Partnership for Health Analytic Research, LLC, Beverly Hills, CA, USA.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Clin Ther. 2019 Feb;41(2):221-232. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.12.005. Epub 2019 Jan 5.
The purpose of this study was to compare medication adherence, health care utilization, and cost among patients receiving adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) with brexpiprazole, quetiapine, or lurasidone.
Using Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare Supplemental Databases, we identified adults with MDD initiating adjunctive treatment with brexpiprazole, quetiapine, or lurasidone (index atypical antipsychotic [AAP]). We compared medication adherence and persistence measured by proportion of days covered (PDC) and treatment duration of index AAP, all-cause and psychiatric hospital care (hospitalization or emergency department visit), and medical costs during 6-month follow-up. Models performed included logistic regression for hospital care, linear regression for PDC and cost, and Cox proportional hazards regression for time to discontinuation, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and utilization differences during the 6 months before index AAP.
The total sample included 778 brexpiprazole, 626 lurasidone, and 3458 quetiapine therapy initiators. Adjusting for baseline differences, the risk of discontinuation of index AAP was statistically significantly higher for quetiapine than for brexpiprazole (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25; P = 0.023) and did not differ between lurasidone and brexipiprazole (HR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.00-1.29; P = 0.054). The adjusted rate of all-cause hospitalization or emergency department visit in the postindex period was lowest for brexpiprazole at 27.4% (95% CI, 24.0%-31.0%), compared with 31.1% (95% CI, 27.3%-35.2%) for lurasidone and 35.3% (95% CI, 33.5%-37.1%) for quetiapine (P< 0.001 for all comparisons). Quetiapine users had increased all-cause costs compared with brexpiprazole users (estimate = $2309; 95% CI, $31-$4587; P = 0.047); all-cause medical costs did not differ between lurasidone and brexpiprazole (estimate = $913; 95% CI, $-2033 -$3859; P = 0.543). Adjusted psychiatric hospital care, psychiatric costs, and PDC did not differ significantly among the groups.
In patients with MDD and a variety of insurance types, brexpiprazole use was associated with statistically significantly lower risks of discontinuation, risk of hospital care (hospitalization and ED visits), and all-cause medical costs compared with adjunctive quetiapine. Differences between brexpiprazole and lurasidone were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that drug choice is associated with subsequent health care utilization and costs.
本研究旨在比较接受布瑞哌唑、喹硫平或鲁拉西酮辅助治疗的重度抑郁症(MDD)患者的药物依从性、医疗保健利用和成本。
使用 Truven Health MarketScan®商业、医疗补助和医疗保险补充数据库,我们确定了开始使用布瑞哌唑、喹硫平或鲁拉西酮(辅助性新型抗精神病药[AP])辅助治疗的 MDD 成年人。我们比较了在 6 个月随访期间,通过比例天数覆盖(PDC)和辅助性 AP 的治疗持续时间来衡量的药物依从性和持续性,全因和精神科住院治疗(住院或急诊就诊)以及医疗费用。进行了包括医院护理的逻辑回归、PDC 和成本的线性回归以及停药时间的 Cox 比例风险回归,同时调整了辅助性 AP 前 6 个月的人口统计学、临床和利用差异。
总样本包括 778 例布瑞哌唑、626 例鲁拉西酮和 3458 例喹硫平治疗的发起者。调整基线差异后,与布瑞哌唑相比,喹硫平辅助治疗的停药风险显著更高(风险比[HR] = 1.13;95%置信区间,1.02-1.25;P = 0.023),而鲁拉西酮与布瑞哌唑之间的差异无统计学意义(HR = 1.14;95%置信区间,1.00-1.29;P = 0.054)。在指数后期间,全因住院或急诊就诊的调整后发生率最低的是布瑞哌唑,为 27.4%(95%置信区间,24.0%-31.0%),而鲁拉西酮为 31.1%(95%置信区间,27.3%-35.2%),喹硫平为 35.3%(95%置信区间,33.5%-37.1%)(所有比较均 P<0.001)。与布瑞哌唑使用者相比,喹硫平使用者的全因费用增加(估计值=2309 美元;95%置信区间,31-4587 美元;P=0.047);鲁拉西酮与布瑞哌唑之间的全因医疗费用无差异(估计值=913 美元;95%置信区间,-2033 美元至 3859 美元;P=0.543)。调整后的精神病住院护理、精神病费用和 PDC 在各组之间无显著差异。
在患有 MDD 和多种类型保险的患者中,与辅助性喹硫平相比,布瑞哌唑的使用与停药风险、住院治疗(住院和急诊就诊)和全因医疗费用的风险显著降低相关。布瑞哌唑和鲁拉西酮之间的差异无统计学意义。这些发现表明药物选择与后续的医疗保健利用和成本有关。