Risk of long-term care admissions among Medicare beneficiaries treated with pimavanserin or quetiapine for Parkinson's disease psychosis in USA: a retrospective administrative claims database analysis.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Krithika Rajagopalan, Nazia Rashid, Dilesh Doshi
{"title":"Risk of long-term care admissions among Medicare beneficiaries treated with pimavanserin or quetiapine for Parkinson's disease psychosis in USA: a retrospective administrative claims database analysis.","authors":"Krithika Rajagopalan, Nazia Rashid, Dilesh Doshi","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Risk of long-term care (LTC) admission (LTCA) associated with atypical antipsychotic (AAP) use among patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP) is a major concern. However, no comparative studies have examined the differences in risk of LTC admissions between pimavanserin (PIM), the only FDA-approved AAP for PDP, and other off-label AAPs including quetiapine (QUE). <b>Objective:</b> To examine all-cause LTCA rates and risk among PDP patients treated with AAPs such as QUE or PIM. <b>Methods:</b> Analysis of Parts A, B and D claims (100% Medicare sample; 2013-2019) of Medicare beneficiaries with PDP that initiate ≥12-month continuous PIM or QUE monotherapy from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018 (i.e., index date) without any AAP use in the 12-month pre-index period was conducted. Outcome assessments among 1:1 propensity score-matched (31 variables - age, sex, race, region and 27 Elixhauser comorbidities) beneficiaries on PIM versus QUE included risk of all-cause skilled nursing facility stays (SNF-stays), LTC-stays, and overall LTCA (i.e., SNF-stays or LTC-stays). All-cause LTCA rates and LTCA risk were compared using logistic regression and cox proportional hazards models, respectively, controlling for demographics, comorbidities and co-existing-dementia or insomnia. <b>Results:</b> Of the matched sample (n = 842 for each group) from total sample (n = 9652), overall all-cause LTCA and SNF-stay rates were 23.2 and 20.2% for PIM versus 33.8 and 31.4% for QUE, respectively (p < 0.05, for each). Hazard ratio (95% CI) for risk of SNF-stay and overall LTCA was 0.78 (0.61, 0.98) and 0.80 (0.66, 0.97), respectively, for PIM versus QUE beneficiaries (p < 0.05, for each). <b>Conclusion:</b> The 20% lower risk of LTCA (i.e., greater delay) with PIM versus QUE in this analysis may suggest that PIM should be started early for the treatment of PDP.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e230114"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10842290/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0114","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Risk of long-term care (LTC) admission (LTCA) associated with atypical antipsychotic (AAP) use among patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP) is a major concern. However, no comparative studies have examined the differences in risk of LTC admissions between pimavanserin (PIM), the only FDA-approved AAP for PDP, and other off-label AAPs including quetiapine (QUE). Objective: To examine all-cause LTCA rates and risk among PDP patients treated with AAPs such as QUE or PIM. Methods: Analysis of Parts A, B and D claims (100% Medicare sample; 2013-2019) of Medicare beneficiaries with PDP that initiate ≥12-month continuous PIM or QUE monotherapy from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018 (i.e., index date) without any AAP use in the 12-month pre-index period was conducted. Outcome assessments among 1:1 propensity score-matched (31 variables - age, sex, race, region and 27 Elixhauser comorbidities) beneficiaries on PIM versus QUE included risk of all-cause skilled nursing facility stays (SNF-stays), LTC-stays, and overall LTCA (i.e., SNF-stays or LTC-stays). All-cause LTCA rates and LTCA risk were compared using logistic regression and cox proportional hazards models, respectively, controlling for demographics, comorbidities and co-existing-dementia or insomnia. Results: Of the matched sample (n = 842 for each group) from total sample (n = 9652), overall all-cause LTCA and SNF-stay rates were 23.2 and 20.2% for PIM versus 33.8 and 31.4% for QUE, respectively (p < 0.05, for each). Hazard ratio (95% CI) for risk of SNF-stay and overall LTCA was 0.78 (0.61, 0.98) and 0.80 (0.66, 0.97), respectively, for PIM versus QUE beneficiaries (p < 0.05, for each). Conclusion: The 20% lower risk of LTCA (i.e., greater delay) with PIM versus QUE in this analysis may suggest that PIM should be started early for the treatment of PDP.

美国帕金森病精神病患者接受匹马韦色林或喹硫平治疗后入住长期护理机构的风险:一项回顾性行政索赔数据库分析。
目的:帕金森病精神病(PDP)患者使用非典型抗精神病药(AAP)导致的长期护理(LTC)入院(LTCA)风险是一个值得关注的重大问题。然而,目前还没有比较性研究来探讨皮马凡色林(PIM)与其他非标示抗精神病药(包括喹硫平(QUE))在长期护理入院风险方面的差异,皮马凡色林是美国食品与药物管理局(FDA)批准的唯一一种用于帕金森病的非标示抗精神病药。目的研究接受 QUE 或 PIM 等 AAPs 治疗的 PDP 患者的全因 LTCA 发生率和风险。方法:对 A、B 和 D 部分进行分析:对在 2014 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 12 月 31 日(即指数日)期间开始连续 PIM 或 QUE 单药治疗≥12 个月且在指数前 12 个月期间未使用任何 AAP 的 PDP 医疗保险受益人的 A、B 和 D 部分索赔(100% 医疗保险样本;2013-2019 年)进行分析。在 1:1 倾向评分匹配(31 个变量--年龄、性别、种族、地区和 27 种 Elixhauser 合并症)的 PIM 与 QUE 受益人中进行的结果评估包括全因专业护理机构住院(SNF-stays)、LTC-stays 和总体 LTCA(即 SNF-stays 或 LTC-stays)风险。在控制人口统计学、合并症和并存痴呆症或失眠症的情况下,分别使用逻辑回归和 cox 比例危险模型对全因 LTCA 率和 LTCA 风险进行比较。结果:在总样本(n = 9652)中的匹配样本(每组 n = 842)中,PIM 的全因 LTCA 和 SNF 停留率分别为 23.2% 和 20.2%,而 QUE 为 33.8% 和 31.4%(p 结论:PIM 和 QUE 的全因 LTCA 和 SNF 停留率分别为 23.2% 和 20.2%,而 QUE 为 33.8% 和 31.4%:在这项分析中,PIM 比 QUE 的 LTCA 风险低 20%(即延迟时间更长),这可能表明,在治疗 PDP 时应尽早开始 PIM。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信