Olfson Mark, Marcus Steven C, Zhang Huabin F, Wan George J
Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons/New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY 10032, USA.
J Manag Care Pharm. 2007 Sep;13(7):570-7. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2007.13.7.570.
Although stimulant therapy is commonly discontinued early in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the factors that contribute to continuity of stimulant therapy remain largely unknown.
To (1) compare the continuity of methylphenidate (MPH) therapy among adults who use immediate-release methylphenidate (IR-MPH) for ADHD with adults who use extended-release methylphenidate (ER-MPH) formulations, and (2) examine some of the methodological issues involved in research with administrative claims for ADHD.
An analysis of pharmacy and medical claims for 75 US managed care plans representing approximately 55 million beneficiaries for dates of service from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2004. Patients had to be adults (aged 18 to 64 years) who had 1 or more outpatient medical claims for ADHD (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 314.xx) during the study period and who had initiated ER-MPH or IR-MPH treatment for ADHD. The study cohorts did not have a pharmacy claim for MPHs, amphetamines, pemoline, or atomoxetine for 6 months preceding the first (index) MPH pharmacy claim. Stimulant treatment episodes were defined to start on the index date and terminate on the last date supplied of the index medication. Episodes of treatment were also defined as terminated if there was a gap of > or =30 days between the end of the days supplied on the pharmacy claim and the date of the next pharmacy claim for the index medication.
Less than one third (30.0%) of the adult patients who were prescribed MPH had 1 or more medical claims with a diagnosis code for ADHD. For the adult MPH patients with at least 1 medical claim with a diagnosis code for ADHD, the patients who initiated therapy with ER-MPH (N = 2,833) were significantly younger, were more likely to be male, and were less likely to be treated by a psychiatrist than were the patients who initiated therapy with IR-MPH (N = 2,289). Only 50.5% (n = 1,156) of IR-MPH patients and 61.4% (n = 1,739) of ER-MPH patients had more than 1 pharmacy claim for the index MPH medication. Adults treated with ER-MPH also had a significantly longer median duration of treatment with the index medication (ER-MPH: 68 days, 95% confidence interval [CI], 65-71 days vs. IR-MPH 39 days, 95% CI, 33-52 days). Controlling for group differences in age, gender, treatment by a psychiatrist, recently prescribed psychotropic medications, treated mental disorders, emergency mental health treatment, and inpatient mental health care, ER-MPH initiation was associated with an average 27% longer duration of treatment than with IR-MPH (survival time ratio: 1.27, 95% CI, 1.20-1.35).
In management of adult ADHD, use of ER-MPH formulations was associated with a longer median duration of the initially prescribed medication than was use of IR-MPH. It is unknown whether the observed absolute unadjusted difference of 29 days in median length of therapy is clinically important.
尽管兴奋剂疗法在患有注意力缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)的成年人中通常较早停用,但导致兴奋剂疗法持续使用的因素仍 largely 未知。
(1)比较使用速释哌醋甲酯(IR-MPH)治疗 ADHD 的成年人与使用缓释哌醋甲酯(ER-MPH)制剂的成年人中 MPH 治疗的持续性,以及(2)研究 ADHD 行政索赔研究中涉及的一些方法学问题。
对 75 个美国管理式医疗计划的药房和医疗索赔进行分析,这些计划代表约 5500 万受益人,服务日期从 2000 年 1 月 1 日至 2004 年 12 月 31 日。患者必须是成年人(18 至 64 岁),在研究期间有 1 次或更多次 ADHD 门诊医疗索赔(国际疾病分类第九版临床修订本代码 314.xx),并且已开始使用 ER-MPH 或 IR-MPH 治疗 ADHD。研究队列在首次(索引)MPH 药房索赔前 6 个月没有 MPH、苯丙胺、匹莫林或托莫西汀的药房索赔。兴奋剂治疗疗程定义为从索引日期开始,至索引药物供应的最后日期结束。如果药房索赔中供应天数结束与索引药物的下一次药房索赔日期之间间隔≥30 天,治疗疗程也定义为终止。
接受 MPH 治疗的成年患者中,不到三分之一(30.0%)有 1 次或更多次诊断代码为 ADHD 的医疗索赔。对于至少有 1 次诊断代码为 ADHD 的医疗索赔的成年 MPH 患者,开始使用 ER-MPH 治疗的患者(N = 2833)比开始使用 IR-MPH 治疗的患者(N = 2289)显著更年轻、更可能为男性,且接受精神科医生治疗的可能性更小。只有 50.5%(n = 1156)的 IR-MPH 患者和 61.4%(n = 1739)的 ER-MPH 患者有超过 1 次索引 MPH 药物的药房索赔。接受 ER-MPH 治疗的成年人索引药物的中位治疗持续时间也显著更长(ER-MPH:68 天,95%置信区间[CI],65 - 71 天 vs. IR-MPH 39 天,95%CI,33 - 52 天)。在控制年龄、性别、精神科医生治疗、近期开具的精神药物、治疗的精神障碍、紧急心理健康治疗和住院心理健康护理的组间差异后,开始使用 ER-MPH 与平均比使用 IR-MPH 长 27%的治疗持续时间相关(生存时间比:1.27,95%CI,1.20 - 1.35)。
在成人 ADHD 的管理中,使用 ER-MPH 制剂与最初开具药物的中位持续时间比使用 IR-MPH 更长相关。观察到的治疗中位长度 29 天的绝对未调整差异在临床上是否重要尚不清楚。