Cycling Through Migraine Preventive Treatments: Implications for All-Cause Total Direct Costs and Disease-Specific Costs.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common and disabling neurological disease associated with substantial economic burden. Among patients with migraine, it is unknown if cost differences exist when preventive migraine medication (PMM) switches occur. OBJECTIVE: To understand the cost burden and health care resource utilization of patients who discontinue or cycle through 1 (PMM1), 2 (PMM2), or ≥ 3 (PMM3) unique PMM drug classes over a 12-month period versus patients who adhere persistently to their initial PMM class. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases to identify adult patients with migraine initiating their first PMM class (antidepressants, antiepileptics, beta blockers, or neurotoxins) from 2011-2013 (index date = first PMM claim). Patients were required to have ≥ 2 outpatient (1 if inpatient) migraine diagnosis codes (ICD-9-CM 346.xx) from 1 year pre-index to 1 year post-index with ≥ 1 code occurring pre-index. Inclusion criteria also required 12 months of pre- and post-index continuous medical and prescription enrollment. All-cause and migraine-specific total direct costs (outpatient, inpatient, emergency department, and prescriptions), based on the 2014 Consumer Price Index, were estimated for each PMM versus a persistent subgroup during the 12-month post-index period. Propensity score bin bootstrapping, controlling for patient baseline characteristics, was used to adjust separate cost comparisons between each PMM subgroup and the persistent subgroup; bootstrap simulations yielded propensity score-adjusted P values. RESULTS: The study population included 55,402 patients who received a PMM. The study population was mainly female (85%) with a mean age of 39.2 years and mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0.31. Antiepileptics were the most common drug class chosen at index across all subgroups; however, lower use of antiepileptics was observed in PMM2 and PMM3 subgroups, which were more likely to be prescribed either antidepressants or beta blockers at index. Mean all-cause total direct costs, including prescription costs, were significantly higher in PMM2 ($13,429) and PMM3 ($18,394) subgroups versus the persistent subgroup ($11,941; each adjusted pairwise comparison, P < 0.001). Mean migraine-specific total direct costs were significantly lower for the persistent subgroup ($2,420) versus PMM2 and PMM3 subgroups and escalated with increasing numbers of drug class discontinuations or switches, from a mean of $2,997 to $5,004 (both adjusted pairwise comparisons, P < 0.001). Subgroup differences in all-cause and migraine-specific direct costs were primarily due to variations in outpatient and emergency department services. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause total direct costs rose with increasing number of PMM switches over the 12-month post-index period, and were significantly higher than in the persistent subgroup, with the exception of PMM1. Additional analyses indicated that the lack of increase between PMM-persistent and PMM1 costs was due to higher pharmacy costs that were likely related to continuous use of medication in the PMM-persistent subgroup. These data suggest an increased cost burden among patients with migraine who cycle through ≥ 2 PMMs versus those who continue to receive their initial medication class. DISCLOSURES: Eli Lilly and Company was the sole sponsor and funder for this study and was responsible for the study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of data, and decision to publish the findings. All authors are employees and minor stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company. Nyhuis was employed by Eli Lilly and Company at the time of this study. The findings of this study were presented in part at the 18th Congress of the International Headache Society; September 7-10, 2017; Vancouver, Canada.

Measures of Functioning in Patients With Episodic Migraine: Findings From a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2b Trial With Galcanezumab.

