Search

Aim: To evaluate Medicaid spending and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Materials & methods: TRD beneficiaries were identified from Medicaid claims databases (January 2010–March 2017) and matched 1:1 with major depressive disorder (MDD) beneficiaries without TRD (non-TRD-MDD) and randomly selected patients without MDD (non-MDD). Differences in HRU and per-patient-per-year costs were reported in incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and cost differences (CDs), respectively. Results: TRD beneficiaries had higher HRU than 1:1 matched non-TRD-MDD (e.g., inpatient visits: IRR = 1.41) and non-MDD beneficiaries (N = 14,710 per cohort; e.g., inpatient visits: IRR = 3.42, p Conclusion: TRD is associated with higher HRU and costs versus non-TRD-MDD and non-MDD. TRD poses a significant burden to Medicaid.

BACKGROUND Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) poses a substantial burden to health care payers including employers, costing an estimated $29 billion-$48 billion yearly in the United States. Furthermore, variation of burden across increasing levels of resistance and the potential impact of TRD on employment status remain largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE To evaluate health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs, work loss, indirect costs, and employment status change in TRD. METHODS A claims-based algorithm identified adults with TRD from a US claims database of privately insured employees and dependents (January 2010-March 2015). TRD patients were matched 1:1 on demographics to patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) (non-TRD MDD) and without MDD (non-MDD), who were identified using ICD-9-CM codes. Costs, HRU, and employment status change were compared over 2 years following the first antidepressant (randomly imputed date for non-MDD), adjusting for baseline comorbidity index and costs. RESULTS TRD patients (N = 6,411) had more HRU than either matched control cohort, translating into higher per patient per year (PPPY) health care costs: $6,709 and $9,917 more than non-TRD MDD and non-MDD patients, respectively (P < .001 for both). TRD patients with work loss data (N = 1,908) had 35.8 work loss days PPPY (1.7 and 6.2 times the work loss rate in non-TRD MDD and non-MDD patients, respectively). Work loss-related costs in TRD patients were $1,811 higher than non-TRD MDD and $3,460 higher than in non-MDD patients (P < .001). TRD patients had 1.3-1.4 times the rate of employment status change versus control cohorts (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS TRD, even compared to MDD, poses a significant direct and indirect cost burden to US employers and may be associated with higher rates of employment status change.

Objective: To quantify the economic burden of postpartum depression (PPD) that accrues to commercially insured households in the year following childbirth. Methods: Administrative claims data from OptumHealth Care Solutions (2009-2016) were used to identify households that included women identified with PPD per the algorithm and propensity score–matched comparison households of women who were not identified with PPD or a history of depression after childbirth. Study outcomes included direct total all-cause medical and pharmaceutical costs during the first year following childbirth and number of outpatient visits at the household level stratified by household member. Results: Households affected by PPD as identified by the algorithm (N = 7,769) incurred 22% higher mean total all-cause medical and pharmaceutical spending than unaffected matched controls (N = 41,308) during the first year following childbirth ($36,049 versus $29,448, P 50%) of total all-cause spending. Mothers identified with PPD had significantly higher annual mean direct total all-cause medical and pharmaceutical spending than their matched controls without PPD ($19,611 versus $15,410, P Conclusions: Households affected by PPD as identified by the algorithm incurred higher mean total all-cause medical and pharmaceutical spending during the first year following childbirth than did their matched controls identified without PPD, but not all costs were attributable to maternal treatment for PPD. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the potential economic burden associated with PPD and demonstrated costs may extend beyond the mother to members of the household.

BackgroundPrevious studies have assessed the incremental economic burden of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) versus non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (i.e., non-TRD MDD) in commercially-insured and Medicaid-insured patients, but none have focused on Medicare-insured patients.ObjectiveTo assess healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of patients with TRD versus non-TRD MDD or without major depressive disorder (MDD; i.e., non-MDD) in a Medicare-insured population.MethodsAdult patients were retrospectively identified from the Chronic Condition Warehouse de-identified 100% Medicare database (01/2010-12/2016). MDD was defined as ≥1 MDD diagnosis and ≥1 claim for an antidepressant. Patients initiated on a third antidepressant following two antidepressant treatment regimens of adequate dose and duration were considered to have TRD. The index date was defined as the date of the first antidepressant claim for the TRD and non-TRD MDD cohorts, and as a randomly imputed date for the non-MDD cohort. Patients with TRD were matched 1:1 to non-TRD MDD patients and randomly selected non-MDD patients based on propensity scores. Analyses were also performed for a subset of patients aged ≥65.ResultsOf 29,543 patients with MDD, 3,225 (10.9%) met the study definition of TRD; 157,611 were included in the non-MDD cohort. Matched patients with TRD and non-TRD MDD were, on average, 58.9 and 59.0 years old, respectively. The TRD cohort had higher per-patient-per-year (PPPY) HRU than the non-TRD MDD (e.g., inpatient visits: incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.36) and non-MDD cohorts (e.g., inpatient visits: IRR = 1.84, all PConclusionAmong Medicare-insured patients, those with TRD had higher HRU and costs compared to those with non-TRD MDD and non-MDD.

