Prospective Service Use and Health Care Costs of Medicaid Beneficiaries with Treatment-Resistant Depression

Major challenges in youth psychopathology: treatment-resistant depression. A narrative review

Major depressive disorder (MDD) represents a major health issue in adolescents and young adults, leading to high levels of disability and profoundly impacting overall functioning. The clinical presentation of MDD in this vulnerable age group may slightly differ from what can be observed in adult populations, and psychopharmacological strategies do not always lead to optimal response. Resistance to antidepressant treatment has a prevalence estimated around 40% in youths suffering from MDD and is associated with higher comorbidity rates and suicidality. Several factors, encompassing biological, environmental, and clinical features, may contribute to the emergence of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in adolescents and young adults. Furthermore, TRD may underpin the presence of an unrecognized bipolar diathesis, increasing the overall complexity of the clinical picture and posing major differential diagnosis challenges in the clinical practice. After summarizing current evidence on epidemiological and clinical correlates of TRD in adolescents and young adults, the present review also provides an overview of possible treatment strategies, including novel fast-acting antidepressants. Despite these pharmacological agents are promising in this population, their usage is expected to rely on risk-benefit ratio and to be considered in the context of integrated models of care.

Cost-effectiveness and threshold analysis of deep brain stimulation vs. treatment-as-usual for treatment-resistant depression

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) affects approximately 2.8 million people in the U.S. with estimated annual healthcare costs of $43.8 billion. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is currently an investigational intervention for TRD. We used a decision-analytic model to compare cost-effectiveness of DBS to treatment-as-usual (TAU) for TRD. Because this therapy is not FDA approved or in common use, our goal was to establish an effectiveness threshold that trials would need to demonstrate for this therapy to be cost-effective. Remission and complication rates were determined from review of relevant studies. We used published utility scores to reflect quality of life after treatment. Medicare reimbursement rates and health economics data were used to approximate costs. We performed Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER; USD/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) at a 5-year time horizon. Cost-effectiveness was defined using willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100,000/QALY and $50,000/QALY for moderate and definitive cost-effectiveness, respectively. We included 274 patients across 16 studies from 2009-2021 who underwent DBS for TRD and had ≥12 months follow-up in our model inputs. From a healthcare sector perspective, DBS using non-rechargeable devices (DBS-pc) would require 55% and 85% remission, while DBS using rechargeable devices (DBS-rc) would require 11% and 19% remission for moderate and definitive cost-effectiveness, respectively. From a societal perspective, DBS-pc would require 35% and 46% remission, while DBS-rc would require 8% and 10% remission for moderate and definitive cost-effectiveness, respectively. DBS-pc will unlikely be cost-effective at any time horizon without transformative improvements in battery longevity. If remission rates ≥8-19% are achieved, DBS-rc will likely be more cost-effective than TAU for TRD, with further increasing cost-effectiveness beyond 5 years.

Projecting the 10-year costs of care and mortality burden of depression until 2032: a Markov modelling study developed from real-world data

Background

Based on real-world data, we developed a 10-year prediction model to estimate the burden among patients with depression from the public healthcare system payer's perspective to inform early resource planning in Hong Kong.

Methods

We developed a Markov cohort model with yearly cycles specifically capturing the pathway of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and comorbidity development along the disease course. Projected from 2023 to 2032, primary outcomes included costs of all-cause and psychiatric care, and secondary outcomes were all-cause deaths, years of life lived, and quality-adjusted life-years. Using the territory-wide electronic medical records, we identified 25,190 patients aged ≥10 years with newly diagnosed depression from 2014 to 2016 with follow-up until 2020 to observe the real-world time-to-event pattern, based on which costs and time-varying transition inputs were derived using negative binomial modelling and parametric survival analysis. We applied the model as both closed cohort, which studied a fixed cohort of incident patients in 2023, and open cohort, which introduced incident patients by year from 2014 to 2032. Utilities and annual new patients were from published sources.

Findings

With 9217 new patients in 2023, our closed cohort model projected the 10-year cumulative costs of all-cause and psychiatric care to reach US$309.0 million and US$58.3 million, respectively, with 899 deaths (case fatality rate: 9.8%) by 2032. In our open cohort model, 55,849-57,896 active prevalent cases would cost more than US$322.3 million and US$60.7 million, respectively, with more than 943 deaths annually from 2023 to 2032. Fewer than 20% of cases would live with TRD or comorbidities but contribute 31-54% of the costs. The greatest collective burden would occur in women aged above 40, but men aged above 65 and below 25 with medical history would have the highest costs per patient-year. The key cost drivers were relevant to the early disease stages.

