Hospitalization risks in the treatment of schizophrenia: comparison of antipsychotic medications

A systematic literature review of the clinical and health economic burden of schizophrenia in privately insured patients in the United States

Purpose

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review on the burden of schizophrenia in privately insured US patients.

Materials and methods

A systematic literature review of English language peer-reviewed journal articles of observational studies published from 2006 to 2016 was conducted using EMBASE/MEDLINE databases. Abstracts covering substantial numbers of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (i.e., N ≥ 100) were included for full-text review. Articles that did not clearly specify private insurance types were excluded.

Results

A total of 25 studies were reviewed; 10 included only privately insured patients; and 15 included a mix of different types of insurance. The review of the clinical burden of schizophrenia revealed the following: compared to patients with no mental disorders, those with schizophrenia had significantly increased odds of systemic disorders and both alcohol and substance abuse. Antipsychotic (AP) adherence was low, ranging from 31.5% to 68.7%. The medication possession ratio for AP adherence ranged from 0.22 to 0.73. The review of the health economic burden of schizophrenia revealed the following: patients with a recent (vs. chronic) diagnosis of schizophrenia had significantly higher frequencies of emergency department visits and hospitalizations and greater length of stay (LOS) and total annual per-capita costs. Mean all-cause hospitalizations and LOS decreased significantly after (vs. before) initiating long-acting injectable APs (LAIs). Patients also had significantly decreased mean all-cause, and schizophrenia-related, hospitalization costs after initiating LAIs. Total direct per-capita costs of care (but not pharmacy costs) for patients who were nonadherent to their oral APs within the first 90 days of their index event were significantly higher (vs. early adherent patients). Despite these potential benefits, only 0.25%–13.1% of patients were treated with LAIs across all studies.

Conclusion

Privately insured US patients with schizophrenia experience a substantial clinical and health economic burden related to comorbidities, acute care needs, nonadherence, and polypharmacy and have relatively low use of LAIs. Further study is warranted to understand prescribing patterns and clinical policies related to this patient population.

Hospitalization and cost after switching from atypical to typical antipsychotics in schizophrenia patients in Thailand

Background

Several clinical practice guidelines suggest using atypical over typical antipsychotics in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. Nevertheless, cost-containment policy urged restricting usage of atypical antipsychotics and switching from atypical to typical antipsychotics.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate clinical and economic impacts of switching from atypical to typical antipsychotics in schizophrenia patients in Thailand.

Methods

From October 2010 through September 2013, a retrospective cohort study was performed utilizing electronic database of two tertiary hospitals. Schizophrenia patients aged 18 years or older and being treated with atypical antipsychotics were included. Patients were classified as atypical antipsychotic switching group if they switched to typical antipsychotics after 180 days of continual atypical antipsychotics therapy. Outcomes were schizophrenia-related hospitalization and total health care cost. Logistic and Poisson regression were used to evaluate the risk of hospitalization, and generalized linear model with gamma distribution was used to determine the health care cost. All analyses were adjusted by employing propensity score and multivariable analyses. All cost estimates were adjusted according to 2013 consumer price index and converted to US$ at an exchange rate of 32.85 Thai bahts/US$.

Results

A total of 2,354 patients were included. Of them, 166 (7.1%) patients switched to typical antipsychotics. The adjusted odds ratio for schizophrenia-related hospitalization in atypical antipsychotic switching group was 1.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23–2.83). The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 2.44 (95% CI 1.57–3.79) for schizophrenia-related hospitalizations. The average total health care cost was lower in patients with antipsychotic switching (−$64; 95% CI −$459 to $332).

Conclusion

Switching from atypical to typical antipsychotics is associated with an increased risk of schizophrenia-related hospitalization. Nonetheless, association with average total health care cost was not observed. These findings can be of use as a part of evidence in executing prospective cost-containment policy.

Factors associated with hospitalisation of patients with schizophrenia in four European countries

PURPOSE

To analyse factors associated with hospitalisation in patients with schizophrenia from four European countries, and to investigate whether national specificities might have an impact on the profile of inpatients.