Objective Our objective was to assess healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with and without treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and those without MDD in US Integrated Delivery Networks (IDNs). Methods This was a retrospective matched-cohort study. The Optum© Integrated Claims Electronic Health Record de-identified database was used to identify adult patients with TRD (January 2011–June 2017) across US IDNs. TRD patients were propensity score matched 1:1 with non-TRD MDD and non-MDD patients on demographics. Rates of HRU and costs were compared up to 2 years following the first antidepressant pharmacy claim (or randomly imputed date for non-MDD patients) using negative binomial and ordinary least squares regressions, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from nonparametric bootstraps (costs only) adjusted for baseline comorbidity index and costs. Results All 1582 TRD patients were matched to non-TRD MDD and non-MDD patients and evaluated. TRD patients were on average 46 years old, and 67% were female. Mean duration of observation was 20.1, 19.6, and 17.9 months in the TRD, non-TRD MDD, and non-MDD cohorts, respectively. Patients with TRD had significantly higher rates of HRU than did non-TRD MDD patients (inpatient visits 0.35 vs. 0.16 per patient per year [PPPY]; adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.04 [95% CI 1.74–2.39]) and non-MDD patients (0.35 vs. 0.09 PPPY, adjusted IRR 3.05 [95% CI 2.54–3.66]). TRD patients incurred significantly higher costs PPPY than did non-TRD MDD patients ($US25,807 vs. 13,701, adjusted cost difference $US9479 [95% CI 7071–11,621]) and non-MDD patients ($US25,807 vs. 8500, adjusted cost difference $US11,433 [95% CI 8668–13,876]). Conclusions HRU and costs associated with TRD are significant in US IDNs. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s41669-019-0154-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Combinations of healthcare claims data with additional datasets provide large and rich sources of information. The dimensionality and complexity of these combined datasets can be challenging to handle with standard statistical analyses. However, recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to algorithms and systems that are able to learn and extract complex patterns from such data. AI has already been applied successfully to such combined datasets, with applications such as improving the insurance claim processing pipeline and reducing estimation biases in retrospective studies. Nevertheless, there is still the potential to do much more. The identification of complex patterns within high dimensional datasets may find new predictors for early onset of diseases or lead to a more proactive offering of personalized preventive services. While there are potential risks and challenges associated with the use of AI, these are not insurmountable. As with the introduction of any innovation, it will be necessary to be thoughtful and responsible as we increasingly apply AI methods in healthcare.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223255.].

Purpose To compare the patient characteristics and the inter-temporal reporting patterns of adverse events (AEs) for atorvastatin (Lipitor®) and sibutramine (Meridia®) in social media (AskaPatient.com) versus the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods We identified clinically important AEs associated with atorvastatin (muscle pain) and sibutramine (cardiovascular AEs), compared their patterns in social media postings versus FAERS and used Granger causality tests to assess whether social media postings were useful in forecasting FAERS reports. Results We analyzed 998 and 270 social media postings between 2001 and 2014, 69 003 and 7383 FAERS reports between 1997 and 2014 for atorvastatin and sibutramine, respectively. Social media reporters were younger (atorvastatin: 53.9 vs. 64.0 years, p

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of depression in the United States-including major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder, and dysthymia-was estimated at $83.1 billion in 2000. We update these findings using recent data, focusing on MDD alone and accounting for comorbid physical and psychiatric disorders. METHOD: Using national survey (DSM-IV criteria) and administrative claims data (ICD-9 codes), we estimate the incremental economic burden of individuals with MDD as well as the share of these costs attributable to MDD, with attention to any changes that occurred between 2005 and 2010. RESULTS: The incremental economic burden of individuals with MDD increased by 21.5% (from $173.2 billion to $210.5 billion, inflation-adjusted dollars). The composition of these costs remained stable, with approximately 45% attributable to direct costs, 5% to suicide-related costs, and 50% to workplace costs. Only 38% of the total costs were due to MDD itself as opposed to comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid conditions account for the largest portion of the growing economic burden of MDD. Future research should analyze further these comorbidities as well as the relative importance of factors contributing to that growing burden. These include population growth, increase in MDD prevalence, increase in treatment cost per individual with MDD, changes in employment and treatment rates, as well as changes in the composition and quality of MDD treatment services. Language: en

Objective: Nonadherence is a major challenge in schizophrenia treatment. While long-acting (depot) antipsychotic medications are often recommended to address adherence problems, evidence on the comparative effectiveness of depot versus oral antipsychotics is inconsistent. We hypothesize that this inconsistency could be due to systematic differences in study design. This review evaluates the effect of study design on the comparative effectiveness of antipsychotic formulations. The optimal use of different antipsychotic formulations in a general clinical setting depends on better understanding of the underlying reasons for differences in effectiveness across research designs. Data Sources: A PubMed literature review targeted English-language studies (2000–2011) with information on relapse, hospitalization, or allcause discontinuation for depot and oral antipsychotic treatment arms in schizophrenia. The time frame was chosen to reflect research focused on the newer generation of antipsychotic agents. The search required at least 1 term from each of the following categories: (1) schizophrenia; (2) inject, injection, injectable, injectables, injected, depot, long-acting; and (3) iloperidone, fluphenazine, haloperidol, paliperidone, risperidone, olanzapine, asenapine, flupentixol, flupenthixol, lurasidone, clopenthixol, fluspirilene, zuclopentixol, zuclopenthixol. Study Selection: Thirteen relevant studies were identified by 2 independent reviewers; these studies included information on 19 depot-oral comparisons. Data Extraction: Age- and gender-adjusted risk ratios (RRs) (depot/ oral) were calculated for the identified endpoints and pooled by study design (randomized controlled trial [RCT], prospective observational, and retrospective observational). Meta-analysis with random effects was used to estimate the pooled RRs, by study design. Average conversion factors between study designs were calculated as the ratios of pooled RRs. Results: Meta-analysis of adjusted endpoints showed no apparent benefit of depot over oral formulations in RCTs, with an RR of 0.89 (P = .416). In contrast, there was a significant advantage for depot formulations in other study designs (prospective RR = 0.62 [P < .001]; retrospective RR = 0.56 [P < .001]). These imply conversion factors of 1.43 and 1.59 between RCTs and prospective and retrospective designs, respectively. Conclusions: The comparative effectiveness of antipsychotic formulations is sensitive to research design. Depot formulations displayed significant advantages in nonrandomized observational studies, whereas in RCTs no difference was observed. The estimated conversion factors may facilitate comparison across studies.