Interpretation

A limited proportion of patients would develop TRD and comorbidities but contribute to a high proportion of costs, which necessitates appropriate attention and resource allocation. Our projection also demonstrates the application of real-world data to model long-term costs and mortality, which aid policymakers anticipate foreseeable burden and undertake budget planning to prepare for the care need in alternative scenarios.

Funding

Research Impact Fund from the University Grants Committee, Research Grants Council with matching fund from the Hong Kong Association of Pharmaceutical Industry (R7007-22).

Treatment-resistant depression: definition, prevalence, detection, management, and investigational interventions

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is common and associated with multiple serious public health implications. A consensus definition of TRD with demonstrated predictive utility in terms of clinical decision-making and health outcomes does not currently exist. Instead, a plethora of definitions have been proposed, which vary significantly in their conceptual framework. The absence of a consensus definition hampers precise estimates of the prevalence of TRD, and also belies efforts to identify risk factors, prevention opportunities, and effective interventions. In addition, it results in heterogeneity in clinical practice decision-making, adversely affecting quality of care. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have adopted the most used definition of TRD (i.e., inadequate response to a minimum of two antidepressants despite adequacy of the treatment trial and adherence to treatment). It is currently estimated that at least 30% of persons with depression meet this definition. A significant percentage of persons with TRD are actually pseudo-resistant (e.g., due to inadequacy of treatment trials or non-adherence to treatment). Although multiple sociodemographic, clinical, treatment and contextual factors are known to negatively moderate response in persons with depression, very few factors are regarded as predictive of non-response across multiple modalities of treatment. Intravenous ketamine and intranasal esketamine (co-administered with an antidepressant) are established as efficacious in the management of TRD. Some second-generation antipsychotics (e.g., aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, quetiapine XR) are proven effective as adjunctive treatments to antidepressants in partial responders, but only the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination has been studied in FDA-defined TRD. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is established as effective and FDA-approved for individuals with TRD, with accelerated theta-burst TMS also recently showing efficacy. Electroconvulsive therapy is regarded as an effective acute and maintenance intervention in TRD, with preliminary evidence suggesting non-inferiority to acute intravenous ketamine. Evidence for extending antidepressant trial, medication switching and combining antidepressants is mixed. Manual-based psychotherapies are not established as efficacious on their own in TRD, but offer significant symptomatic relief when added to conventional antidepressants. Digital therapeutics are under study and represent a potential future clinical vista in this population.

Health care utilisation in treatment-resistant depression: a Swedish population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the health care utilisation (HCU) among patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) compared to patients with depression not meeting TRD criteria.

METHODS

Nationwide Swedish registers were used to identify patients 18-69 years old with incident depression and antidepressant treatment. Patients were followed prospectively and defined as having TRD at start of the third distinct consecutive treatment episode. Each of the 16,329 identified TRD patients were matched with five comparators with depression not meeting criteria for TRD. Main outcome measure was total number of inpatient days and outpatient visits, and secondary outcome was HCU in connection with a main diagnosis of depression or suicide attempt.

RESULTS

TRD patients had a significantly higher risk of all-cause inpatient care than comparators (first year adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 3.03 [95%CI 3.01-3.05], years 1-3 aRR 2.15 [2.13-2.16]). This was more pronounced when the main diagnosis was depression (first year aRR 4.41 [4.36-4.45]), and after suicide attempt (first year aRR 4.43 [4.26-4.60]). Outpatient visits were also markedly more frequent for patients with TRD (first year aRR 2.05 [2.03-2.07]). Higher HCU among TRD patients persisted throughout follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with TRD may have a twofold to fourfold higher HCU than other patients with depression.KEYPOINTSThis register-based prospective study investigated health care utilisation (HCU) among patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) compared to other patients with depression.Patients with TRD had a two to fourfold higher HCU regarding all measured outcomes, including inpatient hospital days and outpatient visits.The elevated HCU persisted for more than three years, although decreasing gradually. This should correspond to increased costs and individual burden for patients with TRD.

Indirect COVID-19 health effects and potential mitigating interventions: Cost-effectiveness framework

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic led to important indirect health and social harms in addition to deaths and morbidity due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. These indirect impacts, such as increased depression and substance abuse, can have persistent effects over the life course. Estimated health and cost outcomes of such conditions and mitigation strategies may guide public health responses.