Objective - To evaluate 12-week changes from baseline of 2 disease-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in adults with migraine treated with galcanezumab, an investigational humanized antibody binding calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), or placebo. Background - Preventing headache-related functional impairment is an important goal of migraine preventive treatment and a measurement target for PROs. Understanding which drugs have the potential to improve patient functioning in addition to preventing migraine headaches is vital to lessening patient burden. Design/Methods - This Phase 2b double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study enrolled adults with episodic migraine. Galcanezumab (120 mg subcutaneous injection; n = 60) or placebo (n = 127) was administered every 28 days for 12 weeks. Post hoc secondary analyses were conducted for those who completed 12 weeks of treatment on 2 PROs: The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) v2.1 and the Headache Impact Test™ (HIT-6). Results - Analysis of covariance revealed significant differences in least square mean changes from baseline between galcanezumab and placebo for all MSQ domains including total mean change placebo of 18.63, galcanezumab of 27.36 (95% CI 2.449, 15.008; P-value of .0067); Role Function-Restrictive mean change placebo of 22.40, galcanezumab of 31.92 (95% CI 2.636, 16.518; P-value of .0071); Role Function-Preventive mean change placebo of 13.43, galcanezumab of 19.76 (95% CI 0.476, 12.185; P-value of .0342); and Emotional Function mean change placebo of 16.88, galcanezumab of 26.61 (95% CI 2.789, 16.674; P-value of .0063). At baseline, mean number of migraine headache days (MHDs) did not correlate with MSQ total scores or HIT-6. At 12 weeks post-treatment, MHD correlated with MSQ and HIT-6 scores (all P < .0001). Change in MHD was associated with change in MSQ domains and change in HIT-6 scores (all P < .0001). Conclusions - In comparison with placebo, treatment with galcanezumab was associated with significant functional improvements as reflected by changes in MSQ scores. Change in MHD was associated with improvements in MSQ and reductions in HIT-6 scores, indicating the clinical importance of these changes in relation to PROs that measure function.

Health Care Utilization and Direct Costs Among Patients Diagnosed with Cluster Headache in U.S. Health Care Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: Cluster headache (CH) is a rare trigeminal cephalalgia that is associated with extremely painful unilateral headache attacks and autonomic symptoms. Attacks may be episodic or chronic and associated with substantial suffering due to excruciating pain and limited treatment options. Frequent cluster headaches cause substantial burden for patients, resulting in reduced productivity caused by disability, as well as direct costs in some European countries. Less is known, however, about direct costs of recurring health care resource utilization (HCRU) in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To characterize HCRU and direct costs associated with CH in the United States from a third-party payer perspective. METHODS: This retrospective observational study analyzed claims data from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Research Databases from 2009-2014. Two cohorts were compared: CH (> 2 diagnostic CH claims) and controls (nonheadache patients). All patients were enrolled continuously for ± 12 months from date of first CH claim. HCRU and direct costs were examined during 12 months post-index as all-cause and CH-specific. Cost and HCRU differences were compared using propensity score-adjusted bin bootstrapping. RESULTS: CH and control cohorts comprised 6,562 and 143,761 patients (aged ≥ 18 years), respectively. Post-index, 36.9% of CH patients versus 16.2% of controls were admitted to the emergency department (ED), and 14.8% versus 6.1% were hospitalized for any reason, respectively (each P < 0.001). CH patients had a 2- to 3-fold significantly greater number of all-cause mean claims for outpatient visits (26.5 vs. 12.4 visits), hospital visits (0.2 vs. 0.1 visits), and ED visits (1.0 vs. 0.3 visits) versus controls (all P < 0.001). The mean number of all-cause visits with reported radiology and laboratory claims was 1.5- to 2.0-fold greater in CH patients versus controls (each P < 0.001). Mean total direct costs for all-cause claims were more than 2-fold greater in post-index ($16,530) for CH patients versus controls ($7,197, P < 0.0001). Similarly, mean direct all-cause costs attributable to outpatient, inpatient, and pharmacy claims were significantly (2-fold) greater; radiology and ED claims were 3- to 4-fold greater among CH patients versus controls (all P < 0.001). However, CH was cited infrequently as a reason for HCRU, indicating that comorbid conditions may substantially increase HCRU in CH patients. The most common reasons for ED admission in CH patients were gastric ulcer with hemorrhage, sub-arachnoid hemorrhage, and headache symptoms. The most common hospital discharge diagnoses for CH patients not observed in top 10 reasons in controls included cerebral artery occlusion/unspecified with cerebral infarction, headache symptoms, syncope/collapse, and diverticulitis. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, from a payer perspective, CH patients incur significantly higher health care costs versus controls. However, these high costs were not exclusively headache-related. Extrapolating our cost findings to estimated U.S. prevalence rates, approximate total direct cost for CH is greater than $2.8 billion/year. DISCLOSURES: Eli Lilly and Company was the sole sponsor and funder for this study and was responsible for the study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of data, and decision to publish the findings. All authors are employees and minor stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company.

Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Patterns Among Patients Diagnosed With Cluster Headache in U.S. Healthcare Claims Data.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns of patients with cluster headache (CH). BACKGROUND: CH is an uncommon trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia with limited evidence-based treatment options. Patients suffer from extremely painful unilateral headache attacks and autonomic symptoms with episodic and chronic cycles. DESIGN/METHODS: This retrospective analysis used insurance claims from Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® research databases from 2009 to 2014. Two cohorts were compared: CH patients (with ≥2 CH claims) were propensity score matched with 4 non-headache controls, all with continuous enrollment for 12 months before and after the date of first CH claim or matched period among controls. RESULTS: CH patients (N = 7589) were mainly male (57.4%) and 35-64 years old (73.2%), with significantly more claims for comorbid conditions vs controls (N = 30,341), including depressive disorders (19.8% vs 10.0%), sleep disturbances (19.7% vs 9.1%), anxiety disorders (19.2% vs 8.7%), and tobacco use disorders (12.8% vs 5.3%), with 2.5 times greater odds of suicidal ideation (all P < .0001). Odds of drug dependence were 3-fold greater among CH patients (OR = 2.8 [95% CI 2.3-3.4, P < .0001]). CH patients reported significantly greater use of prescription medications compared with controls; 25% of CH patients had >12 unique prescription drug claims. Most commonly prescribed drug classes for CH patients included: opiate agonists (41%), corticosteroids (34%), 5HT-1 agonists (32%), antidepressants (31%), NSAIDs (29%), anticonvulsants (28%), calcium antagonists (27%), and benzodiazepines (22%). Only 30.4% of CH patients received recognized CH treatments without opioids during the 12-month post-index period. These patients were less likely to visit emergency departments or need hospitalizations (26.8%) as compared to CH patients with no pharmacy claims for recognized CH treatments or opioids (33.6%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The burden of CH is associated with significant co-morbidity, including substance use disorders and suicidal ideation, and treatment patterns indicating low use of recognized CH treatments.

Clinical Impact of Not Achieving Recommended Dose on Duration of Atomoxetine Treatment in Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

AIM: To compare atomoxetine (ATX) length of therapy (LoT) among adults with ADHD who reached the recommended dose of 80 mg/day (ATX ≥ 80) versus those who did not (ATX < 80) analyzed separately in patients prescribed ATX as monotherapy (mono) and in combination with other ADHD medications (combo). METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of the Truven Health Marketscan Commercial Claims Database from January 1, 2006-September 30, 2013, with a 6-month preindex period free of ATX (1st ATX claim as index event) and a 1-year follow-up. LoT during follow-up was calculated using prescription claim fill dates and included all days with medication on hand regardless of treatment gaps. RESULTS: Only 45.0% of the 36,076 mono and 77.9% of the 1548 combo patients reached an ATX dose of ≥80 mg/day in 1-year follow-up. When patients filled at least one 80 mg prescription, their total days of therapy over the course of a year were significantly greater than if they did not (mono: 159.3 vs. 65.6 days; combo: 237.4 vs. 172.0; P < 0.0001). Across all timepoints examined (Day 14, 30, 60, 90, 210) for mono and combo, ATX ≥ 80 versus ATX < 80 patients had greater mean doses (P < 0.0001). Combo patients had longer ATX LoT than mono patients regardless if they reached 80 mg or not (P < 0.0001), but mono patients LoT was 93.8 days longer for ATX ≥ 80 versus ATX < 80 patients compared to 65.5 days for combo patients. Of patients reaching 80 mg/day, 71.7% of mono and 62.8% of combo patients did so by Day 30. For mono ATX ≥ 80 and ATX < 80 patients, LoT was significantly (P < 0.0001) less in previously treated patients compared to naive patients. CONCLUSION: Ensuring adult ADHD patients are treated with ATX at a target dose of 80 mg/day is an important clinical consideration for maximizing patient days on therapy, which can be important for treatment optimization.

Early perception of medication benefit predicts subsequent antipsychotic response in schizophrenia: "the consumer has a point" revisited.

