Comparison of health-related quality of life among patients using atypical antipsychotics for treatment of depression: results from the National Health and Wellness Survey

Exploring humanistic burden of fatigue in adults with multiple sclerosis: an analysis of US National Health and Wellness Survey data

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study examined the humanistic burden of fatigue in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), compared with adults without MS, using data from the 2017 and 2019 US National Health and Wellness Survey.

METHODS

The 5-item Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS-5) was used to assess level of fatigue (MFIS-5 score <15: low fatigue [LF]; MFIS-5 score ≥15: high fatigue [HF]) in patients with RRMS. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures (Short Form 36-Item Health Survey version 2, Euroqol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels [EQ-5D-5L], Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9], Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7], Perceived Deficits Questionnaire-5) and treatment-related characteristics were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 498 respondents were identified as RRMS (n=375 RRMS+LF, n=123 RRMS+HF) and compared with 1,494 matched non-MS controls. RRMS+LF and RRMS+HF had significantly lower Short Form 6 Dimensions health utility, Mental and Physical Component Summary, and EQ-5D-5L scores and higher PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores, compared with matched non-MS controls (all p<0.001); scores were worse for RRMS+HF than RRMS+LF across all measures (all p<0.001). A higher proportion of RRMS+HF reported moderate-to-severe depression and moderate-to-severe anxiety, compared with RRMS+LF and matched non-MS controls (both p<0.001). Fatigue was a significant predictor of poor HRQoL across all measures (all p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with RRMS experienced lower HRQoL with higher levels of fatigue, highlighting an unmet need. Results may help to inform physician-patient communication and shared decision-making to address fatigue and its associated impact on patients' HRQoL.

Predictors of Quality of Life Improvement with Escitalopram and Adjunctive Aripiprazole in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: A CAN-BIND Study Report

BACKGROUND

Non-response to first-line treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) is common; for such individuals, quality of life (QoL) impairments can be severe. Identifying predictors of QoL changes may support the management of cases with persistent depressive symptoms despite adequate initial pharmacological/psychological treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to explore predictors of domain-specific QoL improvement following adjunctive aripiprazole treatment for inadequate response to initial antidepressant therapy.

METHODS

We evaluated secondary QoL outcomes from a CAN-BIND (Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression) study in patients with MDD who did not respond to an initial 8 weeks of escitalopram and received a further 8 weeks of adjunctive aripiprazole (n = 96). Physical, psychological, social, and environmental QoL domains were assessed using the World Health Organization QoL Scale Brief Version (WHOQOL-BREF). Clinician-rated depressive symptoms were assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Functioning was measured with the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Satisfaction with medication was assessed with a single item from the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF). Exploratory t-tests were used to describe domain score changes. A hierarchical linear regression was used to explore demographic, clinical, and treatment-related predictors of improvement.

RESULTS

Across domains, QoL improved with adjunctive aripiprazole treatment. Satisfaction with medication and MADRS and SDS scores similarly improved. Symptom reduction was a predictor for positive change to physical and psychological QoL; functioning improvements were predictive of increases to all QoL domains. Satisfaction with medication predicted improvements to physical and psychological domains, whereas number of medication trials was a predictor of worsening QoL in the physical domain.

CONCLUSION

The final model explained the most variance in psychological (68%) and physical (67%) QoL. Less variance was explained for environmental (43%) and social QoL (33%), highlighting a need for further exploration of predictors in these domains. Strategies such as functional remediation may have potential to support QoL for individuals with persistent depressive symptoms.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT016557.

Impacts on Quality of Life with Escitalopram Monotherapy and Aripiprazole Augmentation in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: A CAN-BIND Report

INTRODUCTION

Many individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not respond to initial antidepressant monotherapy. Adjunctive aripiprazole is recommended for treatment non-response; however, the impacts on quality of life (QoL) for individuals who receive this second-line treatment strategy have not been described.

METHODS

We evaluated secondary QoL outcomes in patients with MDD (n=179). After 8 weeks of escitalopram, non-responders (<50% decrease in clinician-rated depression) were treated with adjunctive aripiprazole for 8 weeks (n=97); responders continued escitalopram (n=82). A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated change in Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Short Form scores. QoL was described relative to normative benchmarks.

RESULTS

Escitalopram responders experienced the most QoL improvements in the first treatment phase. For non-responders, QoL improved with a large effect during adjunctive aripiprazole treatment. At the endpoint, 47% of patients achieving symptomatic remission still had impaired QoL.

DISCUSSION

Individuals who were treated with adjunctive aripiprazole after non-response to escitalopram experienced improved QoL, but a substantial degree of QoL impairment persisted. Since QoL deficits may predict MDD recurrence, attention to ways to support this outcome is required.