Methods

We developed a cost-effectiveness framework to evaluate societal costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost due to six health-related indirect effects of COVID-19 in California. Short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated for the adult population. We identified one evidence-based mitigation strategy for each condition and estimated QALYs gained, intervention costs, and savings from averted health-related harms. Model data were derived from literature review, public data, and expert opinion.

Results

Pandemic-associated increases in prevalence across these six conditions were estimated to lead to over 192,000 QALYs lost and to approach $7 billion in societal costs per million population over the life course of adults. The greatest costs and QALYs lost per million adults were due to adult depression. All mitigation strategies assessed saved both QALYs and costs, with five strategies achieving savings within one year. The greatest net savings over 10 years would be achieved by addressing depression ($242 million) and excessive alcohol use ($107 million).

Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic is leading to significant human suffering and societal costs due to its indirect effects. Policymakers have an opportunity to reduce societal costs and health harms by implementing mitigation strategies.

Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Esketamine Nasal Spray Plus an Oral Antidepressant in Patients with Treatment-resistant Depression- an Asian Sub-group Analysis from the SUSTAIN-2 Study

Objective

To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of intranasal esketamine in patients with treatment-resistant depression from the Asian subgroup of the SUSTAIN-2 study.

Methods

SUSTAIN-2 was a phase 3, open-label, single-arm, multicenter study comprising a 4-week screening, 4-week induction, 48-week optimization/maintenance, and 4-week follow-up (upon esketamine discontinuation) phase. Patients with treatment-resistant depression received esketamine plus an oral antidepressant during the treatment period.

Results

The incidence of ≥ 1 serious treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) among the 78 subjects from the Asian subgroup (Taiwan 33, Korea 26, Malaysia 19) was 11.5% (n = 9); with no fatal TEAE. 13 Asian patients (16.7%) discontinued esketamine due to TEAEs. The most common TEAEs were dizziness (37.2%), nausea (29.5%), dissociation (28.2%), and headache (21.8%). Most TEAEs were mild to moderate in severity, transient and resolved on the same day. Upon discontinuation of esketamine, no trend in withdrawal symptoms was observed to associate long-term use of esketamine with withdrawal syndrome. There were no reports of drug seeking, abuse, or overdose. Improvements in symptoms, functioning and quality of life, occurred during in the induction phase and were generally maintained through the optimization/maintenance phases of the study.

Conclusion

The safety and efficacy of esketamine in the Asian subgroup was generally consistent with the total SUSTAIN-2 population. There was no new safety signal and no indication of a high potential for abuse with the long-term (up to one year) use of esketamine in the Asian subgroup. Most of the benefits of esketamine occurred early during the induction phase.

Clinical research challenges posed by difficult-to-treat depression

Approximately one-third of individuals in a major depressive episode will not achieve sustained remission despite multiple, well-delivered treatments. These patients experience prolonged suffering and disproportionately utilize mental and general health care resources. The recently proposed clinical heuristic of 'difficult-to-treat depression' (DTD) aims to broaden our understanding and focus attention on the identification, clinical management, treatment selection, and outcomes of such individuals. Clinical trial methodologies developed to detect short-term therapeutic effects in treatment-responsive populations may not be appropriate in DTD. This report reviews three essential challenges for clinical intervention research in DTD: (1) how to define and subtype this heterogeneous group of patients; (2) how, when, and by what methods to select, acquire, compile, and interpret clinically meaningful outcome metrics; and (3) how to choose among alternative clinical trial design options to promote causal inference and generalizability. The boundaries of DTD are uncertain, and an evidence-based taxonomy and reliable assessment tools are preconditions for clinical research and subtyping. Traditional outcome metrics in treatment-responsive depression may not apply to DTD, as they largely reflect the only short-term symptomatic change and do not incorporate durability of benefit, side effect burden, or sustained impact on quality of life or daily function. The trial methodology will also require modification as trials will likely be of longer duration to examine the sustained impact, raising complex issues regarding control group selection, blinding and its integrity, and concomitant treatments.