BACKGROUND: An easy-to-administer tool for predicting response to antipsychotic treatment could improve the acute management of patients with schizophrenia. We assessed whether a patient's perception of medication benefit early in treatment could predict subsequent response or nonresponse to continued use of the same treatment. METHOD: This post hoc analysis used data from a randomized, open-label trial of antipsychotics for treatment of schizophrenia in which attitudes about medication adherence were assessed after two weeks of antipsychotic treatment using the Rating of Medication Influences (ROMI) scale. The analysis included 439 patients who had Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and ROMI scale data at Weeks 2 and 8. Scores on the ROMI subscale Perceived Medication Benefit factor were used to predict subsequent antipsychotic response at Week 8, defined as a .20% reduction from baseline on the PANSS. Logistic regression was used to identify a cut-off score for the Perceived Medication Benefit factor that could accurately identify antipsychotic responders vs. nonresponders at Week 8. RESULTS: A score of .2.75 (equal to a mean subscale score of .11.00) on the ROMI scale Perceived Medication Benefit factor at Week 2 predicted response at Week 8 with high specificity (72%) and negative predictive value (70%), moderate sensitivity (44%) and positive predictive value (47%), and with a 38% misclassification rate. CONCLUSIONS: A brief assessment of the patient's perception of medication benefit at two weeks into treatment appears to be a good predictor of subsequent response and nonresponse after eight weeks of treatment with the same antipsychotic.

Construct validity of 2 measures to assess reasons for antipsychotic discontinuation and continuation from patients' and clinicians' perspectives in a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the specific reasons for antipsychotic discontinuation or continuation from patients' or clinicians' perspectives. This study aimed to assess the construct validity of 2 new measures of the Reasons for Antipsychotic Discontinuation/Continuation (RAD): RAD-I (a structured interview assessing the patient's perspective) and RAD-Q (a questionnaire assessing the clinician's perspective). METHODS: Data were used from a 12-week antipsychotic trial of schizophrenia patients in which the RAD was administered at study entry and at study completion (or discontinuation). Construct validity was assessed through comparisons of RAD responses, clinicians' responses to a standard patient disposition form identifying reasons for patient's study discontinuation, and several standard psychiatric measures. Percent agreement quantified the correspondence between patient and clinician scores. RESULTS: Patients indicating lack of improvement/worsening of positive symptoms as a 'somewhat' to 'primary' reason for medication discontinuation had statistically significantly less improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale positive score than patients not reporting these as a reason (concurrent validity). Similar results were observed for the RAD negative symptom, functional, social support, and adherence items, whereas the mood and cognitive items were not significantly associated with change scores on standard psychiatric measures. Responses to the RAD were also weakly associated with variables that theoretically should not be related to them (divergent validity). Level of agreement between the clinician- and patient-rated RAD scores was high (60%-100%). CONCLUSIONS: Initial validation of the RAD suggests that the instruments are valid tools for gathering detailed information regarding reasons for antipsychotic discontinuation and continuation from patients' and clinicians' perspectives.

Reasons for continuing or discontinuing olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia from the perspectives of patients and clinicians.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the reasons for discontinuing or continuing olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia, from the perspectives of the patients and their clinicians. METHODS: The Reasons for Antipsychotic Discontinuation/Continuation (RAD) is a pair of questionnaires assessing these reasons from the perspectives of patients and their clinicians. Outpatients with schizophrenia (n = 199) who were not acutely ill participated in a 22-week open-label study of olanzapine from November 2006 to September 2008. Reasons for continuing or discontinuing olanzapine (on a five-point scale), along with the single most important reason and the top primary reasons, were identified. Concordance between reasons given by patients and clinicians was assessed. RESULTS: The top primary reasons for continuing olanzapine were patients' perceptions of improvement, improvement of positive symptoms, and improved functioning. The study discontinuation rate was low (30.2%), and only a subset of patients who discontinued reported reasons for medication discontinuation. The top primary reasons for discontinuing olanzapine were insufficient improvement or worsening of positive symptoms, adverse events, and insufficient improvement or worsening of negative symptoms. Ratings given by patients and clinicians were highly concordant. CONCLUSION: The main reason for continuing or discontinuing olanzapine appears to be medication efficacy, especially for positive symptoms. Reasons for medication discontinuation differ somewhat from reasons for continuation, with a high level of concordance between patient and clinician responses.

