患有帕金森病精神病的疗养院居民的医疗资源利用情况:对接受匹马韦色林或其他非典型抗精神病药物治疗的医疗保险受益人的分析。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Krithika Rajagopalan, Nazia Rashid, Daksha Gopal, Dilesh Doshi
{"title":"患有帕金森病精神病的疗养院居民的医疗资源利用情况:对接受匹马韦色林或其他非典型抗精神病药物治疗的医疗保险受益人的分析。","authors":"Krithika Rajagopalan, Nazia Rashid, Daksha Gopal, Dilesh Doshi","doi":"10.57264/cer-2024-0038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Real-world healthcare resource use (HCRU) burden among patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP) treated with pimavanserin (PIM) versus other atypical antipsychotics (other-AAPs) including quetiapine (QUE) in long term care (LTC) and nursing home (NH) settings are lacking. This analysis examines HCRU differences among residents in LTC/NH settings who initiate PIM versus QUE or other-AAPs. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective analysis of LTC/NH residents with PDP from the 100% Medicare claims between 1 April 2015 and 31 December 2021 was conducted. Treatment-naive residents who initiated ≥6 months continuous monotherapy with PIM or QUE or other-AAPs between 04/01/16 and 06/30/2021 were propensity score matched (PSM) 1:1 using 31 variables (age, sex, race, region and 27 Elixhauser comorbidity characteristics). Post-index (i.e., 6 months) HCRU outcomes included: proportion of residents with ≥1 all-cause inpatient (IP) hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits. HCRU differences were assessed via log binomial regression and reported as relative risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals after controlling for dementia, insomnia and index year. <b>Results:</b> From a total of PIM (n = 1827), QUE (n = 7770) or other-AAPs (n = 9557), 1:1 matched sample (n = 1827) in each cohort were selected. All-cause IP hospitalizations (PIM [29.8%]) versus QUE [36.7%]) and ER visits (PIM [47.3%] versus QUE [55.8%]), respectively, were significantly lower for PIM. PIM versus QUE cohort also had significantly lower RR for all-cause IP hospitalizations and ER visits, respectively, (IP hospitalizations RR: 0.82 [0.75. 0.9]; ER visits RR: 0.85 [0.8. 0.9]). PIM versus other-AAPs also had lower likelihood of HCRU outcomes. <b>Conclusion:</b> In this analysis, LTC/NH residents on PIM monotherapy (versus QUE) had a lower likelihood of all-cause hospitalizations (18%) and ER (15%) visits. In this setting, PIM also had lower likelihood of all-cause HCRU versus other-AAPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e240038"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11225156/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Healthcare resource utilization among nursing home residents with Parkinson's disease psychosis: an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries treated with pimavanserin or other-atypical antipsychotics.\",\"authors\":\"Krithika Rajagopalan, Nazia Rashid, Daksha Gopal, Dilesh Doshi\",\"doi\":\"10.57264/cer-2024-0038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Real-world healthcare resource use (HCRU) burden among patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP) treated with pimavanserin (PIM) versus other atypical antipsychotics (other-AAPs) including quetiapine (QUE) in long term care (LTC) and nursing home (NH) settings are lacking. This analysis examines HCRU differences among residents in LTC/NH settings who initiate PIM versus QUE or other-AAPs. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective analysis of LTC/NH residents with PDP from the 100% Medicare claims between 1 April 2015 and 31 December 2021 was conducted. Treatment-naive residents who initiated ≥6 months continuous monotherapy with PIM or QUE or other-AAPs between 04/01/16 and 06/30/2021 were propensity score matched (PSM) 1:1 using 31 variables (age, sex, race, region and 27 Elixhauser comorbidity characteristics). Post-index (i.e., 6 months) HCRU outcomes included: proportion of residents with ≥1 all-cause inpatient (IP) hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits. HCRU differences were assessed via log binomial regression and reported as relative risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals after controlling for dementia, insomnia and index year. <b>Results:</b> From a total of PIM (n = 1827), QUE (n = 7770) or other-AAPs (n = 9557), 1:1 matched sample (n = 1827) in each cohort were selected. All-cause IP hospitalizations (PIM [29.8%]) versus QUE [36.7%]) and ER visits (PIM [47.3%] versus QUE [55.8%]), respectively, were significantly lower for PIM. PIM versus QUE cohort also had significantly lower RR for all-cause IP hospitalizations and ER visits, respectively, (IP hospitalizations RR: 0.82 [0.75. 