Outcome assessment of an antipsychotic drug algorithm: effects of the Mississippi State Hospital algorithm project.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated a state psychiatric hospital's algorithm for prescribing antipsychotic drugs for inpatients with schizophrenia to determine whether its emphasis on cost efficiency is compatible with quality of care. METHODS: Outcomes were compared for patients who received medication that was algorithm adherent or nonadherent. Risperidone and ziprasidone were first-step oral antipsychotics. Documentation of clinical rationale was acceptable for nonpreferred drug use. Outcomes of interest were length of hospitalization and "much improved" or "very much improved" status on the Clinical Global Impression severity scale (CGI-S). RESULTS: Of 401 patients, 70% were male. The CGI-S modal rating of severity was "markedly ill." Duration of illness was longer for patients given algorithm-nonadherent (17.6±9.7 years) versus -adherent (14.9±11.6 years, p=.013) medication. No statistically significant between-group differences were observed for mean length of stay (51.4±35.5 days versus 43.8±27.4 days, adjusted difference p=.18) or median improvement time (adherent, 41 days; nonadherent, 42 days; CI=34-48 days for both group medians). CONCLUSIONS: Prescription algorithm adherence was not associated with significantly increased length of inpatient stay or delayed time to improvement.

A pilot study of antipsychotic prescribing decisions for acutely-Ill hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on antipsychotic prescribing decisions is limited. This pilot study quantified factors considered in choosing an antipsychotic and evaluated the influence of metabolic status on treatment decisions. METHODS: Prescribing decisions by 4 psychiatrists were examined based on 80 adult patients initiated on antipsychotic medication diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or bipolar disorder by DSM-IV criteria, who were admitted to an acute inpatient psychiatric program of an urban Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The primary analysis examined the association between antipsychotic treatment choice and predictions of symptom control and metabolic risk. Secondary analyses included comparison of the chosen and next best treatments in predicted symptom control and metabolic risk, the frequency of reasons cited for drug choice, and the association between treatment choice and patients' baseline metabolic parameters. Mean differences and odds-ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals were used to compare relationships between treatment choice, ratings of risk and metabolic data. RESULTS: Antipsychotic choice correlated significantly with ratings of predicted symptom control (OR = .92, p = 0.02) and metabolic risk (OR = .88, p = 0.01). Mean differences between the chosen and next best drugs were significant but small in predicted symptom control (F = 2.81, df = 3, 76; p<0.05) compared with larger differences in anticipated metabolic risk (F = 14.80, df = 3, 76; p = 0.0001). Nevertheless, among 24 identified reasons influencing drug selection, anticipated metabolic risk of chosen antipsychotics was cited less often than efficacy measures. In contrast to psychiatrists' expectations of metabolic risk with selected treatments, we found that patients' actual baseline BMI, fasting glucose, blood pressure, and Framingham risk levels did not necessarily predict antipsychotic treatment choice independent of other factors. CONCLUSION: In the context of an acute psychiatric hospitalization, pilot data suggest that predictions of symptom control and metabolic risk correlated significantly with antipsychotic choice, but study psychiatrists were willing to assume relative degrees of metabolic risk in favor of effective symptom control. However, prescribing decisions were influenced by numerous patient and treatment factors. These findings support the potential utility of the ATCQ questionnaire in quantifying antipsychotic prescribing decisions. Further validation studies of the ATCQ questionnaire could enhance translation of research findings and application of treatment guidelines.

Findings of a U.S. national cardiometabolic screening program among 10,084 psychiatric outpatients.