Early response predicts subsequent response to olanzapine long-acting injection in a randomized, double-blind clinical trial of treatment for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: In patients with schizophrenia, early non-response to oral antipsychotic therapy robustly predicts subsequent non-response to continued treatment with the same medication. This study assessed whether early response predicted later response when using a long-acting injection (LAI) antipsychotic. METHODS: Data were taken from an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of olanzapine LAI in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia (n = 233). Early response was defined as ≥ 30% improvement from baseline to Week 4 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS0-6) Total score. Subsequent response was defined as ≥ 40% baseline-to-endpoint improvement in PANSS0-6 Total score. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and predictive accuracy were calculated. Clinical and functional outcomes were compared between Early Responders and Early Non-responders. RESULTS: Early response/non-response to olanzapine LAI predicted later response/non-response with high sensitivity (85%), specificity (72%), PPV (78%), NPV (80%), and overall accuracy (79%). Compared to Early Non-responders, Early Responders had significantly greater improvement in PANSS0-6 Total scores at all time points and greater baseline-to-endpoint improvement in PANSS subscale scores, Quality of Life Scale scores, and Short Form-36 Health Survey scores (all p ≤ .01). Among Early Non-responders, 20% demonstrated response by Week 8. Patients who lacked early improvement (at Week 4) in Negative Symptoms and Disorganized Thoughts were more likely to continue being non-responders at Week 8. CONCLUSIONS: Among acutely ill patients with schizophrenia, early response predicted subsequent response to olanzapine LAI. Early Responders experienced significantly better clinical and functional outcomes than Early Non-responders. Findings are consistent with previous research on oral antipsychotics. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: F1D-MC-HGJZ: Comparison of Intramuscular Olanzapine Depot With Placebo in the Treatment of Patients With Schizophrenia http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00088478?term=olanzapine+depot&rank=3Registry identifier - NCT00088478.

Predictors of switching antipsychotic medications in the treatment of schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: To identify patient characteristics and early changes in patients' clinical status that best predict subsequent switching of antipsychotic agents in the long-term treatment of schizophrenia. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis used data from a one-year randomized, open-label, multisite study of antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. The study protocol permitted switching of antipsychotics when clinically warranted after the first eight weeks. Baseline patient characteristics were assessed using standard psychiatric measures and reviews of medical records. The prediction model included baseline sociodemographics, comorbid psychiatric and non-psychiatric conditions, body weight, clinical and functional variables, as well as change scores on standard efficacy and tolerability measures during the first two weeks of treatment. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to identify the best predictors of switching from the initially assigned antipsychotic medication. RESULTS: About one-third of patients (29.5%, 191/648) switched antipsychotics before the end of the one-year study. There were six variables identified as the best predictors of switching: lack of antipsychotic use in the prior year, pre-existing depression, female gender, lack of substance use disorder, worsening of akathisia (as measured by the Barnes Akathisia Scale), and worsening of symptoms of depression/anxiety (subscale score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale) during the first two weeks of antipsychotic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Switching antipsychotics appears to be prevalent in the naturalistic treatment of schizophrenia and can be predicted by a small and distinct set of variables. Interestingly, worsening of anxiety and depressive symptoms and of akathisia following two weeks of treatment were among the more robust predictors of subsequent switching of antipsychotics.