Although comparative effectiveness research (CER) is now a widely-established discipline, less attention has been paid to how it has been used in practice by decision makers in the life sciences industry and the extent to which it has satisfied the needs of stakeholders. While CER often provides important insights, valuable information sought by the ultimate “consumers” of this research often is not available to support the decisions they must make. This Introduction sets the context for the remaining chapters in Decision Making in a World of Comparative Effectiveness. Contributions by senior industry executives, key opinion leaders, accomplished researchers, and leading attorneys involved in dispute resolution consider issues important to life sciences industry decision makers both in the US and globally.

Interest in comparative effectiveness research (CER) and reliance on CER for treatment selection and resource allocation decisions continues to grow. However, the goals of CER (i.e., to inform decision making by providing evidence on the effectiveness and consequences of treatment options) are often difficult to attain, and the pace of change in conducting and disseminating the results of CER has been frustratingly slow. This introduction to Decision Making in a World of Comparative Effectiveness Research surveys the wide range of viewpoints that reflect on various challenges facing both researchers conducting CER and healthcare decision makers. As a whole, the vision for CER expressed in this book is one that remains optimistic in achieving its goals, where real-world studies and big data analyses are applied to meet pragmatic needs of clinicians, patients, and policymakers.

Background: Treatment utilization/costs and work performance for persons with major depressive disorder (MDD) by severity of illness is not well documented. Methods: Using National Comorbidity Survey-Replication (2001–2002) data, US workforce respondents (n=4,465) were classified by clinical severity (not clinically depressed, mild, moderate, severe) using a standard self-rating scale [Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR)]. Outcomes included 12-month prevalence of medical services/medications use/costs and workplace performance. Treatment costs (employer's perspective) were estimated by weighing utilization measures by unit costs obtained for similar services used by MDD patients in claims data. Descriptive analysis across three severity groups generated χ2 results. Results: Using a sample of 539 US workforce respondents with MDD, 13.8% were classified mild, 38.5% moderate, and 47.7% severe cases. Mental health services usage, including antidepressants, increased significantly with severity, with average treatment costs substantially higher for severe than for mild cases both regarding mental health services ($697 vs. $388, χ2=4.4, P=.019) and antidepressants ($256 vs. $88, χ2=9.0, P=.001). Prevalence rates of unemployment/disability increased significantly (χ2=11.7, P=.003) with MDD severity (15.7, 23.3, and 31.3% for mild, moderate, and severe cases). Severely and moderately depressed workers missed more work than nondepressed workers; the monthly salary-equivalent lost performance of $199 (severely depressed) and $188 (moderately depressed) was significantly higher than for nondepressed workers (χ2=10.3, P

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers generic and branded drugs to be therapeutically equivalent if they are pharmaceutically equivalent and bioequivalent. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) disagrees and opposes generic substitution of branded antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) without physician and patient approval due to the risk of loss of seizure control.To review the evidence to date surrounding the economic impact of brand-to-generic substitutions of AEDs.A systematic search of PubMed and MEDLINE was conducted; the bibliographies of key articles obtained from the search were used to identify additional sources.Current literature suggests statistically higher overall healthcare costs during periods of generic AED use than during periods when branded AED are used, consistently demonstrated across different countries (Canada and the USA) and in both stable and unstable epilepsy patients, with more pronounced cost increases in patients receiving multiple generic versions. Brand-to-generic substitutions of AEDs do not necessarily reduce overall healthcare costs and may even increase them.

Objective: To understand factors driving the economic burden of major depressive disorder (MDD) patients with different treatment regimens, by evaluating the relationship between medical profiles and treatment costs. Abstract: Methods: Claims data for US privately insured employees (1999-2004) were analysed. Analysis included adult employees with ≥1 diagnosis of MDD and ≥1 prescription for specific antidepressants following a 6-month washout period. Patients were first classified into treatment pattern groups (switchers/discontinuers/maintainers/augmenters), then stratified into mutually exclusive treatment groups - nonstable, stable and intermediate - based on evidence of stability in treatment therapy. Rates of mental and physical co-morbidities, injuries/accidents, substance abuse and urgent care use were analysed across treatment pattern groups. Direct (medical/drug) costs were calculated per patient per year and disaggregated into depression- and non-depression-related components. A two-part multivariate model controlled for baseline characteristics. Costs were also estimated for patients with MDD only, patients with MDD and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and patients with MDD and any type of anxiety. Abstract: Results: Annual per patient adjusted costs (year 2005 values) were significantly lower among stable patients (&dollar;US6215) than among intermediate (&dollar;US7317) and nonstable patients (&dollar;US9948; p < 0.001). Stable patients also had lower depression- and non-depression-related costs. Patients with MDD and comorbid GAD or any type of anxiety had significantly higher costs than MDD-only patients. Abstract: Conclusions: Nonstability of treatment is associated with higher comorbidity rates, more urgent care use and higher total, depression- and non-depression-related direct costs. The stable group represents continuity of care and is associated with significant cost savings. Co-morbidities are associated with increased costs.

