US Integrated Delivery Networks Perspective on Economic Burden of Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Retrospective Matched-Cohort Study

Mindfulness-Enhanced Computerized Cognitive Training for Depression: An Integrative Review and Proposed Model Targeting the Cognitive Control and Default-Mode Networks

Depression is often associated with co-occurring neurocognitive deficits in executive function (EF), processing speed (PS) and emotion regulation (ER), which impact treatment response. Cognitive training targeting these capacities results in improved cognitive function and mood, demonstrating the relationship between cognition and affect, and shedding light on novel targets for cognitive-focused interventions. Computerized cognitive training (CCT) is one such new intervention, with evidence suggesting it may be effective as an adjunct treatment for depression. Parallel research suggests that mindfulness training improves depression via enhanced ER and augmentation of self-referential processes. CCT and mindfulness training both act on anti-correlated neural networks involved in EF and ER that are often dysregulated in depression—the cognitive control network (CCN) and default-mode network (DMN). After practicing CCT or mindfulness, downregulation of DMN activity and upregulation of CCN activity have been observed, associated with improvements in depression and cognition. As CCT is posited to improve depression via enhanced cognitive function and mindfulness via enhanced ER ability, the combination of both forms of training into mindfulness-enhanced CCT (MCCT) may act to improve depression more rapidly. MCCT is a biologically plausible adjunct intervention and theoretical model with the potential to further elucidate and target the causal mechanisms implicated in depressive symptomatology. As the combination of CCT and mindfulness has not yet been fully explored, this is an intriguing new frontier. The aims of this integrative review article are four-fold: (1) to briefly review the current evidence supporting the efficacy of CCT and mindfulness in improving depression; (2) to discuss the interrelated neural networks involved in depression, CCT and mindfulness; (3) to present a theoretical model demonstrating how MCCT may act to target these neural mechanisms; (4) to propose and discuss future directions for MCCT research for depression.

Economic burden of treatment-resistant depression among veterans in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Evidence is limited on the economic burden associated with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) among US veterans. We evaluated the economic burden among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with and without TRD, and those without MDD in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

METHODS

Three cohorts were identified using VHA claims data (01APR2014-31MAR2018). Patients with MDD (aged ≥18) who failed ≥2 antidepressant treatments of adequate dose and duration were defined as having TRD; patients with MDD not meeting this criterion constituted the non-TRD MDD cohort (index: first antidepressant claim). The non-MDD cohort included those without MDD diagnosis (index: randomly assigned). Patients with psychosis, schizophrenia, manic/bipolar disorder, or dementia in the 6-month pre-index period were excluded. Patients with non-TRD MDD and non-MDD were matched 1:1 to patients with TRD based on demographic characteristics (age, gender, race, index year). Health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs were analyzed during the post-index period using a negative binomial model and ordinary least squares regression model, respectively.

RESULTS

After 1:1 exact matching, 10,449 patients were included in each cohort (mean age: 48.9 years). Patients with TRD had higher per patient per year (PPPY) HRU than non-TRD MDD (all-cause inpatient visits: incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 1.70 [95% confidence interval: 1.57-1.83]) and non-MDD (IRR: 5.04 [95% confidence interval: 4.51-5.63]), and incurred higher total all-cause health care costs PPPY than non-TRD MDD (mean difference: $5,906) and non-MDD (mean difference: $11,873; all p<.0001).

CONCLUSION

Among US veterans, TRD poses a significant incremental economic burden relative to non-TRD MDD and non-MDD.

