Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with first versus subsequent use of cariprazine for bipolar I disorder.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Medical Economics Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1080/13696998.2024.2419721
Andrew J Cutler, François Laliberté, Guillaume Germain, Sean D MacKnight, Julien Boudreau, Sally W Wade, Mousam Parikh
{"title":"Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with first versus subsequent use of cariprazine for bipolar I disorder.","authors":"Andrew J Cutler, François Laliberté, Guillaume Germain, Sean D MacKnight, Julien Boudreau, Sally W Wade, Mousam Parikh","doi":"10.1080/13696998.2024.2419721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To evaluate the healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of patients who initiated cariprazine as their first versus subsequent atypical antipsychotic (AA) following a bipolar I disorder (BP-I) diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults with a BP-I diagnosis (first claim = index), commercial, Medicare Supplemental, or Medicaid insurance, and ≥1 outpatient cariprazine dispensing were identified from Merative MarketScan database. Cohorts included patients who initiated cariprazine as either their first or subsequent AA after initial BP-I diagnosis. Characteristics were balanced between cohorts using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Outcomes evaluated post-index included all-cause and mental health (MH)-related HRU (hospitalizations, emergency department [ED] visits, outpatient visits), total healthcare costs (medical + pharmacy), and treatment patterns. HRU and healthcare costs were reported per patient-year (PPY) and compared between cohorts using rate ratios and 95% CIs estimated using nonparametric bootstrap procedures. Treatment patterns were analyzed descriptively, with standardized differences ≥10% considered important.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After IPTW, cohorts included 1,409 patients who initiated cariprazine first and 1,621 patients who initiated cariprazine subsequently; the average (standard deviation, SD) observation period was 678 (373) and 758 (389) days for first and subsequent initiators, respectively. Patients who initiated cariprazine first had 23% fewer all-cause hospitalizations and 28% fewer MH-related hospitalizations PPY (each comparison, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Rates of all-cause and MH-related outpatient visits were significantly lower in patients who initiated cariprazine first versus subsequently (each comparison, <i>p</i> < 0.001), while rates of ED visits were similar. Relative to subsequent initiators, first initiators incurred $2,587 and $2,130 lower all-cause and MH-related total healthcare costs PPY, respectively (each comparison, <i>p</i> < 0.05). Before starting cariprazine, first initiators used fewer BP-I-related medications on average than subsequent initiators (2.6 vs 3.9; standardized difference = 23.9%).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Potential coding inaccuracies and residual confounding.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this real-world database analysis, patients with BP-I who initiated cariprazine as their first AA had lower rates of HRU and incurred lower costs than patients who initiated cariprazine as a subsequent AA.</p>","PeriodicalId":16229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Economics","volume":"27 1","pages":"1472-1484"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2419721","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of patients who initiated cariprazine as their first versus subsequent atypical antipsychotic (AA) following a bipolar I disorder (BP-I) diagnosis.

Methods: Adults with a BP-I diagnosis (first claim = index), commercial, Medicare Supplemental, or Medicaid insurance, and ≥1 outpatient cariprazine dispensing were identified from Merative MarketScan database. Cohorts included patients who initiated cariprazine as either their first or subsequent AA after initial BP-I diagnosis. Characteristics were balanced between cohorts using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Outcomes evaluated post-index included all-cause and mental health (MH)-related HRU (hospitalizations, emergency department [ED] visits, outpatient visits), total healthcare costs (medical + pharmacy), and treatment patterns. HRU and healthcare costs were reported per patient-year (PPY) and compared between cohorts using rate ratios and 95% CIs estimated using nonparametric bootstrap procedures. Treatment patterns were analyzed descriptively, with standardized differences ≥10% considered important.

Results: After IPTW, cohorts included 1,409 patients who initiated cariprazine first and 1,621 patients who initiated cariprazine subsequently; the average (standard deviation, SD) observation period was 678 (373) and 758 (389) days for first and subsequent initiators, respectively. Patients who initiated cariprazine first had 23% fewer all-cause hospitalizations and 28% fewer MH-related hospitalizations PPY (each comparison, p < 0.001). Rates of all-cause and MH-related outpatient visits were significantly lower in patients who initiated cariprazine first versus subsequently (each comparison, p < 0.001), while rates of ED visits were similar. Relative to subsequent initiators, first initiators incurred $2,587 and $2,130 lower all-cause and MH-related total healthcare costs PPY, respectively (each comparison, p < 0.05). Before starting cariprazine, first initiators used fewer BP-I-related medications on average than subsequent initiators (2.6 vs 3.9; standardized difference = 23.9%).

Limitations: Potential coding inaccuracies and residual confounding.

Conclusions: In this real-world database analysis, patients with BP-I who initiated cariprazine as their first AA had lower rates of HRU and incurred lower costs than patients who initiated cariprazine as a subsequent AA.

首次使用卡哌嗪治疗 I 型躁郁症与后续使用卡哌嗪治疗 I 型躁郁症的相关医疗资源利用率和成本。
目的:评估双相情感障碍 I 型(BP-I)诊断后首次使用卡哌嗪与随后使用非典型抗精神病药(AA)的患者的医疗资源利用率(HRU)和费用:从 Merative MarketScan 数据库中筛选出确诊为双相情感障碍 I(BP-I)(首次索赔=索引)、拥有商业保险、医疗保险补充险或医疗补助险且≥1 次门诊配发卡哌嗪的成人。队列包括在初次确诊 BP-I 后作为首次或后续 AA 开始使用卡哌嗪的患者。采用反向治疗概率加权法 (IPTW) 平衡各组群之间的特征。指数后评估的结果包括全因和心理健康(MH)相关的 HRU(住院、急诊科 [ED] 就诊、门诊就诊)、总医疗费用(医疗 + 药房)和治疗模式。报告的 HRU 和医疗费用均为每患者年 (PPY),并使用非参数自举程序估算的比率比和 95% CI 对不同队列进行比较。对治疗模式进行了描述性分析,并将标准化差异≥10%视为重要差异:IPTW后,队列中包括1409名首次使用卡哌嗪的患者和1621名随后使用卡哌嗪的患者;首次使用和随后使用卡哌嗪的患者的平均(标准差,SD)观察期分别为678(373)天和758(389)天。首次使用卡哌嗪的患者全因住院治疗次数减少了 23%,与 MH 相关的住院治疗次数减少了 28%(每次比较,p p p 局限性:可能存在编码不准确和残余混杂因素:在这项真实世界数据库分析中,与随后开始使用卡哌嗪的患者相比,首次使用卡哌嗪的 BP-I 患者的 HRU 发生率较低,产生的费用也较低。
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 Medical Economics
Journal of Medical Economics HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
122
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Economics'' mission is to provide ethical, unbiased and rapid publication of quality content that is validated by rigorous peer review. The aim of Journal of Medical Economics is to serve the information needs of the pharmacoeconomics and healthcare research community, to help translate research advances into patient care and be a leader in transparency/disclosure by facilitating a collaborative and honest approach to publication. Journal of Medical Economics publishes high-quality economic assessments of novel therapeutic and device interventions for an international audience
×
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