METHOD

A randomly selected sample of psychiatrists (N = 744), from Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain, collected data on the five last patients with schizophrenia they had seen in consultation (N = 3996).

RESULTS

High positive symptoms, lack of insight, not living with the family, frequent past episodes, addiction to illegal drugs, global severity, uncooperativeness and smoking were significantly associated with hospitalisation, with OR between 4.1 and 1.26. Nevertheless, only high positive symptoms from the PANSS and lack of insight were systematically detected in the four countries. Among different results, the weight of "not living with the family" had national specificities, as Germany was the only country where this factor played no role (OR = 0.94).

CONCLUSION

Although some factors such as positive symptoms are associated with hospitalisation in a very homogenous way throughout different countries, discrepancies were detected between countries, for "living with the family", "number of past acute relapses" and "uncooperativeness". Linking these specificities to national healthcare systems might be useful to promote access to care for all patients.

Prospective validation of eight different adherence measures for use with administrative claims data among patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the predictive validity of eight different adherence measures by studying the variability explained between each measure and hospitalization episodes among Medicaid-eligible persons diagnosed with schizophrenia on antipsychotic monotherapy.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of the Arkansas Medicaid administrative claims data. Continuously eligible adult schizophrenia (ICD-9-CM = 295.**) patients on antipsychotic monotherapy were identified in the recruitment period from July 2000 through April 2004. Adherence rates to antipsychotic therapy in year 1 were calculated using eight different measures identified from the literature. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to prospectively predict all-cause and mental health-related hospitalizations in the follow-up year.

RESULTS

Adherence rates were computed for 3395 schizophrenic patients with a mean age of 42.9 years, of which 52.5% (n = 1782) were females, and 52.8% (n = 1793) were white. The proportion of days covered (PDC) and continuous measure of medication gaps measures of adherence had equal C-statistics of 0.571 in predicting both all-cause and mental health-related hospitalizations. The medication possession ratio (MPR) continuous multiple interval measure of oversupply were the second best measures with equal C-statistics of 0.568 and 0.567 for any-cause and mental health-related hospitalizations. The multivariate adjusted models had higher C-statistics but provided the same rank order results.

CONCLUSIONS

MPR and PDC were among the best predictors of any-cause and mental health-related hospitalization, and are recommended as the preferred adherence measures when a single measure is sought for use with administrative claims data for patients not on polypharmacy.

Good and poor adherence: optimal cut-point for adherence measures using administrative claims data

OBJECTIVE

To identify the adherence value cut-off point that optimally stratifies good versus poor compliers using administratively derived adherence measures, the medication possession ratio (MPR) and the proportion of days covered (PDC) using hospitalization episode as the primary outcome among Medicaid eligible persons diagnosed with schizophrenia, diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure (CHF), or hyperlipidemia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of Arkansas Medicaid administrative claims data. Patients > or =18 years old had to have at least one ICD-9-CM code for the study diseases during the recruitment period July 2000 through April 2004 and be continuously eligible for 6 months prior and 24 months after their first prescription for the target condition. Adherence rates to disease-specific drug therapy were assessed during 1 year using MPR and PDC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE AND ANALYSIS SCHEME: The primary outcome measure was any-cause and disease-related hospitalization. Univariate logistic regression models were used to predict hospitalizations. The optimum adherence value was based on the adherence value that corresponded to the upper most left point of the ROC curve corresponding to the maximum specificity and sensitivity.

RESULTS

The optimal cut-off adherence value for the MPR and PDC in predicting any-cause hospitalization varied between 0.63 and 0.89 across the five cohorts. In predicting disease-specific hospitalization across the five cohorts, the optimal cut-off adherence values ranged from 0.58 to 0.85.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided an initial empirical basis for selecting 0.80 as a reasonable cut-off point that stratifies adherent and non-adherent patients based on predicting subsequent hospitalization across several highly prevalent chronic diseases. This cut-off point has been widely used in previous research and our findings suggest that it may be valid in these conditions; it is based on a single outcome measure, and additional research using these methods to identify adherence thresholds using other outcome metrics such as laboratory or physiologic measures, which may be more strongly related to adherence, is warranted.