Evaluation of population-level pharmacogenetic actionability in Alabama

The evolution of evidence and availability of Clinical Pharmacogenetic Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines have enabled assessment of pharmacogenetic (PGx) actionability and clinical implementation. However, population‐level actionability is not well‐characterized. We leveraged the Alabama Genomic Health Initiative (AGHI) to evaluate population‐level PGx actionability. Participants (>18 years), representing all 67 Alabama counties, were genotyped using the Illumina Global Screening array. Using CPIC guidelines, actionability was evaluated using (1) genotype data and genetic ancestry, (2) prescribing data, and (3) combined genotype and medication data. Of 6,331 participants, 4230 had genotype data and 3386 had genotype and prescription data (76% women; 76% White/18% Black [self‐reported]). Genetic ancestry was concordant with self‐reported race. For CPIC level A genes, 98.6% had an actionable genotype (99.4% Blacks/African; 98.5% White/European). With the exception of DPYD and CYP2C19, the prevalence of actionable genotypes by gene differed significantly by race. Based on prescribing, actionability was highest for CYP2D6 (70.9%), G6PD (54.1%), CYP2C19 (53.5%), and CYP2C9 (47.5%). Among participants prescribed atenolol, carvedilol, or metoprolol, ~ 50% had an actionable ADRB1 genotype, associated with decreased therapeutic response, with higher actionability among Blacks compared to Whites (62.5% vs. 47.4%; p < 0.0001). Based on both genotype and prescribing frequencies, no significant differences in actionability were observed between men and women. This statewide effort highlights PGx population‐level impact to help optimize pharmacotherapy. Almost all Alabamians harbor an actionable genotype, and a significant proportion are prescribed affected medications. Statewide efforts, such as AGHI, lay the foundation for translational research and evaluate “real‐world” outcomes of PGx.

Health care resource utilization and costs associated with nonadherence and nonpersistence to antidepressants in major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence and nonpersistence to antidepressants in major depressive disorder (MDD) are common and associated with poor clinical and functional outcomes and increased health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. However, contemporary real-world evidence on the economic effect of antidepressant nonadherence and nonpersistence is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of nonadherence and nonpersistence to antidepressants on HCRU and costs in adult patients with MDD enrolled in U.S. commercial and Medicare supplemental insurance plans. METHODS: This was a retrospective new-user cohort study using administrative claims data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. We identified adult patients with MDD aged ≥ 18 years who initiated antidepressant therapy for a new MDD episode between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017. Twelve-month total all-cause HCRU and costs (2019 U.S. dollars) were characterized for patients who were adherent/nonadherent and persistent/nonpersistent to antidepressants at 6 months. Adherence was defined as having proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥ 80%, and persistence was defined as having continuous antidepressant therapy without a ≥ 30-day gap. Multivariable negative binomial regression and 2-part models adjusted for baseline characteristics were used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for HCRU and incremental costs of nonadherence and nonpersistence, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 224,645 patients with MDD (commercial: n = 209,422; Medicare supplemental: n = 15,223) met all study inclusion criteria. Approximately half of patients were nonadherent (commercial: 48%; Medicare supplemental: 50%) or nonpersistent (commercial: 49%; Medicare supplemental: 52%) to antidepressants at 6 months. After controlling for baseline characteristics, nonadherent patients experienced significantly more inpatient hospitalizations (commercial, adjusted IRR [95% CI]: 1.34 [1.29 to 1.39]; Medicare supplemental: 1.19 [1.12 to 1.28]) and emergency room (ER) visits (commercial, adjusted IRR [95% CI]: 1.43 [1.40 to 1.45]; Medicare supplemental: 1.28 [1.21 to 1.36]) compared with adherent patients. Similar results were observed in nonpersistent patients. Adjusted mean differences revealed that nonadherent and nonpersistent patients accumulated significantly higher medical costs (commercial: $568 [95% CI: $354 to $764] and $491 [$284 to $703]; Medicare supplemental: $1,621 [$314 to $2,774] and $1,764 [$451 to $2,925]), inpatient costs (commercial: $650 [$490 to $801] and $564 [$417 to $716]; Medicare supplemental: $1,546 [$705 to $2,308] and $1,567 [$778 to $2,331]), and ER costs (commercial: $130 [$115 to $143] and $129 [$115 to $142]; Medicare supplemental: $82 [$23 to $150] and $80 [$18 to $150]), and incurred significantly lower pharmacy costs (commercial: -$561 [-$601 to -$521] and -$576 [-$616 to -$540]; Medicare supplemental: -$510 [-$747 to -$227] and -$596 [-$830 to -$325]) compared with adherent and persistent patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study found more hospitalizations and ER use and higher total medical costs among patients who were nonadherent and nonpersistent to antidepressants at 6 months. Strategies that promote better adherence and persistence may lower HCRU and medical costs in patients with MDD. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan, which was involved in the study design; data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; and decision to present these results. Ta was supported by a training grant provided to the University of Washington by Allergan at the time this study was conducted. Tung and Gillard are employees of Allergan. Oliveri is an employee of Genesis Research. Sullivan and Devine have no financial disclosures. This study was presented as a poster at AMCP 2020 (Virtual Meeting), April 21-24, 2020.