Compare treatment persistence, healthcare utilisation and costs for patients treated with escitalopram versus other SSRI/SNRIs in a real-world setting.Patients with a diagnosis for major depressive disorder (MDD) and at least one prescription for an SSRI or SNRI were identified from the Ingenix Impact Database (2002-2005). The baseline and study observation periods were defined as the 6 months before and after the index date (first date for an SSRI /SNRI pharmacy claim). Comparisons were made between patients initiated on escitalopram versus other SSRI/SNRIs using descriptive statistics and multivariate regressions.Escitalopram patients (n=10,465) had better treatment persistence compared to patients initiated on other SSRI/SNRIs (n=28,310): the hazard ratio of all discontinuation was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.94-0.99) for the escitalopram therapy (p=0.003), and the hazard ratio of switching to another second-generation antidepressant was 0.91 (95% CI=0.87-0.94) for the escitalopram therapy (p0.001). Escitalopram patients also had fewer inpatient service and emergency room visits. Adjusted average total all-cause healthcare costs and inpatient services costs were $839 and $405 lower in the escitalopram group (both p0.05).Escitalopram may be associated with lower healthcare utilisation and costs among adult MDD patients compared to other SSRI/SNRIs.

To compare escitalopram versus citalopram for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in geriatric patients.Administrative claims data (2003-2005) were analyzed for patients agedor =65 years with at least one inpatient claim or two independent medical claims associated with MDD diagnosis. Patients were continuously enrolled for at least 12 months, filled at least one prescription for citalopram or escitalopram and had no second generation antidepressant use during the 6-month pre-index date. Contingency table analysis and survival analysis were used to compare outcomes between the two treatment groups.Treatment persistence, hospitalization utilization, and prescription drug, medical, and total healthcare costs were analyzed. Outcomes were compared between patients initiated on escitalopram and those initiated on citalopram both descriptively and using multivariate analysis adjusting for baseline characteristics.Among 691 geriatric patients, escitalopram-treated patients (n=459) were less likely to discontinue treatment (hazard ratio [HR]=0.83, p=0.049) or switch to another second generation antidepressant (HR=0.62, p=0.001) compared to patients treated with citalopram (n=232). Patients treated with escitalopram had a significantly lower hospitalization rate (31.2% vs. 38.8%, p=0.045) and 66% fewer hospitalization days based on negative binomial regression (p0.001). While escitalopram patients had comparable prescription drug costs, they had lower total medical service costs (regression: $9748 vs. $19,208, p0.001) and lower total healthcare costs (regression: $11,434 vs. $20,601, p0.001).This study's limitations include its small sample size, short observational periods and exclusivity of indirect costs.Geriatric patients treated with escitalopram had better treatment persistence, fewer hospitalizations, and lower medical and total healthcare costs than patients treated with citalopram. Most of the cost reduction was attributable to significantly lower hospitalizations and total medical costs.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are genetically engineered forms of erythropoietin that are used in the treatment of anaemia. Their successful use in the treatment of anaemia associated with renal disease, cancer and other diseases, as well as the development of multiple agents, has increased the visibility of these agents in the clinical and health economics literature. The circumstances under which the use of ESAs is cost effective, or indeed, whether it is cost effective, is of central concern for clinicians and payers who must make informed decisions regarding the management of these costly resources. Much of the recent literature on ESAs in the treatment of anaemia associated with chronic kidney disease and cancer, the two major therapeutic areas for ESA treatment, has focused on comparisons between individual ESAs, particularly epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa. While there have been some studies of cost effectiveness, many studies in these treatment areas have employed a cost-minimization approach and have relied on published prices rather than actual market prices. In general, this review of the literature suggests a cost advantage for epoetin alfa relative to darbepoetin alfa in the treatment of anaemia in renal and oncology indications. For other indications in which the literature is less developed, such as anaemia induced by antiviral therapy and blood management in surgery, small prospective studies or decision-analytic models comparing ESA therapy and standard care have been most common. Few conclusions can be drawn about the overall and relative costs or cost effectiveness of ESAs in these treatment areas. With the recent concerns about the safety of ESAs, especially when used outside the approved product labelling, future evaluations of epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa should factor their safety profiles into estimates of cost effectiveness. Moreover, additional studies are needed to evaluate whether the treatment of anaemia with ESAs is cost effective compared with no treatment or minimal blood transfusions, and whether the cost effectiveness of ESAs would be improved if ESA doses and durations were reduced. With the introduction of new longer-acting ESAs, such as the continuous erythropoietin receptor activator, the relative cost effectiveness among the different ESAs will continue to be an important question for public and private payers, policy makers and clinicians who must consider the emergence of new data and changing dosing patterns when making decisions about the use of these important but costly agents.