Resource utilization and costs of schizophrenia patients treated with olanzapine versus quetiapine in a Medicaid population

OBJECTIVE

Compare annual health-care costs and resource utilization associated with olanzapine versus quetiapine for treating schizophrenia in a Medicaid population.

METHODS

Adult schizophrenia patients were selected from deidentified Pennsylvania Medicaid claims database (1999–2003). Included patients were continuously enrolled and initiated with olanzapine or quetiapine monotherapy after a 90-day washout period. Treatment costs were calculated for 1-year post-therapy initiation and inflation adjusted to year 2003. To control for selection bias, olanzapine and quetiapine patients were 1:1 matched using an optimal matching algorithm on propensity score, which was generated using logistic regression controlling for demographics, prior drug therapy, utilization, and costs. Treatment costs for the matched cohorts were compared directly, as well as using a difference-in-difference analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 6929 patients treated with olanzapine and 2321 with quetiapine met inclusion criteria. Quetiapine patients appeared more severe at baseline. After propensity score matching, 2321 patient pairs had similar baseline characteristics, including total costs. Compared with matched quetiapine patients, for the 1-year postindex period, olanzapine patients had similar drug costs ($6131 vs. $6014, P = 0.326), lower medical costs ($9897 vs. $11,218, P = 0.0128), and lower total health-care costs ($16,028 vs. $17,232, P = 0.0279). Lower psychiatric hospitalization costs account for most of the total cost difference. Difference-in-difference regression analysis confirmed olanzapine's economic advantage. Further adjusting for baseline variations, the total cost advantage of olanzapine patients was $962 (P = 0.032), and was mostly because of reduced psychiatric hospitalization costs of $992 (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Schizophrenia patients treated with olanzapine had lower total costs than quetiapine patients, mostly attributable to reductions in psychiatric hospitalization costs.

Dose trends for second-generation antipsychotic treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic dosing used in clinical practice can differ from dosing originally recommended in product labeling. This has been reported for olanzapine and quetiapine, where higher doses are commonly used. This may be the case for ziprasidone as well.

METHOD

To characterize changes over time in dosing for the initial and subsequent prescriptions of first-line second-generation antipsychotics used during treatment episodes for outpatients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, the 2001-2005 Thomson MarketScan Medicaid Database (Medicaid) and the 2001-2006 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database (Commercial) were analyzed. Dose trends were evaluated using autoregressive time-series models.

RESULTS

Data were available for 49180 treatment episodes of schizophrenia (4683 Commercial and 44497 Medicaid) and 83289 treatment episodes of bipolar disorder (57961 Commercial and 25328 Medicaid). The initial prescription mean daily and overall mean daily doses of ziprasidone in schizophrenia episodes significantly increased across the Medicaid and Commercial populations, with similar trends observed for bipolar episodes. The first (May 2001) and last (December 2005) observed 3-month mean daily doses for ziprasidone were 112 mg/d and 138 mg/d for patients with schizophrenia and 93 mg/d and 113 mg/d for those with bipolar disorder in the Medicaid cohort, with similar findings for the Commercial cohort. Consistently significant trends in dose changes were not observed for the other medications, although quetiapine and olanzapine doses generally increased while aripiprazole and risperidone doses generally decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

There remains a need for controlled randomized clinical trials that test fixed doses of antipsychotics to ascertain the dose-response relationship within the dose range used in contemporary clinical practice.

Predictors of the course of illness in outpatients with schizophrenia: a prospective three year study

The course of schizophrenia includes a combination of periods of remission and relapse. Previous studies focused on simple dichotomous outcomes and did not take into account the complexity of the course. Using data from a large 3-year follow-up study of schizophrenia, we described the different courses of schizophrenia. Of the 5950 patients with complete 3-year data, 38.7% never achieved remission (prolonged course), 15.7% achieved remission but relapsed and 45.7% achieved and maintained remission (persistent remission). Females, patients with better social functioning at baseline (living independently, in paid employment, socially active or having a spouse or partner) and with a shorter duration of illness had a more favourable course. Patients prescribed risperidone, quetiapine or depot typicals at the baseline visit were more likely to have a prolonged course than patients who started olanzapine. The results show that description of the long-term outcome of schizophrenia cannot be summarized with just one outcome variable.

