Healthcare resource utilization patterns among patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis and dementia: analysis of US Medicare beneficiaries treated with pimavanserin versus other-atypical antipsychotics or versus quetiapine.

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Medical Economics Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-30 DOI:10.1080/13696998.2025.2487358
Krithika Rajagopalan, Daksha Gopal, Lambros Chrones, Dilesh Doshi, Nazia Rashid
{"title":"Healthcare resource utilization patterns among patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis and dementia: analysis of US Medicare beneficiaries treated with pimavanserin versus other-atypical antipsychotics or versus quetiapine.","authors":"Krithika Rajagopalan, Daksha Gopal, Lambros Chrones, Dilesh Doshi, Nazia Rashid","doi":"10.1080/13696998.2025.2487358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pimavanserin (PIM) is the only FDA approved atypical antipsychotic treatment (AAP) for hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP) among patients with or without coexisting dementia; however, Other-AAPs (i.e. quetiapine (QUE), risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole) are commonly prescribed off-label. Healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) patterns among patients with PDP and coexisting dementia (PDP+D) who newly initiate PIM versus (vs.) Other-AAPs (i.e. other AAP-mix) or QUE in real-world settings is limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of Parts A, B, and D claims from the 100% Medicare sample from 04/01/15 to 12/31/21 was conducted. AAP-naïve patients with PDP+D who initiated ≥12-month continuous monotherapy with PIM vs. Other-AAPs or vs. QUE during 04/01/16-12/31/20 were propensity score matched 1:1 on thirty-one variables (age, sex, race, region and 27 Elixhauser comorbidity characteristics). Adjusted log binomial regressions compared all-cause HCRU [(e.g. inpatient hospitalizations and by hospitalization-type [short-term stays (ST-stays), long-term stays (LT-stays), skilled nursing facility stays (SNF-stays)], and emergency room (ER) visits] risk between cohorts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 5,932 patients with PDP+D, matched cohorts (<i>n</i> = 1,294 in each) on continuous- monotherapy of PIM vs. Other-AAPs or QUE had similar demographics and comorbidities. Adjusted regression results showed those who initiated PIM vs. Other-AAPs had significantly lower relative risk (RR) of ≥1 all-cause inpatient hospitalizations (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.97), ST-stays (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.95), SNF-stays (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68-0.92), and ER visits (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.84-0.94). PIM vs. QUE also experienced significantly lower RR for ≥1 all-cause IP hospitalizations (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.96), ST-stays (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77-0.95), SNF-stays (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.94), and ER visits (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.83-0.94).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients initiating PIM-monotherapy for PDP+D experienced 12% lower all-cause inpatient hospitalizations vs. Other-AAPs or QUE. These results are consistent with prior real-world research in PDP with or without dementia.</p>","PeriodicalId":16229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Economics","volume":" ","pages":"556-566"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","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/10.1080/13696998.2025.2487358","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pimavanserin (PIM) is the only FDA approved atypical antipsychotic treatment (AAP) for hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP) among patients with or without coexisting dementia; however, Other-AAPs (i.e. quetiapine (QUE), risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole) are commonly prescribed off-label. Healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) patterns among patients with PDP and coexisting dementia (PDP+D) who newly initiate PIM versus (vs.) Other-AAPs (i.e. other AAP-mix) or QUE in real-world settings is limited.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of Parts A, B, and D claims from the 100% Medicare sample from 04/01/15 to 12/31/21 was conducted. AAP-naïve patients with PDP+D who initiated ≥12-month continuous monotherapy with PIM vs. Other-AAPs or vs. QUE during 04/01/16-12/31/20 were propensity score matched 1:1 on thirty-one variables (age, sex, race, region and 27 Elixhauser comorbidity characteristics). Adjusted log binomial regressions compared all-cause HCRU [(e.g. inpatient hospitalizations and by hospitalization-type [short-term stays (ST-stays), long-term stays (LT-stays), skilled nursing facility stays (SNF-stays)], and emergency room (ER) visits] risk between cohorts.

Results: Of the 5,932 patients with PDP+D, matched cohorts (n = 1,294 in each) on continuous- monotherapy of PIM vs. Other-AAPs or QUE had similar demographics and comorbidities. Adjusted regression results showed those who initiated PIM vs. Other-AAPs had significantly lower relative risk (RR) of ≥1 all-cause inpatient hospitalizations (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.97), ST-stays (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.95), SNF-stays (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68-0.92), and ER visits (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.84-0.94). PIM vs. QUE also experienced significantly lower RR for ≥1 all-cause IP hospitalizations (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.96), ST-stays (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77-0.95), SNF-stays (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.94), and ER visits (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.83-0.94).

Conclusions: Patients initiating PIM-monotherapy for PDP+D experienced 12% lower all-cause inpatient hospitalizations vs. Other-AAPs or QUE. These results are consistent with prior real-world research in PDP with or without dementia.

帕金森病精神病和痴呆患者的医疗资源利用模式:美国医疗保险受益人与其他非典型抗精神病药物或喹硫平治疗的对比分析
背景:匹马万色林(PIM)是FDA批准的唯一一种非典型抗精神病药物(AAP),用于治疗伴有或不伴有痴呆的帕金森病精神病(PDP)患者的幻觉和妄想;然而,其他aap(即奎硫平(QUE),利培酮,奥氮平,阿立哌唑)通常在说明书外处方。在现实环境中,新开始PIM与其他aap(即其他aap混合)或QUE相比,PDP和共存痴呆(PDP + D)患者的医疗保健资源利用(HCRU)模式是有限的。方法:对2015年4月1日- 21年12月31日100%医保样本的A、B、D部分索赔进行回顾性分析。AAP-naïve PDP + D患者在2016年4月1日至2016年12月31日期间接受PIM与其他aaps或QUE连续单药治疗≥12个月,在31个变量(年龄、性别、种族、地区和27个Elixhauser合并症特征)上倾向评分为1:1匹配。调整对数二项回归比较了全因HCRU[例如,住院和按住院类型[短期住院(st -stay),长期住院(lt -stay),熟练护理设施住院(snf -stay)]和急诊室(ER)就诊]的风险。结果:在5932例PDP + D患者中,连续单药治疗PIM与其他aaps或QUE的匹配队列(n = 1294例)具有相似的人口统计学和合并症。调整后的回归结果显示,与其他aaps相比,开始PIM治疗的患者发生≥1次全因住院的相对风险(RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.97)、st -住院(RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.95)、snf -住院(RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68-0.92)和急诊就诊(RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.84-0.94)均显著降低。PIM与QUE在≥1次全因IP住院(RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.96)、st -stay (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77-0.95)、snf -stay (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.94)和ER就诊(RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.83-0.94)方面的RR也显著降低。结论:与其他aaps或QUE相比,PDP + D患者接受pim单药治疗的全因住院率降低了12%。这些结果与之前在PDP伴或不伴痴呆的现实世界研究一致。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信