Evaluation of population-level pharmacogenetic actionability in Alabama

The evolution of evidence and availability of Clinical Pharmacogenetic Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines have enabled assessment of pharmacogenetic (PGx) actionability and clinical implementation. However, population‐level actionability is not well‐characterized. We leveraged the Alabama Genomic Health Initiative (AGHI) to evaluate population‐level PGx actionability. Participants (>18 years), representing all 67 Alabama counties, were genotyped using the Illumina Global Screening array. Using CPIC guidelines, actionability was evaluated using (1) genotype data and genetic ancestry, (2) prescribing data, and (3) combined genotype and medication data. Of 6,331 participants, 4230 had genotype data and 3386 had genotype and prescription data (76% women; 76% White/18% Black [self‐reported]). Genetic ancestry was concordant with self‐reported race. For CPIC level A genes, 98.6% had an actionable genotype (99.4% Blacks/African; 98.5% White/European). With the exception of DPYD and CYP2C19, the prevalence of actionable genotypes by gene differed significantly by race. Based on prescribing, actionability was highest for CYP2D6 (70.9%), G6PD (54.1%), CYP2C19 (53.5%), and CYP2C9 (47.5%). Among participants prescribed atenolol, carvedilol, or metoprolol, ~ 50% had an actionable ADRB1 genotype, associated with decreased therapeutic response, with higher actionability among Blacks compared to Whites (62.5% vs. 47.4%; p < 0.0001). Based on both genotype and prescribing frequencies, no significant differences in actionability were observed between men and women. This statewide effort highlights PGx population‐level impact to help optimize pharmacotherapy. Almost all Alabamians harbor an actionable genotype, and a significant proportion are prescribed affected medications. Statewide efforts, such as AGHI, lay the foundation for translational research and evaluate “real‐world” outcomes of PGx.

Cost-per-remitter with esketamine nasal spray versus standard of care for treatment-resistant depression

Aim: Estimate the cost-per-remitter with esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant (ESK + oral AD) versus oral AD plus nasal placebo (oral AD + PBO) among patients with treatment-resistant depression. Patients & methods: An Excel-based model was developed to estimate the cost-per-remitter for ESK + oral AD versus oral AD + PBO over 52 weeks from multiple US payer perspectives. Clinical end points and cost inputs were derived from clinical trials and the literature, respectively. Results: Under the base-case scenario, the cost-per-remitter for ESK + oral AD and oral AD + PBO were as follows: Commercial: US$85,808 versus US$100,198; Medicaid: US$76,236 versus US$96,067; Veteran's Affairs: US$77,765 versus US$104,519; and Integrated Delivery Network: US$103,924 versus US$142,766. Conclusion: The findings suggest that ESK + oral AD is a cost-efficient alternative treatment for treatment-resistant depression compared with oral AD + PBO.

A retrospective analysis to estimate the healthcare resource utilization and cost associated with treatment-resistant depression in commercially insured US patients

OBJECTIVE

The economic burden of commercially insured patients in the United States with treatment-resistant depression and patients with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder was compared using data from the Optum Clinformatics™ claims database.

METHODS

Patients 18-63 years on antidepressant treatment between 1/1/13 and 9/30/13, who had no treatment claims for depression 6 months before the index date (first antidepressant dispensing), and who had a major depressive disorder or depression diagnosis within 30 days of the index date, were included. Treatment-resistant depression was defined as receiving 3 antidepressant regimens during 1 major depressive disorder episode. Patients with treatment-resistant depression were matched with patients with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder at a 1:4 ratio using propensity score matching. The study consisted of 1-year baseline (pre-index) and 2-year follow-up (post index) periods. Cost outcomes were compared using a generalized linear model.

RESULTS

2,370 treatment-resistant depression and 9,289 non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder patients were included. In year 1 of the follow-up period, compared with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, patients with treatment-resistant depression had: more emergency department visits (odds ratio = 1.39, 95% confidence interval = 1.24-1.56); more inpatient hospitalizations (odds ratio = 1.73, 95% confidence interval = 1.46-2.05); longer hospital stays (mean difference vs non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder = 2.86, 95% confidence interval = 0.86-4.86 days); and more total healthcare costs (mean difference vs non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder = US$3,846, 95% confidence interval = $2,855-$4,928). These patterns remained consistent in year 2 of the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Treatment-resistant depression was associated with higher healthcare resource utilization and costs versus non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder in this commercially insured cohort of patients in the United States.

Economic Burden of Treatment-Resistant Depression in Privately Insured U.S. Patients with Physical Conditions

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the economic burden of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in patients with physical conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs, work loss days, and related costs in patients with TRD and physical conditions versus patients with the same conditions and non-TRD major depressive disorder (MDD) or without MDD.