Reasons for discontinuation and continuation of antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia from patient and clinician perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To identify reasons for discontinuation and continuation of antipsychotic medications in the treatment of schizophrenia from the patients' and their clinicians' perspectives. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Two measures were previously developed to assess the Reasons for Antipsychotic Discontinuation/Continuation (RAD), one from the patient's perspective and another from the clinician's perspective. These measures were administered to acutely ill schizophrenia patients enrolled in a 12-week study of antipsychotic medications (N = 596) and to their clinicians. The RAD was assessed at baseline and at endpoint. Reasons were rated on a 5-point scale from 'primary reason' to 'not a reason.' The single most important reason was also identified. The 'single most important reason' and the 'primary reasons' for discontinuing the drug used prior to enrollment, and for discontinuing or continuing the study drug were identified. Levels of concordance between patients' and clinicians' reasons were assessed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The data source for this study is a clinical trial registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00337662). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reasons for Antipsychotic Discontinuation/Continuation (RAD). RESULTS: Patients and clinicians identified several reasons for medication discontinuation and continuation (2.3 to 6.3 reasons, on average). The top 'single most important' reason for discontinuing the drug used prior to enrollment and for discontinuing the study drug was 'positive symptoms not sufficiently improved or made worse,' followed by 'medication-related adverse events.' The most frequent 'single most important' reason for medication continuation was 'improved positive symptoms,' followed by 'patient's perception of improvement,' and 'functional improvement.' A high level of concordance was observed between patients' and clinicians' ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Medication efficacy appears to be the core driver of medication discontinuation and continuation, especially with regard to positive symptoms. There was a high level of concordance between patients' and clinicians' perspectives. Limitations include the study requirement that patients be at least moderately ill and experiencing acute psychotic exacerbation, a potential selection bias in the readiness to respond to measures, and small sample sizes for some analyses. Further research is needed to replicate findings in patients who are not acutely ill.

Involvement in the US criminal justice system and cost implications for persons treated for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with schizophrenia may have a higher risk of encounters with the criminal justice system than the general population, but there are limited data on such encounters and their attendant costs. This study assessed the prevalence of encounters with the criminal justice system, encounter types, and the estimated cost attributable to these encounters in the one-year treatment of persons with schizophrenia. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis used data from a prospective one-year cost-effectiveness study of persons treated with antipsychotics for schizophrenia and related disorders in the United States. Criminal justice system involvement was assessed using the Schizophrenia Patients Outcome Research Team (PORT) client survey and the victimization subscale of the Lehman Quality of Life Interview (QOLI). Direct cost of criminal justice system involvement was estimated using previously reported costs per type of encounter. Patients with and without involvement were compared on baseline characteristics and direct annual health care and criminal justice system-related costs. RESULTS: Overall, 278 (46%) of 609 participants reported at least 1 criminal justice system encounter. They were more likely to be substance users and less adherent to antipsychotics compared to participants without involvement. The 2 most prevalent types of encounters were being a victim of a crime (67%) and being on parole or probation (26%). The mean annual per-patient cost of involvement was $1,429, translating to 6% of total annual direct health care costs for those with involvement (11% when excluding crime victims). CONCLUSIONS: Criminal justice system involvement appears to be prevalent and costly for persons treated for schizophrenia in the United States. Findings highlight the need to better understand the interface between the mental health and the criminal justice systems and the related costs, in personal, societal, and economic terms.

Clinical and economic ramifications of switching antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Switching between antipsychotic medications is common in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, data on clinical and economic outcomes from antipsychotic switching, in particular acute care service use, is fairly limited. The goal of this research was to assess the clinical and economic ramifications of switching antipsychotics during outpatient management of schizophrenia. METHODS: Data from a 1-year randomized, open-label cost-effectiveness study involving typical and atypical antipsychotics were assessed. The study protocol permitted switching of antipsychotics when clinically warranted. The risk of crisis-related events, use of acute-care services, and the time to the initial use of such services were determined in outpatients who switched antipsychotics compared with those who continued with their initial medications. Health care resource utilization data were abstracted from medical records and other sources (e.g., patient self-report), and direct costs were estimated using previously published benchmarks. RESULTS: Almost one-third of patients (29.3%) underwent a switch from their initial antipsychotic agent, with an average duration of 100 days before such treatment alterations. Compared with their counterparts who remained on their initial therapies, individuals who switched antipsychotics experienced a significantly higher risk of acute-care services, including hospitalization (p = .013) and crisis services (p = .011). Patients undergoing medication switches also used acute-care services significantly sooner (p = .004) and accrued an additional $3,000 (a 25% increase) in annual total health care costs per patient, most of which was due to acute-care expenditures. CONCLUSION: Switching antipsychotic medications was found to be associated with considerably poorer clinical and economic outcomes, as reflected by, more frequent and more rapid use of acute-care services compared with persons remaining on their initial treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial ID 2325 in LillyTrials.com (also accessible via ClinicalStudyResults.org).

