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.
{"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 -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 (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).</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":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","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":"","PubModel":"","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 -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.
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