The prevalence and workplace consequences of adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are unknown.An ADHD screen was included in a national household survey (n = 3198, ages 18-44). Clinical re-interviews calibrated the screen to diagnoses of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition ADHD. Diagnoses among workers were compared with responses to the WHO Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ).A total of 4.2% of workers had ADHD. ADHD was associated with 35.0 days of annual lost work performance, with higher associations among blue collar (55.8 days) than professional (12.2 days), technical (19.8 days), or service (32.6 days) workers. These associations represent 120 million days of annual lost work in the U.S. labor force, equivalent to dollar 19.5 billion lost human capital.ADHD is a common and costly workplace condition. Effectiveness trials are needed to estimate the region of interest of workplace ADHD screening and treatment programs.

Depression imposes significant costs on sufferers, their families and care-givers, employers and insurance payers. This article summarises medical and health economics literature regarding the societal economic burden of depression and the incremental economic burden of depression sufferers in comparison with non-depressed counterparts. This substantial knowledge base probably underestimates the true economic burden of the disease because the available data and analysis techniques do not capture all of the subtle costs of this condition. Future investigation is likely to focus on the relationship between depression and comorbid conditions, the role of caregiver burdens, and the economic differences in life outcomes.

The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive estimate of the cost of ADHD by consider ing the healthcare and work loss costs of persons with ADHD, as well as those costs imposed on their family members.Excess per capita healthcare (medical and prescription drug) and work loss (disability and work absence) costs of treated ADHD patients (ages 7 years-44 years) and their family members (under 65 years of age) were calculated using administrative claims data from a single large company; work loss costs are from disability data or imputed for medically related work loss days. Excess costs are the additional costs of patients and their family members over and above those of comparable control individuals. The excess costs of untreated individuals with ADHD and their family members were also estimated. All per capita costs were extrapolated using published prevalence and treatment rates and population data; the prevalence of persons with ADHD was based upon the literature.The total excess cost of ADHD in the US in 2000 was $31.6 billion. Of this total, $1.6 billion was for the ADHD treatment of patients, $12.1 billion was for all other healthcare costs of persons with ADHD, $14.2 billion was for all other healthcare costs of family members of persons with ADHD, and $3.7 billion was for the work loss cost of adults with ADHD and adult family members of persons with ADHD.The annual cost of ADHD in the US is substantial. Both treated and untreated persons with ADHD, as well as their family members, impose consider able economic burdens on the healthcare system as a result of this condition. While these first estimates of the cost of ADHD to the nation are suggestive of its substantial economic burden, future research needs to refine and build on this analysis, particularly in the context of a model to control for related co-morbidities. Similarly, since these results are based on data from a single company for the period 1996-1998, the analysis should be validated with more representative, current data.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of depression was estimated to be 43.7 billion dollars in 1990. A subsequent study reported a cost burden of 52.9 billion dollars using revised prevalence data and a refined workplace cost estimation approach. The objective of the current report is to provide a 10-year update of these estimates using the same methodological framework. METHOD: Using a human capital approach, we developed prevalence-based estimates of 3 major cost categories: (1) direct costs, (2) mortality costs arising from depression-related suicides, and (3) costs associated with depression in the workplace. Cost-of-illness estimates from 1990 were updated to reflect the experience in 2000 using current epidemiologic data and publicly available population, wage, and cost information. RESULTS: Whereas the treatment rate of depression increased by over 50%, its economic burden rose by only 7%, going from 77.4 billion dollars in 1990 (inflation-adjusted dollars) to 83.1 billion dollars in 2000. Of the 2000 total, 26.1 billion dollars (31%) were direct medical costs, 5.4 billion dollars (7%) were suicide-related mortality costs, and 51.5 billion dollars (62%) were workplace costs. CONCLUSION: The economic burden of depression remained relatively stable between 1990 and 2000, despite a dramatic increase in the proportion of depression sufferers who received treatment. Future research will incorporate additional costs associated with depression sufferers, including the excess costs of their coexisting psychiatric and medical conditions and attention to the role of painful conditions as a driver of these costs. Language: en

Background: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory condition of the airways that has a significant effect on the use of health care resources. Objective: This study is the first of its kind to estimate the overall cost of asthma to a major employer in the United States and to profile the nature of the asthma expenses. Methods: The annual per capita cost of asthma was determined for beneficiaries of a major employer by analyzing medical, pharmaceutical, and disability claims data. The incremental cost of asthma was determined by using a case-control method matching asthmatic patients to individuals with no record of asthma treatment. Results: The use of health care services, as well as the rate of disability, was substantially higher among asthmatic patients than among control subjects. Annual per capita employer expenditures for asthmatic patients were approximately 2.5 times those for control subjects ($5385 vs $2121, respectively). Among asthmatic employees with disability claims, total costs were approximately 3 times higher than those among disability claimants in the employee control sample ($14,827 vs $5280). For asthmatic employees, wage-replacement costs for workdays lost as a result of disability and sporadic absenteeism (40%) accounted for almost as much as did medical care (43%). Conclusion: Failure to account fully for the broader consequences of asthma in terms of indirect and comorbid treatment costs would result in a significant underassessment of the cost of asthma to an employer. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002;109:264-70.)