Methodological issues in assessing changes in costs pre- and post-medication switch: a schizophrenia study example.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a severe, chronic, and costly illness that adversely impacts patients' lives and health care payer budgets. Cost comparisons of treatment regimens are, therefore, important to health care payers and researchers. Pre-Post analyses ("mirror-image"), where outcomes prior to a medication switch are compared to outcomes post-switch, are commonly used in such research. However, medication changes often occur during a costly crisis event. Patients may relapse, be hospitalized, have a medication change, and then spend a period of time with intense use of costly resources (post-medication switch). While many advantages and disadvantages of Pre-Post methodology have been discussed, issues regarding the attributability of costs incurred around the time of medication switching have not been fully investigated. METHODS: Medical resource use data, including medications and acute-care services (hospitalizations, partial hospitalizations, emergency department) were collected for patients with schizophrenia who switched antipsychotics (n = 105) during a 1-year randomized, naturalistic, antipsychotic cost-effectiveness schizophrenia trial. Within-patient changes in total costs per day were computed during the pre- and post-medication change periods. In addition to the standard Pre-Post analysis comparing costs pre- and post-medication change, we investigated the sensitivity of results to varying assumptions regarding the attributability of acute care service costs occurring just after a medication switch that were likely due to initial medication failure. RESULTS: Fifty-six percent of all costs incurred during the first week on the newly initiated antipsychotic were likely due to treatment failure with the previous antipsychotic. Standard analyses suggested an average increase in cost-per-day for each patient of $2.40 after switching medications. However, sensitivity analyses removing costs incurred post-switch that were potentially due to the failure of the initial medication suggested decreases in costs in the range of $4.77 to $9.69 per day post-switch. CONCLUSION: Pre-Post cost analyses are sensitive to the approach used to handle acute-service costs occurring just after a medication change. Given the importance of quality economic research on the cost of switching treatments, thorough sensitivity analyses should be performed to identify the impact of crisis events around the time of medication change.

Switching from risperidone to olanzapine in a one-year, randomized, open-label effectiveness study of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Switching medications is common in the treatment of schizophrenia. This study examines the effectiveness of olanzapine therapy following a clinically warranted switch from risperidone during treatment of patients with schizophrenia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This post-hoc analysis used data from the risperidone arm of a randomized, open-label, 1-year study of patients with schizophrenia. Study protocol permitted antipsychotic switching when clinically warranted, and outcomes were assessed with standard psychiatric measures. Statistical analyses assessed changes from pre- to post-medication switch and endpoint comparisons between patients switched from risperidone to olanzapine and patients continued on risperidone. RESULTS: Most patients who switched from risperidone switched to olanzapine (43/60; 71.7%). Average duration of risperidone treatment prior to switching was 86 days (mean modal dose 4.0 mg/day). Most switchers (86%) completed the 1-year study on olanzapine (average duration 241 days; mean modal dose 12.0 mg/day). Following switch to olanzapine, patients experienced significant improvements on clinical (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale) and social (Quality of Life Inventory) parameters, with similar proportions of patients achieving remission status at endpoint compared with risperidone patients not requiring medication switch (41.9 vs. 35.5%). Mean weight gain for switchers was approximately 0.4 kg while on risperidone (average treatment duration < 3 months) and 2.4 kg on olanzapine (average treatment duration approximately 8 months). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that olanzapine is an effective treatment option for schizophrenia patients requiring a switch from risperidone. Given the small sample size and lack of a comparative group, one cannot determine if other medication options would have been as effective as the switch to olanzapine. Thus, further research is warranted.