Clinical Features and Outcomes of 124 Italian Patients With Treatment Resistant Depression: A Real-World, Prospective Study

Introduction: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a debilitating condition affecting 20-30% of patients with major depressive disorders (MDD). Currently, there is no established standard of care for TRD, and wide variation in the clinical approach for disease management has been documented. Real-world data could help describe TRD clinical features, disease burden, and treatment outcome and identify a potential unmet medical need. Methods: We analyzed the Italian data from a European, prospective, multicentric, observational cohort study of patients fulfilling TRD criteria by the European Medicine Agency, with moderate to severe major depressive episode, and starting a new antidepressant treatment according to routinary clinical practice. They were followed up for minimum 6 months. Treatments received throughout the study period, disease severity, health-related quality of life and functioning were prospectively recorded and analyzed. Results: The Italian subcohort included 124 TRD patients (30.2% of patients of the European cohort; mean age 53.2 [sd = 9.8], women: 82, 66.1%). At enrollement, the mean (SD) duration of MDD was 16 years (sd = 11.1) and the mean duration of the ongoing major depressive episode (MDE) was 97.5 weeks (sd = 143.5); low scores of quality of life and functioning were reported. The most frequently antidepressant classes started at baseline (data available for 98 subjects) were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI, 42 patients [42.9%]) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI, 32 patients [32.7%]). In terms of treatment strategies, 50 patients (51%) started augmentation therapies, 18 (18.4%) combination therapies and 24 (24.5%) monoterapies (6 patients [6%] started a non-antidepressant drug only). Fourteen patients (11.3%) were treated with a psychosocial approach, including psychotherapy. After 6 months of treatment, clinical assessments were collected for 89 patients: 64 (71.9%) showed no response, 9 (10.1%) response without remission and 16 (18.0%) were in remission; non-responder patients showed lower quality of life and higher disability scores than responder patients. Conclusions: In our sample of TRD patients, we documented substantial illness burden, low perceived quality of life and poor outcome, suggesting an unmet treatment need in TRD care in Italy. Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov, number: NCT03373253.

A retrospective analysis to estimate the healthcare resource utilization and cost associated with treatment-resistant depression in commercially insured US patients

OBJECTIVE

The economic burden of commercially insured patients in the United States with treatment-resistant depression and patients with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder was compared using data from the Optum Clinformatics™ claims database.

METHODS

Patients 18-63 years on antidepressant treatment between 1/1/13 and 9/30/13, who had no treatment claims for depression 6 months before the index date (first antidepressant dispensing), and who had a major depressive disorder or depression diagnosis within 30 days of the index date, were included. Treatment-resistant depression was defined as receiving 3 antidepressant regimens during 1 major depressive disorder episode. Patients with treatment-resistant depression were matched with patients with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder at a 1:4 ratio using propensity score matching. The study consisted of 1-year baseline (pre-index) and 2-year follow-up (post index) periods. Cost outcomes were compared using a generalized linear model.

RESULTS

2,370 treatment-resistant depression and 9,289 non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder patients were included. In year 1 of the follow-up period, compared with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, patients with treatment-resistant depression had: more emergency department visits (odds ratio = 1.39, 95% confidence interval = 1.24-1.56); more inpatient hospitalizations (odds ratio = 1.73, 95% confidence interval = 1.46-2.05); longer hospital stays (mean difference vs non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder = 2.86, 95% confidence interval = 0.86-4.86 days); and more total healthcare costs (mean difference vs non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder = US$3,846, 95% confidence interval = $2,855-$4,928). These patterns remained consistent in year 2 of the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Treatment-resistant depression was associated with higher healthcare resource utilization and costs versus non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder in this commercially insured cohort of patients in the United States.

The Effect of Muscular Strength on Depression Symptoms in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim was to systematically review the relationship between muscular strength (MS) and depression symptoms (DS) among adults, and conduct a meta-analysis to determine the pooled odds ratio (OR) for the relationship between MS and DS. The strategies employed in this systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies published up to December 2019 were systematically identified by searching in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases. Inclusion criteria were: (1) cross-sectional, longitudinal and intervention studies; (2) outcomes included depression or DS; (3) participants were adults and older adults; and (4) the articles were published in English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish. A total of 21 studies were included in the review, totalling 87,508 adults aged ≥18 years, from 26 countries. The systematic review findings suggest that MS has a positive effect on reducing DS. Meta-analysis findings indicate that MS is inversely and significantly related to DS 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80, 0.89). Interventions aiming to improve MS have the potential to promote mental health and prevent depression. Thus, public health professionals could use MS assessment and improvement as a strategy to promote mental health and prevent depression.