Major depressive disorder is the most common type of depression, affecting 6.6% of adults in the United States annually. Citalopram and escitalopram are common second-generation antidepressants used for the treatment of patients with this disorder. Because citalopram is available in generic forms that have lower acquisition costs compared with the branded escitalopram, some health plans may provide incentives to encourage the use of the generic option. Decisions based solely on drug acquisition costs may encourage the use of a therapy that is less cost-effective when treatment persistence, healthcare utilization, and overall costs are factored in.To compare, in a real-world setting, the treatment persistence, healthcare utilization, and overall costs of managing adult patients with major depressive disorder who are treated with escitalopram or citalopram.Administrative claims data (from January 1, 2003, to June 30, 2005) were analyzed for patients with major depressive disorder aged ≥18 years. Patients filled ≥1 prescriptions for citalopram or for escitalopram (first-fill time was defined as the index date) and had no second-generation antidepressant use during the 6-month preindex period. Treatment persistence, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs were measured over the 6-month preindex and 6-month postindex periods and compared between patients treated with citalopram or escitalopram, using unadjusted and multivariate analyses.Patients receiving escitalopram (N = 10,465) were less likely to discontinue the treatment (hazard ratio 0.94; P = .005) and switch to another second-generation antidepressant (hazard ratio 0.83; P.001) than patients receiving citalopram (N = 4212). Patients receiving escitalopram were also less likely to have a hospital admission (odds ratio 0.88; P = .036) or an emergency department visit and had lower total healthcare costs (-$1174) and major depressive disorder-related costs (-$109; P.001) during the study period.Although the drug acquisition costs are lower for generic citalopram than for the brand-name escitalopram, patients treated with escitalopram had better treatment persistence, lower healthcare utilization, and lower overall costs compared with patients treated with citalopram over the study period. This may suggest that other considerations, in addition to acquisition cost, may need to be factored in to assess the cost-effectiveness of drug therapy.

Depression is a common psychiatric disorder affecting approximately 17 million Americans each year and resulting in a significant economic burden, estimated at $43-$53 billion in 1990. The cost burden of depression extends beyond the direct cost of treatment, to include the costs of lost productivity, both while at work and days absent from work, as well as lost earnings due to increased mortality and the impacts experienced by a patient's caregivers. This range of costs is discussed, in the context of the prevalence and impacts of depression and detailing the cost components of depression. We highlight that existing estimates of the cost of depression are underestimates and we conclude with areas for future research.

Background and Objective: A growing body of literature on the economics of depression concludes that this illness has an enormous impact on workplace performance. In addition to work cutback and sporadic absenteeism, the symptoms of depression also result in elevated rates of chronic absenteeism that manifest in the form of workplace disability. Design and Setting: Using a unique data source that contains the medical, pharmaceutical and disability claims of a national US manufacturer, we measured the extent of disability before and after initial treatment for major depression. Participants: 1260 employees with at least one medical or disability claim for major depression based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition (ICD-9) codes in 1996 or 1997. Results: We estimate that the decreased disability payments in the first 30 days following initial treatment for major depression results in employer savings totalling $US93 per patient, which can exceed the cost of treatment for a similar period of time. These disability savings do not incorporate several additional sources of likely cost savings to the employer, and thereby underestimate the workplace offsets associated with depression treatment. Additional benefits to the employer from the treatment of depression include reduced work cutback and decreased sporadic absenteeism of treated employees, reductions in some types of medical and prescription drug expenditures following appropriate depression treatment, and productivity improvements by employees serving as caregivers for treated spouses and children. Furthermore, to the extent that new pharmaceutical products offer advantages in the workplace over existing treatments for depression, the first month of such treatment will be associated with workplace savings that exceed per-patient estimates reported here for current treatment modalities. Conclusions: The findings from this analysis imply that the workplace benefits from improved functioning are substantial and may in fact exceed the usual costs of depression treatment. Thus, purely on economic rather than clinical or quality-of-life grounds, this argues in favour of more aggressive outreach to employees with symptomatic disease that results in initiation of treatment before their symptoms are allowed to persist and result in a disability claim. In this light, detection and treatment of depression in the workplace can be seen as important components of community-based disease management programmes.

We analyzed data from two national surveys to estimate the short-term work disability associated with thirty-day major depression. Depressed workers were found to have between 1.5 and 3.2 more short-term work-disability days in a thirty-day period than other workers had, with a salary-equivalent productivity loss averaging between $182 and $395. These workplace costs are nearly as large as the direct costs of successful depression treatment, which suggests that encouraging depressed workers to obtain treatment might be cost-effective for some employers.

The use of pharmacoeconomic tools has grown dramatically in the past decade as provision of healthcare throughout the industrialised world has required increased cost consciousness. However, pharmacoeconomic analysis has not yet been fully exploited as a conceptual underpinning for public or private health policy decisions. Pharmacoeconomics is likely to become an increasingly important basis for health policy decisions as a number of significant dynamics evolve in the marketplace, including: (i) consumers acting on their growing access to information and becoming more actively involved in treatment decisions; (ii) payers, providers and patients deepening their interaction and overcoming their traditional (narrow) focus on either costs or benefits alone; and (iii) manufacturers being challenged by other healthcare constituencies as sponsors of cost-based outcomes studies.