Clinical, functional, and economic ramifications of early nonresponse to antipsychotics in the naturalistic treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Early nonresponse to antipsychotics appears to predict subsequent nonresponse to treatment when assessed in randomized controlled trials of predominately acute inpatients treated for schizophrenia. This study assessed the predictive accuracy of early nonresponse to treatment and its clinical, functional, and economic ramifications in the naturalistic treatment of predominately chronic outpatients treated for schizophrenia. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data from a 1-year, randomized, open-label study of olanzapine, risperidone, and typical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. If clinically warranted, patients could switch antipsychotics following 8 weeks of treatment. Patients completing 8 weeks of treatment (n = 443 of 664 enrollees) were included. Patients with early response (> or = 20% improvement from baseline on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale at 2 weeks) were compared with early nonresponders on symptom remission, functionality, perceptions of medication influence, and total health care costs at 8 weeks. RESULTS: Early response/nonresponse at 2 weeks predicted subsequent response/nonresponse at 8 weeks with a high level of accuracy (72%) and specificity (89%). After 8 weeks, early nonresponders were less likely to achieve symptom remission (P < .001), improved less on functional domains (P < .05), perceived medication as less beneficial (P = .004), and incurred total heath care costs over twice that of early responders ($4349 vs $2102, P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: In the usual care of schizophrenia patients, early nonresponse appears to reliably predict subsequent nonresponse to continued treatment with the same medication to be associated with poorer outcomes and higher health care costs. Identifying early nonresponders may minimize prolonging exposure to suboptimal or ineffective treatment strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of olanzapine as first-line treatment for schizophrenia: results from a randomized, open-label, 1-year trial.

OBJECTIVES: This randomized, open-label trial was designed to help inform antipsychotic treatment policies. It compared the 1-year cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with olanzapine (OLZ) (n = 229) versus a "fail-first" algorithm on conventional antipsychotics (then olanzapine if indicated) (CON) (n = 214); and versus initial treatment with risperidone (RIS) (n = 221). METHODS: Individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were recruited from May 1998 to September 2001. Clinical, functioning, and resource utilization data were collected at baseline and five postbaseline visits. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores defined "clinical effectiveness;" Lehman Quality of Life Scale social relations scores defined "social effectiveness." RESULTS: Requiring failure on less expensive antipsychotics before use of olanzapine did not result in total cost savings, despite significantly higher antipsychotic costs with OLZ. Total 1-year mean costs were 21,283 dollars for CON; 20,891 dollars for OLZ; and 21,347 dollars for RIS (pair-wise comparisons nonsignificant). Intent-to-treat effectiveness comparisons (nonsignificant) were augmented by analyses that adjusted for duration on initial antipsychotic treatment, and by comparisons of patients remaining on initial antipsychotic treatment versus those who required switching. When accounting for differential switching rates (OLZ 0.14 vs. CON 0.53, P < 0.0001; vs. RIS 0.31, P < 0.0001), OLZ was significantly more effective than CON on clinical (P = 0.025) and social (P = 0.043) measures, and significantly more effective than RIS on the social (P = 0.002) measure. Further, patients initiated on an antipsychotic from which they needed to switch required additional resources for hospitalization (P = 0.036) and crisis services (P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Approaches that integrate costs, effectiveness, and treatment patterns are important for providing optimal information regarding the value of first-line antipsychotic options for schizophrenia.

Outcomes of American Lung Association-Indiana Lung Centers asthma program.

The American Lung Association of Indiana (ALA-I), in conjunction with participating Indiana hospitals, developed the Lung Center concept as a mechanism to provide standardized delivery of lung health education. The goal of this pilot study was to evaluate initial experience with the Lung Center program "Overcoming Your Asthma," a two-session asthma education program, and identify areas needing improvement. A total of 305 participants responded to a 31-item questionnaire at baseline (immediately prior to program exposure) and again at 1 month (n = 75) and 6 months (n = 30) after participation. Overall, delivery of the ALA-I Lung Center asthma education program improved respondents' experience with asthma. At one month after the educational session, the program improved participant knowledge about asthma. This was associated with modest improvements in treatment behaviors, economic outcomes and asthma symptoms such as reduced breathing difficulties, wheezing and asthma exacerbations, and improvement in sleep. Improvements were not uniformly sustained at 6 months. In summary, the Lung Center asthma education program appears to benefit patients with asthma. The results provide preliminary evidence to support continued delivery of asthma education in Lung Centers. Future efforts should emphasize education to improve treatment attitudes and behaviors.