OBJECTIVE: A national cardiometabolic screening program for patients in a variety of public mental health facilities, group practices, and community behavioral health clinics was funded by Pfizer Inc. between 2005 and 2008. METHODS: A one-day, voluntary metabolic health fair in the United States offered patients attending public mental health clinics free cardiometabolic screening and same-day feedback to physicians from a biometrics testing third party that was compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. RESULTS: This analysis included 10,084 patients at 219 sites; 2,739 patients (27%) reported having fasted for over eight hours. Schizophrenia or bipolar disorder was self-reported by 6,233 (62%) study participants. In the overall sample, the mean waist circumference was 41.1 inches for men and 40.4 inches for women; 27% were overweight (body mass index [BMI] 25.0-29.9 kg/m(2)), 52% were obese (BMI >or=30.0 kg/m(2)), 51% had elevated triglycerides (>or=150 mg/dl), and 51% were hypertensive (>or=130/85 mm Hg). In the fasting sample, 52% had metabolic syndrome, 35% had elevated total cholesterol (>or=200 mg/dl), 59% had low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (<40 mg/dl for men or <50 mg/dl for women), 45% had elevated triglycerides (>or=150 mg/dl), and 33% had elevated fasting glucose (>or=100 mg/dl). Among the 1,359 fasting patients with metabolic syndrome, 60% were not receiving any treatment. Among fasting patients who reported treatment for specific metabolic syndrome components, 33%, 65%, 71%, and 69% continued to have elevated total cholesterol, low levels of high-density lipoprotein, high blood pressure, and elevated glucose levels, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome and cardiometabolic risk factors, such as overweight, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and glucose abnormalities, was substantial and frequently untreated in this U.S. national mental health clinic screening program.

Risk of discontinuation of atypical antipsychotic agents in the treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES: To compare discontinuation rates of atypical antipsychotic agents in patients with schizophrenia. METHOD: Adult Maryland Medicaid patients with schizophrenia were categorized based on initial atypical antipsychotic drug received: aripiprazole (n=446); olanzapine (n=1705); quetiapine (n=1467); risperidone (n=1580); and ziprasidone (n=700). Discontinuation was measured using refill patterns, allowing 14-day gaps between refill dates. Using olanzapine as the reference drug, the hazard of discontinuation within the first year of follow-up was compared across atypicals using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for demographic and clinical covariates. Sensitivity analysis tested the robustness of results by using different definitions of the index date. RESULTS: At one-year follow-up, most patients discontinued their antipsychotic medication (90.4% adjusted mean discontinuation). The hazard ratio (HR) for discontinuing therapy in patients starting treatment on aripiprazole, risperidone, or ziprasidone was not significantly different from olanzapine [HR 1.047, 0.973 and 0.990, respectively]. Quetiapine was associated with significantly higher hazard of discontinuation [HR 1.130] than olanzapine. Covariates associated with significantly lower discontinuation were being male [HR 0.899], older age [HR 0.997] and being on concurrent medication when initiating therapy [HR 0.225]; having a previous hospitalization was associated with significantly higher discontinuation hazard [HR 1.276]. Results were robust in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuation rates were high at one-year follow-up and did not differ significantly for patients on aripiprazole, olanzapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone. The higher hazard of discontinuation associated with quetiapine when compared to olanzapine is consistent with that observed in Phase I of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE).

Change in framingham risk score in patients with schizophrenia: a post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, 6-week trial of ziprasidone and olanzapine.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the change in Framingham risk score (FRS) arising from short-term treatment with ziprasidone or olanzapine. METHOD: Hospitalized adults with a primary DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizo-affective disorder were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with ziprasidone or olanzapine from November 21, 1998 to September 28, 2000. Data on fasting lipid levels were collected at screening and endpoint, and blood pressure was measured at screening and baseline and weekly until week 6 of treatment (or last visit). FRS for patients aged ≥30 years was calculated using an algorithm derived from the Framingham Heart Study. Baseline-to-endpoint least-squares mean changes in age-adjusted FRS by gender were compared using analysis of covariance (baseline adjusted). RESULTS: Men who received olanzapine demonstrated a mean increase in their total cholesterol levels (+18.5 mg/dL; N = 53) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (+13.0 mg/dL; N = 45), whereas men who received ziprasidone demonstrated a mean decrease in their total cholesterol levels (-8.5 mg/dL; N = 44) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (-7.2 mg/dL; N = 40) (p = .0006 and p = .004, respectively). Additionally, men who received olanzapine showed an increase in baseline FRS (+7.69%; N = 53), whereas men who received ziprasidone showed a decrease in baseline FRS (-11.06%; N = 42) (p = .09). In women, treatment differences in FSR numerically favored ziprasidone but were not statistically significant. Neither treatment had a significant effect on blood pressure. CONCLUSION: In short-term treatment, olanza-pine was associated with a significant worsening of lipid profile compared with ziprasidone, with a consequent increase in FRS versus ziprasidone. These findings, coupled with the significant weight gain in patients treated with olanzapine versus ziprasidone, warrant investigation in longer-term trials.