A pharmacoeconomic analysis of atypical antipsychotics and haloperidol in first-episode schizophrenic patients in taiwan

The study prospectively examined the economic outcomes and co-medications among first-episode schizophrenic patients treated with monotherapy of second-generation antipsychotic agents (SGAs) continuously as compared with each other and with haloperidol. The sample included 3047 out of Taiwan's national sample of 29,341 first-episode schizophrenic patients, who were selected, based on International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision code 295, from the National Health Insurance original claims data from 1999 to 2004. They were treated with only 1 of the following antipsychotic agents: haloperidol (n = 526), clozapine (n = 224), risperidone (n = 827), olanzapine (n = 824), zotepine (n = 286), or quetiapine (n = 360), without changing antipsychotics during the observation for at least 1 year (mean, 1.80 years; SD, 0.93 years) for each subject. Economic outcomes included clinic visits, prescription days, frequencies and duration of hospitalizations, and total and separate treatment costs (outpatient department- and hospital-related costs). Co-medications included use of anticholinergic, anxiolytic, hypnotic/sedative, and antidepressant agents. Patients treated with SGAs had lower number and shorter durations of hospitalizations than did haloperidol-treated patients, except for the clozapine group. Olanzapine was associated with the lowest hospitalization rates per year (mean, 1.63 vs 2.83). In terms of cost, haloperidol was more expensive in total hospitalization expenses (mean, US $3215 per year) and total treatment cost (mean, $3769 per year) than olanzapine, zotepine, or quetiapine. In general, there was no difference among the haloperidol and SGA groups in terms of rates of co-medications. The reduced number of hospitalizations and then lower total hospitalization costs seem to be more than the offset of high medication acquisition costs of SGAs.

How effective is it to sequentially switch among Olanzapine, Quetiapine and Risperidone?--A randomized, open-label study of algorithm-based antipsychotic treatment to patients with symptomatic schizophrenia in the real-world clinical setting

RATIONALE

Evidence on sequential trial with atypical antipsychotics has been scarce.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted an algorithm-based antipsychotic pharmacotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this open-label study, patients with schizophrenia (DSM-IV) were treated with antipsychotic monotherapy, step-by-step, with each trial lasting up to 8 weeks. At baseline, they were highly symptomatic to score more than 54 in the total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS(1-7)) score. When the posttreatment BPRS score was above 70% of the baseline, they were subsequently treated with another and up to three atypicals. Basically, anticholinergics were prohibited, and only adjunctive allowed was lorazepam. The secondary endpoint was a clinical status good enough to be discharged for 66 inpatients and a successful continuation therapy with the same antipsychotic agent for more than 6 months for 12 outpatients.

RESULTS

Three groups of 26 patients each were randomized to Olanzapine, Quetiapine, or Risperidone. Thirty-nine (50%) responded to the first agent (Olanzapine16, Quetiapine9, Risperidone14), and 14 responded to the second. Only two showed response to the third, and 16 failed to respond to all three antipsychotics, with only 7 dropouts. Overall, there were 22 Olanzapine, 14 Quetiapine, and 19 Risperidone responders. Based on the secondary outcome, 20 Olanzapine-treated (average maximum dose, 15.4 mg), 10 Quetiapine-treated (418 mg), and 20 Risperidone-treated (4.10 mg) patients responded. The difference in response as the first choice was significant (p < 0.05). Relative doses of those failing to respond were comparable (Olanzapine 18.3 mg, Quetiapine 564 mg, Risperidone5.47 mg). Extrapyramidal symptoms did not change significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

When the first atypical antipsychotic is inadequate, switching to the second is worth trying, although some remain treatment-refractory. Quetiapine may be inferior to Olanzapine and Risperidone in symptomatic patients.