Objective. This study determined the risk of serious hepatotoxicity resulting in hospitalizations among patients prescribed opioid/acetaminophen combinations. Methods. A retrospective cohort study using an insurance claims database was conducted. Adult patients with ≥1 claim for oxycodone/acetaminophen or hydrocodone/acetaminophen combinations were included (N = 1,228,356). A pre–post design was employed to compare serious hepatotoxicity risk before versus after initiation of opioid/acetaminophen combination. Serious hepatotoxicity risk between the opioid/acetaminophen group and a control group of opioid-alone users (N = 11,809) was also examined. Within the opioid/acetaminophen group, risk of hepatotoxicity-related hospitalizations pre- versus post-opioid/acetaminophen treatment was compared using the normal approximation with the binomial distribution. The incidence rate of hepatotoxicity-related hospitalizations for the opioid/acetaminophen group was compared with the opioid-alone group using multivariate Poisson regression adjusting for baseline differences between groups. Results. Of the opioid/acetaminophen cohort, hepatotoxicity-related hospitalization risk in the 6-month post-opioid/acetaminophen period was lower than that in the pre-period with a risk reduction of 1.2 per 10,000 (pre-period = 0.12%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12 to 0.13; post-period = 0.11%; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.12). In the 12-month period, risk increased in the post-period by 2.4 per 10,000 (pre-period = 0.14%; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.15; post-period = 0.17%; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.18). After adjusting for confounders, the opioid-alone group did not demonstrate a lower rate of hepatotoxicity-related hospitalizations than the opioid/acetaminophen group (incidence rate ratio of opioid-alone over opioid/acetaminophen = 2.9; 95% CI, 1.8 to 4.7). Conclusions. There is no population data-based evidence supporting elevated risk of hepatotoxicity-related hospitalization associated with opioid/acetaminophen combinations.

Objective: To assess effects of antidepressant treatment compliance on health care and workplace costs. Methods: By using workplace survey data linked to two employers' health care claims, employees with depression/ antidepressant claims were categorized into noncompliant/compliant groups. Annualized costs were compared between compliance groups, for the employees with antidepressant use and a subset diagnosed with depression. Results: Among antidepressant users (N = 1224), medical costs were not statistically different for compliant versus noncompliant patients; drug costs were higher for compliant patients, primarily because of antidepressants' costs. Similar associations were observed among depressed patients (N = 488). Absenteeism costs were lower for compliant patients with antidepressant use ($3857 vs $4,907, P = 0.041) and among depressed patients ($3976 vs $5899, P = 0.047). Presenteeism costs were higher for depressed compliant patients ($19,170 vs $15,829, P = 0.011). Conclusions: Increased compliance with antidepressants is significantly associated with reduced absenteeism costs.

Over the past few years, many pharmaceuticalmanufacturers have settled claims brought bythe US Department of Justice (USDOJ) allegingthat the drug companies engaged in illegal,off-label product promotion. Between 2003 and2007, 11 investigations involving off-label pro-motion in the US were settled. Six of those in-vestigations settled in 2007 alone.

Objective: To investigate clinical and economic consequences following generic substitution of one vs multiple generics of topiramate (Topamax; Ortho-McNeil Neurologics, Titusville, NJ). Methods: Medical and pharmacy claims data of Regie de l9Assurance-Maladie du Quebec from January 2006 to October 2007 were used. Patients with epilepsy treated with topiramate were selected. An open-cohort design was used to classify the observation period into periods of brand, single-generic, and multiple-generic use. One-year generic-switch and switchback-to-brand rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Medical resource utilization and costs were compared among the three periods using multivariate regression analysis. Results: In total, 948 patients were observed during 1,105 person-years of brand use, 233 person-years of single-generic use, and 92 person-years of multiple-generic use. A total of 23% of generic users received at least two different generic versions. Compared to brand use, multiple-generic use was associated with higher utilization of other prescription drugs (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.24–1.31), higher hospitalization rates (0.48 vs 0.83 visit/person-year, IRR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.28–2.13), and longer hospital stays (2.6 vs 3.9 days/person-year, IRR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.27–1.60), but the effect was less pronounced in single-generic use (hospitalization: IRR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.88–1.34, length of stay: IRR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.03–1.23). The risk of head injury or fracture was nearly three times higher (hazard ratio = 2.84, 95% CI = 1.24–6.48) following a generic-to-generic switch compared to brand use. The total annualized health care cost per patient was higher in the multiple-generic than brand periods by C$1,716 (cost ratio = 1.21, p = 0.0420). Conclusion: Multiple-generic substitution of topiramate was significantly associated with negative outcomes, such as hospitalizations and injuries, and increased health care costs.

To compare medical and cost profiles of patients treated for depression classified by treatment pattern groups.An analysis used de-identified 1999-2004 employer claims data (n=2.9 million beneficiaries) for employees withor =1 diagnosis of major depressive disorder andor =1 antidepressant prescription, following a 6-month washout period of no antidepressant prescription. Patients were classified into switcher/discontinuer/augmenter/maintainer during Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set-defined initial and subsequent treatment periods, then grouped into stable, intermediate, or non-stable treatment groups, based on stability of treatment patterns. Medical/cost profiles for 6-month pre- and 12-month post-index periods were compared descriptively, and multivariate regressions were estimated, controlling for baseline characteristics/severity markers. Cost savings reflect differences between treatment pattern groups from a current US perspective.Of the 5,225 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 60.8% were in stable, 24.5% in intermediate and 14.7% in non-stable treatment groups. No significant differences existed in medical profiles and costs between the three groups in the pre-index period. In the post-index period, stable group patients had lower costs compared to intermediate and non-stable groups. Stable group patients generated cost savings of $1,842 compared to intermediate and $5,231 compared to non-stable groups. Multivariate analysis confirmed these findings.Patients on a more stable treatment regimen yield significant cost savings compared to patients on a less stable regimen.