Economic Burden of Treatment-Resistant Depression in Privately Insured U.S. Patients with Physical Conditions

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the economic burden of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in patients with physical conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs, work loss days, and related costs in patients with TRD and physical conditions versus patients with the same conditions and non-TRD major depressive disorder (MDD) or without MDD.

METHODS

Adults aged < 65 years with MDD treated with antidepressants were identified in the OptumHealth Care Solutions database (July 2009-March 2017). Patients who received a diagnosis of MDD and initiated a third antidepressant regimen (index date) after 2 regimens of adequate dose and duration were defined as having TRD. Patients with non-TRD MDD and without MDD were assigned a random index date. Patients with < 6 months of continuous health plan eligibility pre- or post-index; a diagnosis of psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder/mania, dementia, and developmental disorders; and/or no baseline physical conditions (cardiovascular, metabolic, and respiratory disease or cancer) were excluded. Patients with TRD were matched 1:1 to each of the non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts based on propensity scores. Per patient per year HRU, costs, and work loss outcomes were compared up to 24 months post-index date using negative binominal and ordinary least square regressions.

RESULTS

A total of 2,317 patients with TRD (mean age, 47.6 years; 63.1%, female; mean follow-up, 19.7 months) had ≥ 1 co-occurring key physical condition (cardiovascular, 52.5%; metabolic, 48.2%; respiratory, 16.4%; and cancer, 9.5%). Relative to non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts, respectively, patients with TRD had 46% and 235% more inpatient admissions, 28% and 128% more emergency department visits, and 53% and 155% more outpatient visits (all P < 0.05). Health care costs were $22,541 in the TRD cohort, $17,450 in the non-TRD MDD cohort, and $10,047 in the non-MDD cohort, yielding cost differences of $5,091 (vs. non-TRD MDD) and $12,494 (vs. non-MDD; all P < 0.01). In patients with work loss data available (n = 278/cohort), those with TRD had 2.0 and 2.9 times more work loss as well as $8,676 and $10,323 higher work loss costs relative to those with non-TRD MDD and without MDD, respectively (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with physical conditions, those with TRD had higher HRU and health care costs, work loss days, and associated costs compared with non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts.

DISCLOSURES

This study was sponsored by Janssen Scientific Affairs (JSA), which was involved in all aspects of the research, including the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Joshi and Daly are employed by JSA. Zhdanava, Pilon, Rossi, Morrison, and Lefebvre are employees of Analysis Group, which received funding from JSA for conducting this study and has received consulting fees from Novartis Pharmaceuticals and GSK, unrelated to this study. Kuvadia is employed by Integrated Resources, which has provided research services to JSA unrelated to this study; Joshi reports past employment by and stock ownership in Johnson & Johnson; Nelson reports advisory board, data and safety monitoring board, and consulting fees from Assurex, Eisai, FSV-7, JSA, Lundbeck, Otsuka, and Sunovion and royalties from UpToDate, unrelated to this study. This work was presented at AMCP Nexus 2019, held in National Harbor, MD, from October 29 to November 1, 2019.

Incremental Health Care Burden of Treatment-Resistant Depression Among Commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare Payers

OBJECTIVE

This study compared health care use and costs among patients with treatment-resistant versus treatment-responsive depression across Medicaid, Medicare, and commercial payers.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted by using Truven Health Analytics' commercial (2006-2017; N=111,544), Medicaid (2007-2017; N=24,036), and Medicare supplemental (2006-2017; N=8,889) claims databases. Participants were adults with major depressive disorder who had received one or more antidepressant treatments. Treatment resistance was defined as failure of two or more antidepressant treatments of adequate dose and duration. Annual use (hospitalizations and outpatient and emergency department [ED] visits) and costs were compared across patients by treatment-resistant status in each payer population. Incremental burden of treatment-resistant depression was estimated with regression analyses. Monthly changes in costs during 1-year follow-up were assessed to understand differential cost trends by treatment-resistant status.

RESULTS

In the three payer populations, patients with treatment-resistant depression incurred higher health care utilization than those with treatment-responsive depression (hospitalization, odds ratios [ORs]=1.32-1.76; ED visits, ORs=1.38-1.45; outpatient visits, incident rate ratio=1.29-1.54; p<0.001 for all). Compared with those with treatment-responsive depression, those with treatment resistance incurred higher annual costs (from $4,093 to $8,054 higher; p<0.001). Patients with treatment-resistant depression had higher costs at baseline compared with patients with treatment-responsive depression and incurred higher costs each month throughout follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment-resistant depression imposes a significant health care burden on insurers. Treatment-resistant depression may exist and affect health care burden before a patient is identified as having treatment-resistant depression. Findings underscore the need for effective and timely treatment of treatment-resistant depression.

