Lisa Harding, Maryia Zhdanava, Aditi Shah, Jacqueline Pesa, Todor I Totev, Anabelle Tardif-Samson, Dominic Pilon, Kruti Joshi
{"title":"根据医保计划预先授权标准的严格程度了解耐药抑郁症患者的情况,以便批准使用埃斯卡他敏鼻腔喷雾剂。","authors":"Lisa Harding, Maryia Zhdanava, Aditi Shah, Jacqueline Pesa, Todor I Totev, Anabelle Tardif-Samson, Dominic Pilon, Kruti Joshi","doi":"10.1080/03007995.2024.2380743","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In the United States (US), prescription drug coverage is subject to prior authorization (PA) criteria, which may vary between health plans and may exceed drug label requirements. This study aimed to characterize profiles and treatment history of patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) who initiated esketamine nasal spray, by stringency of their health plans' PA criteria relative to the esketamine label.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults with evidence of TRD (≥2 antidepressant courses of adequate dose and duration) prior to initiating esketamine were identified using US insurance claims data (03/2016-02/2022). Based on health plan PA criteria for esketamine obtained from Managed Markets Insight & Technology data (05/2020-02/2022), patients were grouped into stringent (PA criteria exceeds label) and non-stringent (PA criteria less stringent or equal to label) cohorts. Patient treatment history before esketamine initiation was compared using Wilcoxon rank sum and Fisher's exact tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The stringent cohort included 168 patients (mean age: 45 years, 63% female) and the non-stringent cohort included 400 patients (mean age: 45 years, 70% female). During the ongoing major depressive episode before esketamine initiation, the stringent versus non-stringent cohort completed 3.9 versus 3.8 antidepressant treatment courses, on average (<i>p</i> = 0.217); 94.6% versus 96.8% used augmentation therapy (<i>p</i> = 0.240), including 59.3% versus 58.1% with an antipsychotic (<i>p</i> = 0.844), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Regardless of health plan stringency, on average, patients exceeded US label-mandated number of antidepressant trials before esketamine initiation, which questions the need for health insurance plans PA criteria above label.</p>","PeriodicalId":10814,"journal":{"name":"Current Medical Research and Opinion","volume":" ","pages":"1615-1623"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding profiles of patients with treatment-resistant depression by stringency of health plan prior authorization criteria for approval of esketamine nasal spray.\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Harding, Maryia Zhdanava, Aditi Shah, Jacqueline Pesa, Todor I Totev, Anabelle Tardif-Samson, Dominic Pilon, Kruti Joshi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03007995.2024.2380743\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In the United States (US), prescription drug coverage is subject to prior authorization (PA) criteria, which may vary between health plans and may exceed drug label requirements. This study aimed to characterize profiles and treatment history of patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) who initiated esketamine nasal spray, by stringency of their health plans' PA criteria relative to the esketamine label.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults with evidence of TRD (≥2 antidepressant courses of adequate dose and duration) prior to initiating esketamine were identified using US insurance claims data (03/2016-02/2022). Based on health plan PA criteria for esketamine obtained from Managed Markets Insight & Technology data (05/2020-02/2022), patients were grouped into stringent (PA criteria exceeds label) and non-stringent (PA criteria less stringent or equal to label) cohorts. Patient treatment history before esketamine initiation was compared using Wilcoxon rank sum and Fisher's exact tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The stringent cohort included 168 patients (mean age: 45 years, 63% female) and the non-stringent cohort included 400 patients (mean age: 45 years, 70% female). During the ongoing major depressive episode before esketamine initiation, the stringent versus non-stringent cohort completed 3.9 versus 3.8 antidepressant treatment courses, on average (<i>p</i> = 0.217); 94.6% versus 96.8% used augmentation therapy (<i>p</i> = 0.240), including 59.3% versus 58.1% with an antipsychotic (<i>p</i> = 0.844), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Regardless of health plan stringency, on average, patients exceeded US label-mandated number of antidepressant trials before esketamine initiation, which questions the need for health insurance plans PA criteria above label.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10814,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Medical Research and Opinion\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1615-1623\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Medical Research and Opinion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2024.2380743\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Medical Research and Opinion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2024.2380743","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Understanding profiles of patients with treatment-resistant depression by stringency of health plan prior authorization criteria for approval of esketamine nasal spray.
Objectives: In the United States (US), prescription drug coverage is subject to prior authorization (PA) criteria, which may vary between health plans and may exceed drug label requirements. This study aimed to characterize profiles and treatment history of patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) who initiated esketamine nasal spray, by stringency of their health plans' PA criteria relative to the esketamine label.
Methods: Adults with evidence of TRD (≥2 antidepressant courses of adequate dose and duration) prior to initiating esketamine were identified using US insurance claims data (03/2016-02/2022). Based on health plan PA criteria for esketamine obtained from Managed Markets Insight & Technology data (05/2020-02/2022), patients were grouped into stringent (PA criteria exceeds label) and non-stringent (PA criteria less stringent or equal to label) cohorts. Patient treatment history before esketamine initiation was compared using Wilcoxon rank sum and Fisher's exact tests.
Results: The stringent cohort included 168 patients (mean age: 45 years, 63% female) and the non-stringent cohort included 400 patients (mean age: 45 years, 70% female). During the ongoing major depressive episode before esketamine initiation, the stringent versus non-stringent cohort completed 3.9 versus 3.8 antidepressant treatment courses, on average (p = 0.217); 94.6% versus 96.8% used augmentation therapy (p = 0.240), including 59.3% versus 58.1% with an antipsychotic (p = 0.844), respectively.
Conclusions: Regardless of health plan stringency, on average, patients exceeded US label-mandated number of antidepressant trials before esketamine initiation, which questions the need for health insurance plans PA criteria above label.
期刊介绍:
Current Medical Research and Opinion is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international journal for the rapid publication of original research on new and existing drugs and therapies, Phase II-IV studies, and post-marketing investigations. Equivalence, safety and efficacy/effectiveness studies are especially encouraged. Preclinical, Phase I, pharmacoeconomic, outcomes and quality of life studies may also be considered if there is clear clinical relevance