My Migraine Voice survey: disease impact on healthcare resource utilization, personal and working life in Finland

BACKGROUND

A global My Migraine Voice survey was conducted in 31 countries among 11,266 adults who suffered from ≥4 monthly migraine days (MMD). The aim of this retrospective observational survey-based study was to analyse the country specific results in Finland in order to understand the impact of migraine based on disease severity.

METHODS

The included participants (3%, n = 338/11,266) were stratified by mean MMDs into 4 ≤ MMD < 8 (n = 133), 8 ≤ MMD < 15 (n = 139) and MMD ≥ 15 (n = 66) subgroups. Comorbidities, migraine-related emotional burden and impact on daily living and work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) were assessed. Subgroup analysis on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) due to migraine was assessed by visits to healthcare practitioners (HCPs) during the past 6 months and by hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits during the past 12 months. The group difference was tested using the one-way ANOVA and for categorical variables using the Chi-squared test. The association between HCRU and MMD and number of comorbidities was assessed using negative binomial regression analysis.

RESULTS

Mean age was 44 years, 93% were women and 67% (n = 227) were employed. Chronic migraine (CM, MMD ≥ 15) was reported in 19.5% of the respondents. The negative impact on daily functioning and emotional burden increased significantly by migraine frequency. Mean number of comorbidities was 2.4, and mean number of HCP visits during the previous 6 months was 5.9. Increase in migraine frequency and comorbidities was associated with higher HCRU. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents reported negative impact on working life and 52% experienced overall work productivity impairment. Over previous month, the mean number of missed working days for all respondents was 2.8 days of which 54% were paid sick leave days, and in CM up to 6.0 days and 30%, respectively. Both absenteeism and presenteeism were higher in the CM group.

CONCLUSIONS

The emotional and functional burden was high, and the societal burden increased by frequency and severity of migraine, as shown by higher HCRU and reduced work productivity. There is a need to improve quality of care in migraine and improve migraine management related issues in both healthcare and society in Finland.

TARC: Turkish aripiprazole consensus report- Aripiprazole use and switching from other antipsychotics to aripiprazole- consensus recommendations by a Turkish multidisciplinary panel

In this review, we have attempted to share our 10 years' clinical experience with aripiprazole use and switching from other antipsychotics to aripiprazole. There are various reasons for switching, including a partial or complete lack of efficacy, adverse side effects, and partial or noncompliance with medication. Aripiprazole has some unique receptor-binding qualities that provides some advantages over other antipsychotics in certain clinical situations. We have covered potential clinical scenarios for aripiprazole use as a single agent and switching from other agents in inpatient and outpatient settings. Patients switched from other antipsychotics to aripiprazole have been shown to benefit from significant improvements in clinical response and tolerability. This review examines the strategies for switching patients from antipsychotic drugs to aripiprazole.

Patients' perspective on the burden of migraine in Europe: a cross-sectional analysis of survey data in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom

Background

Migraine is a distinct neurological disease that imposes a significant burden on patients, society, and the healthcare system. This study aimed to characterize the incremental burden of migraine in individuals who suffer from ≥4 monthly headache days (MHDs) by examining health-related quality of life (HRQoL), impairments to work productivity and daily activities, and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in the EU5 (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom).

Methods

This retrospective cross-sectional study used data from the 2016 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS; N = 80,600). Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey, version 2 (SF-36v2) physical and mental component summary scores (PCS and MCS), Short-form-6D (SF-6D), and EuroQoL (EQ-5D), impairments to work productivity and daily activities (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), and HRU were compared between migraine respondents suffering from ≥4 MHDs (n = 218) and non-migraine controls (n = 218) by propensity score matching using sociodemographic characteristics. Chi-square, T-tests, and Mann-Whitney tests were performed to determine significant differences between the groups after propensity score matching.

Results

HRQoL was lower in migraine individuals suffering from ≥4 MHDs compared with non-migraine controls, with reduced SF-36v2 PCS (46.00 vs 50.51) and MCS (37.69 vs 44.82), SF-6D health state utility score (0.62 vs 0.71), and EQ-5D score (0.68 vs 0.81) (for all, p < 0.001). Respondents with migraine suffering from ≥4 MHDs also reported higher levels of absenteeism from work (14.43% vs 9.46%; p = 0.001), presenteeism (35.52% vs 20.97%), overall work impairment (38.70% vs 23.27%), and activity impairment (44.17% vs 27.75%) than non-migraine controls (for all, p < 0.001). Additionally, HRU was significantly higher for individuals with ≥4 MHDs compared to their matched controls. Consistently, migraine subgroups (4–7 MHDs, 8–14 MHDs and CM) had lower HRQoL, greater overall work and activity impairment, and higher HRU compared to non-migraine controls.