METHODS

Adults aged < 65 years with MDD treated with antidepressants were identified in the OptumHealth Care Solutions database (July 2009-March 2017). Patients who received a diagnosis of MDD and initiated a third antidepressant regimen (index date) after 2 regimens of adequate dose and duration were defined as having TRD. Patients with non-TRD MDD and without MDD were assigned a random index date. Patients with < 6 months of continuous health plan eligibility pre- or post-index; a diagnosis of psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder/mania, dementia, and developmental disorders; and/or no baseline physical conditions (cardiovascular, metabolic, and respiratory disease or cancer) were excluded. Patients with TRD were matched 1:1 to each of the non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts based on propensity scores. Per patient per year HRU, costs, and work loss outcomes were compared up to 24 months post-index date using negative binominal and ordinary least square regressions.

RESULTS

A total of 2,317 patients with TRD (mean age, 47.6 years; 63.1%, female; mean follow-up, 19.7 months) had ≥ 1 co-occurring key physical condition (cardiovascular, 52.5%; metabolic, 48.2%; respiratory, 16.4%; and cancer, 9.5%). Relative to non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts, respectively, patients with TRD had 46% and 235% more inpatient admissions, 28% and 128% more emergency department visits, and 53% and 155% more outpatient visits (all P < 0.05). Health care costs were $22,541 in the TRD cohort, $17,450 in the non-TRD MDD cohort, and $10,047 in the non-MDD cohort, yielding cost differences of $5,091 (vs. non-TRD MDD) and $12,494 (vs. non-MDD; all P < 0.01). In patients with work loss data available (n = 278/cohort), those with TRD had 2.0 and 2.9 times more work loss as well as $8,676 and $10,323 higher work loss costs relative to those with non-TRD MDD and without MDD, respectively (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with physical conditions, those with TRD had higher HRU and health care costs, work loss days, and associated costs compared with non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts.

DISCLOSURES

This study was sponsored by Janssen Scientific Affairs (JSA), which was involved in all aspects of the research, including the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Joshi and Daly are employed by JSA. Zhdanava, Pilon, Rossi, Morrison, and Lefebvre are employees of Analysis Group, which received funding from JSA for conducting this study and has received consulting fees from Novartis Pharmaceuticals and GSK, unrelated to this study. Kuvadia is employed by Integrated Resources, which has provided research services to JSA unrelated to this study; Joshi reports past employment by and stock ownership in Johnson & Johnson; Nelson reports advisory board, data and safety monitoring board, and consulting fees from Assurex, Eisai, FSV-7, JSA, Lundbeck, Otsuka, and Sunovion and royalties from UpToDate, unrelated to this study. This work was presented at AMCP Nexus 2019, held in National Harbor, MD, from October 29 to November 1, 2019.

Use of home health and other healthcare delivery pathways among privately insured patients with and without treatment-resistant depression

Objective: To assess the real-world use of home health services (HHS) among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with and without treatment-resistant depression (TRD).Methods: Adults (18-64 years) from a commercial claims database (07/2009 to 03/2015) were categorized into three cohorts: "TRD"(N = 6411), "non-TRD MDD"(N = 33,068), "non-MDD"(N = 149,884) stratified based on use of HHS (HHS vs. no-HHS). Healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs were evaluated up to two years following the first antidepressant pharmacy claim using descriptive statistics. HRU (e.g. inpatient, outpatient, emergency department visits) and costs were measured per-patient-per-year (PPPY) in 2015 USD.Results: During the follow-up period, 18.0% of TRD, 12.4% of non-TRD MDD, and 6.5% of non-MDD patients received HHS. Mean all-cause healthcare costs PPPY were numerically higher among patients with HHS use. Among the TRD cohort, patients using HHS had healthcare costs of $40,040 PPPY while patients with TRD and no-HHS had healthcare costs of $12,272 PPPY. Within the non-TRD MDD cohort, HHS users incurred healthcare costs of $28,767 PPPY and non-HHS users incurred costs of $7227 PPPY. Patients without MDD who used HHS had annual healthcare costs of $22,340 while non-MDD patients who did not use HHS had healthcare costs of $3479 PPPY. However, among HHS users, HHS costs represented a relatively small proportion of total healthcare costs.Conclusions: The high proportion of TRD patients using HHS suggests it is a utilized healthcare delivery pathway by TRD patients.