[Not Available]

The Modernization of Clozapine: A Recapitulation of the Past in the United States and the View Forward

PURPOSE

Although clozapine was Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved more than 3 decades ago, major barriers and gaps in knowledge continue to prevent its effective and safe use. We review modern-day problems encountered with clozapine in the United States (US).

METHODS

Information surrounding current administrative, clinical, research, and technological gaps or barriers related to clozapine use in the US was reviewed.

FINDINGS

The history of how clozapine became FDA approved likely contributes to gaps in knowledge. The frequency of safety warnings added to the FDA prescribing information may add to fears about clozapine, as evidence by numerous published survey studies. The clozapine Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program has been modified several times in the last decade, causing access and safety issues for patients, which are discussed. Evidence may suggest that the FDA REMS requirements for hematologic monitoring are too cumbersome, and there may be ability to safely loosen requirements. The COVID-19 pandemic brought forth the ability for extended interval monitoring but also greater awareness of the clozapine-inflammation interaction. Newer guidelines published describe considerations in personalizing clozapine titration based on principles of ethnopsychopharmacology. Emerging technologies to support the use of clozapine are not widely available.

IMPLICATIONS

Clozapine is a unique life-saving drug but it is underused in the US, despite its established efficacy. The 2021 REMS changes led to significant difficulties for providers and patients. We highlight the importance of the clozapine-inflammation interaction, therapeutic drug monitoring, and the ability for individual care based on patient-specific factors. There is an urgent need for advancing technology used for clozapine monitoring, evaluating barriers created by REMS, and establishing consistent practices throughout the US.

Place of care and costs associated with acute episodes and remission in bipolar I disorder

AIMS

To our knowledge, literature describing the place of care and associated costs during acute bipolar I disorder (BP-I) episodes is limited. We conducted a claims-based retrospective study to address this gap.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adults with BP-I were identified via IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. The acute episode index date was defined by ≥1 inpatient BP-I claim(s) or ≥1 outpatient or ≥3 outpatient BP-I claims (depending on visit type) in a 2-week (manic/mixed) or 4-week (depressive) period. Likely acute episodes were defined as 3- and 6-week periods for manic/mixed and depressive episodes, respectively; total mental health-related medical costs (health plan + patient) were collected during these intervals and stratified by setting (inpatient versus outpatient). Initial and subsequent episodes were captured; data were reported in subgroups without and with clozapine use, a proxy for disease severity. The remission index date was the earliest outpatient claim with a bipolar remission diagnosis with no acute episode or treatment. Remission costs were collected over a 3-month period. All results were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 41,516 patients with 130,221 acute manic/mixed episodes and 47,763 patients with 149,207 acute depressive episodes met the study criteria. Over 84% of acute episodes were treated in outpatient settings. Mental health-related medical costs for manic/mixed episodes were $15,444 for inpatient and $1,577 for outpatient settings; inpatient and outpatient costs for depressive episodes were $17,376 and $2,154, respectively. Health plans covered approximately 78% of medical costs for both episode types with and without prior clozapine use. A total of 8,143 patients met remission criteria; the total 3-month outpatient costs were $1,225.

CONCLUSIONS

Most BP-I acute manic/mixed or depressive episodes were treated in the outpatient setting. Episodes with inpatient care were 8-10 times more costly than outpatient-only episodes. Health plans covered most medical costs, but additional patient-incurred out-of-pocket costs remained.