Public Health Institute, Oakland (Shrestha); Precision Health Economics, Los Angeles (Roach, Everson); TCV, Menlo Park, California (Goutam); Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Titusville, New Jersey (Joshi, Sheehan); Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Titusville, New Jersey (Heerlein); Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston (Jena).
Psychiatr Serv. 2020 Jun 1;71(6):593-601. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201900398. Epub 2020 Apr 2.
This study compared health care use and costs among patients with treatment-resistant versus treatment-responsive depression across Medicaid, Medicare, and commercial payers.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted by using Truven Health Analytics' commercial (2006-2017; N=111,544), Medicaid (2007-2017; N=24,036), and Medicare supplemental (2006-2017; N=8,889) claims databases. Participants were adults with major depressive disorder who had received one or more antidepressant treatments. Treatment resistance was defined as failure of two or more antidepressant treatments of adequate dose and duration. Annual use (hospitalizations and outpatient and emergency department [ED] visits) and costs were compared across patients by treatment-resistant status in each payer population. Incremental burden of treatment-resistant depression was estimated with regression analyses. Monthly changes in costs during 1-year follow-up were assessed to understand differential cost trends by treatment-resistant status.
In the three payer populations, patients with treatment-resistant depression incurred higher health care utilization than those with treatment-responsive depression (hospitalization, odds ratios [ORs]=1.32-1.76; ED visits, ORs=1.38-1.45; outpatient visits, incident rate ratio=1.29-1.54; p<0.001 for all). Compared with those with treatment-responsive depression, those with treatment resistance incurred higher annual costs (from $4,093 to $8,054 higher; p<0.001). Patients with treatment-resistant depression had higher costs at baseline compared with patients with treatment-responsive depression and incurred higher costs each month throughout follow-up.
Treatment-resistant depression imposes a significant health care burden on insurers. Treatment-resistant depression may exist and affect health care burden before a patient is identified as having treatment-resistant depression. Findings underscore the need for effective and timely treatment of treatment-resistant depression.
本研究比较了抗抑郁治疗反应患者与治疗抵抗患者在医疗补助、医疗保险和商业支付者中的医疗保健利用和成本。
使用 Truven Health Analytics 的商业(2006-2017 年;N=111544)、医疗补助(2007-2017 年;N=24036)和医疗保险补充(2006-2017 年;N=8889)索赔数据库进行回顾性队列研究。参与者为患有重度抑郁症且接受过一种或多种抗抑郁治疗的成年人。抗药性定义为两种或两种以上足够剂量和持续时间的抗抑郁治疗失败。在每个支付者群体中,根据治疗抵抗状态比较患者的年度使用(住院和门诊和急诊就诊)和成本。使用回归分析估计抗抑郁治疗抵抗的增量负担。评估 1 年随访期间成本的月度变化,以了解治疗抵抗状态对成本趋势的差异。
在三个支付者群体中,治疗抵抗性抑郁症患者的医疗保健利用率高于治疗反应性抑郁症患者(住院治疗,比值比[OR]为 1.32-1.76;急诊就诊,OR 为 1.38-1.45;门诊就诊,发生率比=1.29-1.54;p<0.001)。与治疗反应性抑郁症患者相比,治疗抵抗性抑郁症患者的年成本更高(高出 4093 至 8054 美元;p<0.001)。与治疗反应性抑郁症患者相比,治疗抵抗性抑郁症患者在基线时的成本更高,并且在整个随访期间的每个月都会产生更高的成本。
治疗抵抗性抑郁症给保险公司带来了重大的医疗保健负担。在患者被确定为治疗抵抗性抑郁症之前,可能存在治疗抵抗性抑郁症并影响医疗保健负担。研究结果强调了及时有效地治疗治疗抵抗性抑郁症的必要性。