Active Commuting and Depression Symptoms in Adults: A Systematic Review

Physical activity (PA) is suggested to have a protective effect against depression. One way of engaging in PA is through active commuting. This review summarises the literature regarding the relationship between active commuting and depression among adults and older adults. A systematic review of studies published up to December 2019, performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, was conducted using three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). A total of seven articles were identified as relevant. The results from these studies were inconsistent. Only two presented a significant relationship between active commuting and depression symptoms. In those two studies, switching to more active modes of travel and walking long distances were negatively related to the likelihood of developing new depressive symptoms. In the other five studies, no significant association between active travel or active commuting and depression was found. The relationship between active commuting and depression symptoms in adults is not clear. More studies on this topic are necessary in order to understand if active commuting can be used as a public health strategy to tackle mental health issues such as depression.

Economic Burden of Treatment‐Resistant Depression Among Patients Hospitalized for Major Depressive Disorder in the United States

Objectives:

This study aimed to evaluate hospital length of stay (LOS) and cost as well as readmission risk and the associated economic burden among patients hospitalized for treatment‐resistant and non–treatment‐resistant major depressive disorder.

Methods:

Adult patients with a primary hospital discharge diagnosis of major depressive disorder were identified from the Premier Hospital Database (January 1, 2012–September 30, 2015). Patients were stratified into two cohorts: those whose hospital treatment was suggestive of treatment‐resistant depression and those with non–treatment‐resistant depression. Hospital LOS and cost during the initial admission and readmissions rates, LOS, and cost within the 6‐month follow‐up were compared between cohorts with a propensity score–matched sample.

Results:

After matching, 45,066 patients were included in each cohort. For index hospitalizations, mean hospital LOS was longer (7.4 vs. 5.9 days, p<0.001) and mean hospital cost higher ($8,681 vs. $6,632, p<0.001) for patients with treatment‐resistant depression vs. non–treatment‐resistant depression. Rates for all‐cause (24.4% vs. 20.0%, p<0.001), major depressive disorder–related (17.0% vs. 13.3%, p<0.001), and suicidal ideation/suicide attempt–related (12.8% vs. 9.5%, p<0.001) readmissions were higher for patients with treatment‐resistant depression. Mean LOS and total hospital costs per patient for readmissions were also greater for patients with treatment‐resistant depression vs. non–treatment‐resistant depression. Correspondingly, the combined hospital cost (index hospitalization+all‐cause readmissions) was greater for patients with treatment‐resistant depression ($12,370 vs. $9,429, p<0.001).

Conclusions:

Treatment‐resistant depression was associated with substantial economic burden among patients hospitalized for major depressive disorder. More‐effective treatment and care for this patient population may reduce the hospital burden of patients with treatment‐resistant depression.

Burden of treatment-resistant depression in Medicare: A retrospective claims database analysis

Background

Previous 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.

Objective

To 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.

Methods

Adult 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.

Results

Of 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 P<0.001). The TRD cohort had significantly higher total PPPY healthcare costs than the non-TRD MDD cohort ($25,517 vs. $20,425, adjusted cost difference = $3,385) and non-MDD cohort ($25,517 vs. $14,542, adjusted cost difference = $4,015, all P<0.001). Similar results were found for the subset of patients ≥65.

Conclusion

Among Medicare-insured patients, those with TRD had higher HRU and costs compared to those with non-TRD MDD and non-MDD.

An episode level evaluation of the treatment journey of patients with major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression

Background

Many patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) fail to respond to antidepressant (AD) pharmacotherapy. The objectives of this study were to characterize MDD and treatment-resistant depression (TRD) at the level of pharmacologically treated episodes and to describe the sequential treatment patterns by lines of therapy (LOT) in the first two episodes.

Methods

Adults (≥18 years of age) with continuous enrollment ≥12 months before and after the first MDD diagnosis and treated with an AD, with or without an MDD-indicated antipsychotic (AP), were identified (1/1/2010-12/31/2015). The MDD episode started on the date of MDD diagnosis that was preceded by a clean period without any MDD diagnosis. The MDD episode ended on the last MDD diagnosis or the end of the days’ supply of AD/AP medication, whichever came last. TRD was defined as an MDD episode with ≥3 AD/AP regimens. Measured outcomes included episode duration, number of LOT, relapse hospitalization, and sequential treatment patterns of MDD episode stratified by TRD and non-TRD episodes.