This study estimates the costs to society of prescription opioid analgesic (RxO) abuse in the United States.Costs associated with RxO abuse were grouped into healthcare, criminal justice, and workplace categories. Costs were estimated by either (1) a quantity method that multiplies the number of RxO abusers derived from various national surveys by the estimated per abuser cost, or (2) an apportionment method that starts with overall (ie, prescription and nonprescription) drug abuse costs for a cost component (eg, police protection) and apportions the share of costs based on the prevalence of RxO abuse relative to overall drug abuse. Medical costs in excess of those for otherwise similar nonabusers were based on an analysis of a large administrative claims database for an employed population using multivariate regression methods.A lower bound estimate of the costs of RxO abuse in the United States was 8.6 billion dollars in 2001 (or 9.5 billion dollars in 2005 dollars). Of this amount, 2.6 billion dollarswere healthcare costs, 1.4 billion dollars were criminal justice costs, and 4.6 billion dollars were workplace costs.The costs of RxO abuse represent a substantial economic burden. Rising trends of RxO abuse suggest an escalating economic and public health burden in coming years in the United States, and potentially, elsewhere.

Depression and fibromyalgia (FM) are often coincident. Both syndromes share common symptoms and impose significant economic burdens. This study compared claims for treatment and costs of FM plus depression with those for FM or depression alone.Administrative claims data from a national Fortune 100 manufacturer were used to identify 3 mutually exclusive patient cohorts based on claims with a diagnosis for: FM only, depression only, and FM plus depression. A fourth cohort comprised a random sample of 10% of the employer's overall beneficiary population. Cohorts were compared for demographics, comorbid conditions, and healthcare resources utilization. Mean direct (treatment) costs were calculated and indirect (work loss) costs imputed, and these were assessed using Student's t test and Bonferroni adjustments.Mean annual employer payments (direct plus indirect costs) per patient were 5,163 dollars for FM only, 8,073 dollars for depression only, 11,899 dollars for FM plus depression, and 2,486 dollars for the overall sample. Mean incremental employer payments (i.e., above those for the random sample) per patient with FM plus depression were 9,413 dollars, an amount more than the sum of incremental costs for those with FM or depression alone (8,264 dollars). These costs are consistent with costs of other chronic diseases.Patients with FM plus depression are high users of healthcare services. As in studies that established relationships between depression and other medical conditions, incremental costs for patients with FM plus depression were more than additive of costs for each condition alone.

Although previous studies have attempted to isolate the effect of pharmaceutical spending on health outcomes, most have been limited by analysis of inherently heterogeneous inter-country data. This study focuses on one particular health outcome — infant mortality at the state level in the U.S. — and shows that its important determinants include: (1) pharmaceutical expenditures; (2) health economic infrastructure (e.g. number of practicing physicians, number of hospital beds); (3) socio-demographics (e.g. teenage birth rate, low-weight births, high school graduation rate, racial composition of state population); and (4) state-level economic aggregates (e.g. a disposable income, percent of population below the poverty line).

BACKGROUND: This retrospective study compared treatment patterns and costs for patients with recognized and unrecognized bipolar disorder with those of depressed patients without a bipolar disorder claim. METHOD: Claims data for 7 large national employers covering 585,584 persons aged less than 65 years were used to identify patients diagnosed with depression and initially treated with antidepressants. Data on employees, as well as spouses and dependents, for the period 1998 to mid-2001 were used. Patients were identified as bipolar based on the criteria of a bipolar diagnosis claim (ICD-9 codes: 296.0, 296.1, 296.4-296.8) and/or a mood stabilizer prescription claim. Of the patients identified as bipolar, unrecognized bipolar disorder (unrecognized-BP) patients met the criteria after antidepressant initiation, while recognized bipolar disorder (recognized-BP) patients met the criteria at or before initiation. The remaining patients in the sample were non-bipolar depressed (non-BP) patients. Outcome measures included treatment patterns and monthly medical costs in the 12 months subsequent to initiation of antidepressant treatment. RESULTS: Of the 9009 patients treated for depression with antidepressants, there were 8383 non-BP patients (93.1%), 293 recognized-BP patients (3.3%), and 333 unrecognized-BP patients (3.7%). Use of combination therapies varied among the non-BP (11%), unrecognized-BP (32%), and recognized-BP patients (44%) (all pairwise p

Fibromyalgia (FM) is characterized by widespread pain that can lead to significant patient disability, complex management decisions for physicians, and economic burden on society. We investigated the total costs of FM in an employer population.Administrative claims data of a Fortune 100 manufacturer were used to quantify direct (i.e., medical and pharmaceutical claims) and indirect (i.e., disability claims and imputed absenteeism) costs associated with FM. A total of 4699 patients with at least one FM claim between 1996 and 1998 were contrasted with a 10% random sample of the overall beneficiary population. Employee-only subsets of both samples also were drawn.Medical utilization, receipt of prescription drugs, and annual total costs were proportionately similar yet significantly greater among FM claimants than the overall sample (all p0.0001). Total annual costs for FM claimants were $5945 versus $2486 for the typical beneficiary (p0.0001). Six percent of these costs were attributable to FM-specific claims. The prevalence of disability was twice as high among FM employees than overall employees (p0.0001). For every dollar spent on FM-specific claims, the employer spent another $57 to $143 on additional direct and indirect costs.Hidden costs of disability and comorbidities greatly increase the true burden of FM. Regardless of the clinical understanding of FM, when a claim for FM is present, considerable costs are involved. Findings suggest that within the management of FM there may be large cost-offset opportunities for reductions in patient, physician, and employer burdens.