Patterns of medical resource and psychotropic medicine use among adult depressed managed behavioral health patients.

Medical and pharmacy utilization patterns were examined among 782 depressed patients seen by independent clinicians through a Managed Behavioral Health Organization using behavioral, medical and pharmacy claims spanning 2 years. Two-thirds received psychiatric care in the medical and mental health sector concurrently, 43% had comorbid medical disorders, 61% received psychotropic medications, and 54% were on antidepressants. Fewer depressed medically comorbid patients used medical services while in mental health treatment than before or after treatment, while the per patient costs remained the same. For those with chronic conditions, medical utilization and costs remained the same. A quarter of depressed patients received mental health treatment before seeing a mental health specialist, and a quarter remained in treatment in the medical sector after treatment in the mental health sector. Despite increases in mental health services access made available through managed behavioral health organizations, patients continue receiving mental health treatment in the medical sector.

Profiling hospitals for length of stay for treatment of psychiatric disorders.

Managed behavioral health care organizations (MBHOs) often profile hospitals on length of stay (LOS) and other performance measures. However, previous research has suggested that most of the variation in utilization for general medical conditions is attributable to case-mix indicators and random sources rather than individual providers. Hospital discharge data are used to estimate hierarchical linear models, where hospitals and physicians within hospitals are treated as a random effect. The goal was to determine the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for psychiatric LOS for hospitals and for physicians before and after making case-mix adjustments. After controlling for case-mix, the hospital ICCs for depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder show that 32%, 36%, and 11% of the variation in LOS, respectively, can be attributed to hospitals, while 7%, 5%, and 6% of the variation in LOS, respectively, can be attributed to physicians or provider practice. Unlike health services for other conditions, the variation in LOS for inpatient psychiatric treatment of depression and schizophrenia is quite dependent upon hospitals.

Clinical practice variations in prescribing antipsychotics for patients with schizophrenia.

Few studies have examined the variations among individual physicians in prescribing antipsychotics for schizophrenia. This study examined clinical practice variations in the route and dosage of antipsychotic medication prescribed for inpatients with schizophrenia by 11 different psychiatrists. The sample consisted of 130 patients with a DSM-III-R diagnosis of schizophrenia who had received inpatient care at a state hospital or Veterans Affairs medical center in the southeastern United States in 1992-1993. Mixed-effects regression models were developed to explore the influence of individual physicians and hospitals on route of antipsychotic administration (oral or depot) and daily antipsychotic dose, controlling for patient case-mix variables (age, race, sex, duration of illness, symptom severity, and substance-abuse diagnosis). The average daily antipsychotic dose was 1092 +/- 892 chlorpromazine mg equivalents. Almost half of the patients (48%) were prescribed doses above or below the range recommended by current practice guidelines. The proportion of patients prescribed depot antipsychotics was significantly different at the 2 hospitals, as was the antipsychotic dose prescribed at discharge. Individual physicians and patient characteristics were not significantly associated with prescribing practices. These data, which were obtained before clinical practice guidelines were widely disseminated, provide a benchmark against which to examine more current practice variations in antipsychotic prescribing. The results raise several questions about deviations from practice guidelines in the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia. To adequately assess quality and inform and possibly further develop clinical practice guideline recommendations for schizophrenia, well-designed research studies conducted in routine clinical settings are needed.

