspheres (RIS-LAT), and oral olanzapine (oral-OLZ) for treating chronic schizophrenia in The Netherlands.

Methods: A previous 1-year decision tree was adapted, based on local inputs supplemented with data from published literature. The primary analysis used DRG costs in 2016 euros from the insurer perspective, as derived from official lists. A micro-costing analysis was also conducted. For the costing scenario, official list prices were used. Clinical outcomes included relapses (treated as outpatients, requiring hospitalization, total), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Rates and utility scores were derived from the literature. Economic outcomes were the incremental cost/QALY-gained or relapse-avoided. Model robustness was examined in scenario, 1-way, and probability sensitivity analyses.

Results: The expected cost was lowest with PP3M (8,781€), followed by PP1M (10,325€), HAL-LAT (11,278€), RIS-LAT (11,307€), and oral-OLZ (13,556€). PP3M had the fewest total relapses/patient (0.36, 0.94, 1.39, 1.21, and 1.70, respectively), hospitalizations (0.11, 0.46, 0.40, 0.56, and 0.57, respectively), emergency room visits (0.25, 0.48. 0.99, 0.65, and 1.14, respectively) and the most QALYs (0.847, 0.735, 0.709, 0.719, and 0.656, respectively). In both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, PP3M dominated all other drugs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed base case findings. In the costing analysis, total costs were, on average, 31.9% higher than DRGs.

Conclusions: PP3M dominated all commonly used drugs. It is cost-effective for treating chronic schizophrenia in the Netherlands. Results were robust over a wide range of sensitivity analyses. For patients requiring a depot medication, such as those with adherence problems, PP3M appears to be a good alternative anti-psychotic treatment.     

Hospitalisation rates in patients switched from oral anti-psychotics to aripiprazole once-monthly for the management of schizophrenia

Abstract

Objective:

To report the design and preliminary results of a mirror-image study comparing total psychiatric hospitalisation rates pre- and post-switch to aripiprazole once-monthly, an extended release injectable solution.

Methods:

A multi-center, open-label mirror-image study of patients (18–65 years) with schizophrenia to compare total psychiatric hospitalisation rates between retrospective treatment with oral standard-of-care (SOC) anti-psychotics and prospective treatment with aripiprazole once-monthly in a naturalistic community setting in North America. Total psychiatric hospitalisation rates were assessed between retrospective (Months ?4 to ?1) and prospective treatment periods (Months 4–6) for patients who completed ≥3 months aripiprazole once-monthly.

Results:

One hundred and eighty-three patients entered the prospective phase. After switching to aripiprazole once-monthly, total psychiatric hospitalisation rates for the 3-month prospective period were significantly lower (p?<?0.0001, Exact McNemar’s test) compared with the retrospective 3-month period when the same patients received SOC anti-psychotics (6.6% [n?=?8/121] vs 28.1% [n?=?34/121], respectively; rate ratio?=?0.24). Similarly, total psychiatric hospitalisation rates for all patients who entered the prospective treatment phase were significantly lower (p?<?0.0001, Exact McNemar’s test) for the prospective 6 months following switch to aripiprazole once-monthly, compared with the retrospective 6-month SOC period (14.2% [n?=?26/183] vs 41.5% [n?=?76/183], respectively; rate ratio?=?0.34). Common treatment-emergent adverse events (occurring in ≥5% of patients) were psychotic disorder (7.7%), akathisia (7.2%), and insomnia (7.2%). Discontinuation (all causes) during the prospective phase was 44.8% (n?=?82/183).

Limitations:

Mirror-image studies do not include a parallel active control; as each patient serves as their own control, it cannot be determined whether other treatments may have similar effects. Treatment and trial effects may be difficult to separate. Independent factors such as admission patterns, insurance coverage, availability of hospital beds, and community support may influence rates of hospitalisation.

Conclusions:

Switching to aripiprazole once-monthly substantially reduced total psychiatric hospitalisation rates compared with retrospective rates in the same patients taking oral SOC.