Conclusions

Migraine of ≥4 MHDs was associated with poorer HRQoL, greater work productivity loss, and higher HRU compared with non-migraine controls. The findings of the study suggest that an unmet need exists among individuals suffering from ≥4 MHDs in the EU5 suggesting the need for effective prophylactic treatments to lessen the humanistic and economic burden of migraine.

Erectile dysfunction with or without coexisting benign prostatic hyperplasia in the general US population: analysis of US National Health and Wellness Survey

OBJECTIVE

Erectile dysfunction (ED) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) commonly affect older men. There is limited epidemiology information on coexisting ED and BPH. This study assessed self-reported prevalence of ED with or without a diagnosis of BPH (ED/DxBPH versus ED only) in US men.

METHODS

Men ≥40 years old, who reported experiencing ED in the past 6 months with or without a diagnosis of BPH, were identified from the nationally representative 2011 US National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) - a cross-sectional, self-administered online survey. Unpaired t-tests were used to compare characteristics between ED-only and ED/DxBPH populations.

RESULTS

The prevalence of ED only and ED/DxBPH was 24.6% and 4.9% (mean ages of 60 and 68 years, respectively). About two-thirds of those with ED only and ED/DxBPH reported speaking to their physician about ED. About 23% of either group reported currently using ED medication and 11.7% of men with ED only were prescribed ED medication by a urologist, compared to 31.1% with ED/DxBPH. Approximately 51.7% of men with ED/DxBPH were taking BPH medication. Overall, 37.3% of men with ED only and 74.6% with ED/DxBPH reported moderate-to-severe urinary symptoms on the American Urological Association-Symptom Index (AUA-SI ≥8).

CONCLUSION

While self-reported ED is common, few men with ED in the US population report being diagnosed with BPH. The majority of ED only and ED/DxBPH men reported speaking to a physician about ED; however, few reported currently taking ED medication. A majority of men with ED/DxBPH reported an AUA-SI score ≥8, but only half reported taking BPH medications. Thus, although men are experiencing erectile or urinary symptoms, many remain untreated. A limitation of this study is that symptoms and diagnosis were self-reported and may not reflect how these conditions are diagnosed in a healthcare setting; however, patient self-report provides a unique perspective on the burden associated with these conditions.

Medical costs and hospitalizations among patients with depression treated with adjunctive atypical antipsychotic therapy: an analysis of health insurance claims data

BACKGROUND

Depression is frequently debilitating. The American Psychiatric Association recommends adjunctive atypical antipsychotics as a treatment option when response to antidepressants is inadequate.

OBJECTIVE

To compare medical costs and hospitalizations among patients with depression treated with adjunctive aripiprazole, olanzapine, or quetiapine.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis used medical and pharmacy claims data and enrollment information from a large US health plan. Patients were adult members of a commercial health plan who were diagnosed with depression (ie, ICD-9-CM 296.2x, 296.3x, or 311) and who received an antidepressant with adjunctive atypical antipsychotic therapy (aripiprazole, olanzapine, or quetiapine) between January 1, 2004, and January 31, 2010. Patients were continuously enrolled for 6-month pre- and 12-month postaugmentation periods. Those with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder were excluded. Postaugmentation outcomes were total and mental health-related medical costs and hospitalizations. Costs and hospitalizations were modeled with generalized linear models (ie, gamma distribution, log link) and logistic regression, respectively. Regressions controlled for dose, demographics, and general and medical health-related health status.

RESULTS

A total of 10,292 patients were identified across atypical antipsychotic cohorts: 3849 used aripiprazole, 1033 used olanzapine, and 5410 used quetiapine. Mean (SD) age was 44.1 (11.6) years and 70.3% were female. Compared with patients in the aripiprazole cohort, those in the olanzapine cohort had higher total medical costs (cost ratio [CR] 1.22, 95% CI 1.07-1.39) and higher mental health-related medical costs (CR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11-1.59), as well as higher odds of any (total) hospitalization (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.30-1.92) and any mental health-related hospitalization (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.38-2.38). Similarly, the quetiapine cohort had higher total medical costs (CR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16-1.39) and higher mental health-related medical costs (CR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09-1.39), as well as higher odds of any (total) hospitalization (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.44-1.90) and any mental health-related hospitalizations (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.45-2.18), compared with the aripiprazole cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with adjunctive olanzapine or quetiapine, adjunctive aripiprazole was associated with lower mean total and mental health-related medical costs and with lower odds of total and mental health-related hospitalizations in patients with depression.