Remission, residual symptoms, and nonresponse in the usual treatment of major depression in managed clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Although published guidelines recommend the continuation of treatment for depression until full remission of symptoms and restoration of functioning, little is known about how often remission is achieved in usual practice and the precipitants of treatment termination when treatment outcome has not been optimal. METHOD: A naturalistic study design examined 1859 patients receiving treatment for DSM-III-R major depression between 1995 and 1997 in the national provider network of a managed behavioral health organization (MBHO). Symptom and impairment ratings by clinicians were used to group patients into full remission, partial remission, and no response. Claims data were used to characterize treatment and identify comorbid medical conditions. RESULTS: According to clinician ratings, approximately 27% to 39% of patients achieved full remission. Medical and substance use comorbidity and hospital admission were more common in those with a partial response to treatment. Only half of patients without a treatment response received a trial of medication during their treatment. Patient choice was the most common reason for termination of treatment, although nearly 40% of clinicians concurred with patients' decisions even when symptoms had not improved. CONCLUSION: Although rates of full remission were comparable to those in clinical trials of antidepressants, results suggest that clinicians may fail to recommend continuation and maintenance treatment consistent with best practice guidelines and that unsuccessful treatment often does not include antidepressant medication.

Predictive models and the effectiveness of strategies for improving outpatient follow-up under managed care.

OBJECTIVES: This study tested the accuracy of models for predicting rehospitalization in a managed behavioral health organization and tested the effectiveness of different care management strategies for enhancing outpatient treatment follow-up. METHODS: In a controlled study, patients with an inpatient mental health or substance use admission received one of three types of care management, distinguished by the level of care managers' involvement in discharge planning and postdischarge outreach: usual (N=31), enhanced (N=94), and intensive (N=74). The groups were compared with each other and with a cohort admitted in the year before the study that received usual care management (N=192) to determine whether differences existed in time to outpatient follow-up, amount of postdischarge care, and rehospitalization at 30, 60, and 180 days. RESULTS: No differences between groups were found. The majority of patients (69 percent) received outpatient care within 30 days of discharge. Prediction models using logistic regression suggested that the number of clinical and sociodemographic risk factors identified by care managers was related to the rate of rehospitalization at 60 and 180 days. Patients authorized to receive intermediate care (partial hospitalization or residential care) and those who failed to attend intermediate care if it was authorized were more likely than other patients to be rehospitalized at 30, 60, and 180 days. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient follow-up after psychiatric hospitalization did not improve with increasingly intensive discharge planning and outreach. Improvement in prediction of risk of rehospitalization may increase opportunities to provide intensive interventions for difficult-to-engage patients.

Two-year outcomes of fee-for-service and capitated medicaid programs for people with severe mental illness.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of two models of capitation on the clinical outcomes of Medicaid beneficiaries in the state of Colorado. DATA SOURCE: A large sample of adult, Medicaid beneficiaries with severe mental illness drawn from regions where capitation contracts were (1) awarded to local community mental health agencies (direct capitation), (2) awarded to a joint venture between local community mental health agencies and a large, private managed behavioral health organization, and (3) not awarded and care continued to be reimbursed on a fee-for-service basis. STUDY DESIGN: The three samples were compared on treatment outcomes assessed over 2 years (total n = 591). DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Study participants were interviewed by trained, clinical interviewers using a standardized protocol consisting of the GAF, BPRS, QOLI, and CAGE. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Outcomes were comparable across most outcome measures. When outcome diffrences were evident, they tended to favor the capitation samples. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid capitation in Colorado does not appear to have negatively affected the outcomes of people with severe mental illness during the first 2 years of the program. Furthermore, the type of capitation model was unrelated to outcomes in this study.