0.9]; ER visits RR: 0.85 [0.8. 0.9]). PIM versus other-AAPs also had lower likelihood of HCRU outcomes. <b>Conclusion:</b> In this analysis, LTC/NH residents on PIM monotherapy (versus QUE) had a lower likelihood of all-cause hospitalizations (18%) and ER (15%) visits. In this setting, PIM also had lower likelihood of all-cause HCRU versus other-AAPs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e240038\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11225156/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0038\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0038","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在长期护理(LTC)和疗养院(NH)环境中,帕金森病精神病(PDP)患者接受皮马万赛林(PIM)治疗与包括喹硫平(QUE)在内的其他非典型抗精神病药物(其他 AAPs)治疗的实际医疗资源使用(HCRU)负担尚不明确。本分析研究了 LTC/NH 机构中使用 PIM 与使用 QUE 或其他抗精神病药物的住院患者之间的 HCRU 差异。方法:从 2015 年 4 月 1 日至 2021 年 12 月 31 日期间的 100%医疗保险索赔中,对患有 PDP 的 LTC/NH 居民进行了回顾性分析。使用 31 个变量(年龄、性别、种族、地区和 27 个 Elixhauser 合并症特征)对在 16 年 1 月 4 日至 2021 年 6 月 30 日期间开始使用 PIM 或 QUE 或其他-AAPs 连续单药治疗≥6 个月的未接受治疗的住院患者进行倾向得分 1:1 匹配(PSM)。索引后(即 6 个月)的 HCRU 结果包括:全因住院(IP)和急诊室(ER)就诊次数≥1 次的居民比例。通过对数二项式回归评估 HCRU 差异,并在控制痴呆、失眠和指数年后以相对风险比 (RR) 和 95% 置信区间的形式报告。结果从 PIM(n = 1827)、QUE(n = 7770)或其他-AAPs(n = 9557)中选取了每个队列中的 1:1 匹配样本(n = 1827)。全因 IP 住院率(PIM [29.8%] 对 QUE [36.7%])和急诊室就诊率(PIM [47.3%] 对 QUE [55.8%])分别显著低于 PIM。PIM 与 QUE 队列相比,全因 IP 住院率和急诊就诊率也分别明显较低(IP 住院率 RR:0.82 [0.75. 0.9];急诊就诊率 RR:0.85 [0.8. 0.9])。PIM与其他AAP相比,出现HCRU结果的可能性也更低。结论在这项分析中,接受 PIM 单一疗法(相对于 QUE)的 LTC/NH 居民全因住院(18%)和急诊室就诊(15%)的可能性较低。在这种情况下,PIM 与其他抗逆转录病毒药物相比,发生全因 HCRU 的可能性也更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Healthcare resource utilization among nursing home residents with Parkinson's disease psychosis: an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries treated with pimavanserin or other-atypical antipsychotics.

Aim: Real-world healthcare resource use (HCRU) burden among patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP) treated with pimavanserin (PIM) versus other atypical antipsychotics (other-AAPs) including quetiapine (QUE) in long term care (LTC) and nursing home (NH) settings are lacking. This analysis examines HCRU differences among residents in LTC/NH settings who initiate PIM versus QUE or other-AAPs. Methods: A retrospective analysis of LTC/NH residents with PDP from the 100% Medicare claims between 1 April 2015 and 31 December 2021 was conducted. Treatment-naive residents who initiated ≥6 months continuous monotherapy with PIM or QUE or other-AAPs between 04/01/16 and 06/30/2021 were propensity score matched (PSM) 1:1 using 31 variables (age, sex, race, region and 27 Elixhauser comorbidity characteristics). Post-index (i.e., 6 months) HCRU outcomes included: proportion of residents with ≥1 all-cause inpatient (IP) hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits. HCRU differences were assessed via log binomial regression and reported as relative risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals after controlling for dementia, insomnia and index year. Results: From a total of PIM (n = 1827), QUE (n = 7770) or other-AAPs (n = 9557), 1:1 matched sample (n = 1827) in each cohort were selected. All-cause IP hospitalizations (PIM [29.8%]) versus QUE [36.7%]) and ER visits (PIM [47.3%] versus QUE [55.8%]), respectively, were significantly lower for PIM. PIM versus QUE cohort also had significantly lower RR for all-cause IP hospitalizations and ER visits, respectively, (IP hospitalizations RR: 0.82 [0.75. 0.9]; ER visits RR: 0.85 [0.8. 0.9]). PIM versus other-AAPs also had lower likelihood of HCRU outcomes. Conclusion: In this analysis, LTC/NH residents on PIM monotherapy (versus QUE) had a lower likelihood of all-cause hospitalizations (18%) and ER (15%) visits. In this setting, PIM also had lower likelihood of all-cause HCRU versus other-AAPs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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