Results

Of 48,440 patients who received AD/AP in the 1^st MDD episode, 3,317 (6.8%) of episodes were considered TRD. Mean duration of 1^st TRD episodes was 571 days, mean number of AD/AP LOTs was 3.47, and 13.7% involved relapse hospitalization. Mean duration of 1^st non-TRD episodes was 200 days, mean number of AD/AP LOTs was 1.21, and 9.6% involved relapse hospitalization. Among 1^st MDD episodes, 25.5% had a second LOT; 7.3% had a third LOT. Most patients received selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as the first LOT (63.0%), and the plurality of regimens were SSRIs in second (44.9%) and third LOT (41.1%).

Conclusions

Compared to non-TRD episodes, TRD episodes were longer and more often involved relapse hospitalizations. SSRIs were the most common treatment; treatment changes and potential treatment unresponsiveness were frequent among MDD patients.

Economic Burden of Treatment-Resistant Depression on the U.S. Health Care System

BACKGROUND

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD), defined as episodes of depression that do not respond to ≥ 2 lines of adequate depression therapy, is associated with a high economic burden. Although the economic burden of TRD is reported elsewhere, its exact magnitude and current value is uncertain due to differences in methodology in TRD identification.

OBJECTIVE

To compare all-cause health care resource utilization (HCRU) and associated health care payments among patients with TRD and those with depression but without TRD, using administrative claims data.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases (October 1, 2008-September 30, 2016). All patients were aged ≥ 18 years, newly diagnosed with depression (≥ 1 inpatient admission or ≥ 2 outpatient visits with a primary or secondary depression diagnosis), and newly treated with depression therapy. The population included patients with and without TRD. Patients with TRD were defined as having been treated with ≥ 3 courses of depression therapy within a 360-day period (initiation of the third course served as the TRD index date), while patients without TRD (non-TRD) were defined as having been treated with 2 courses of depression therapy. TRD and non-TRD cohorts were matched using propensity scores. Using the TRD index date of their matched TRD pair, non-TRD patients were assigned a simulated index date following second-line therapy. Eligible TRD and non-TRD patients were continuously enrolled from a 12-month baseline period before the first course of therapy through a 12-month follow-up period beginning with the TRD index date and simulated index date, respectively. Annual all-cause HCRU and associated payments (2016 U.S. dollars) were assessed in aggregate and by place of service during the follow-up period and were compared between the matched cohorts using nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

RESULTS

The matched analysis included 800 patients in each cohort. For both cohorts, the mean age of patients was 39 years, and 60% were female. All clinical characteristics and all-cause HCRU were comparable at baseline. Compared with non-TRD patients, TRD patients had a significantly higher mean number of all-cause emergency department (ED) visits (0.29 vs. 0.24), outpatient visits (18.0 vs. 13.4), and prescriptions (30.0 vs. 24.0; all P < 0.05) during the 12-month follow-up period. The TRD cohort also had significantly higher mean total all-cause health care payments ($9,890 vs. $6,848; P < 0.001) and mean payments by place of service (ED: $518 vs. $408; outpatient: $3,603 vs. $2,585; pharmacy: $2,613 vs. $1,837; all P < 0.05) compared with the non-TRD cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

In relation to propensity score-matched non-TRD patients, TRD patients used significantly more resources (ED visits, outpatient visits, and number of prescriptions) and had significantly higher overall health care payments. These results serve to highlight the unmet need in patients with TRD, suggesting that improved and more effective management of these patients may help reduce the economic burden of disease.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Alkermes. Sussman and Menzin, employees of Boston Health Economics, were paid consultants, and Olfson, an employee of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, was an unpaid consultant to Alkermes in connection with the study and development of this research article. O'Sullivan and Shah are employees of the study sponsor. Results from this analysis were first presented at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting in Boston, MA, on April 23-26, 2018.

Humanistic outcomes in treatment resistant depression: a secondary analysis of the STAR*D study

BACKGROUND

In the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study, a third of patients did not achieve remission or adequate response after two treatment trials, fulfilling requirements for treatment resistant depression (TRD). The present study is a secondary analysis of the STAR*D data conducted to compare the humanistic outcomes in patients with TRD and non-TRD MDD.

METHODS

Patients with major depressive disorder who entered level 3 of the STAR*D were included in the TRD group, while patients who responded to treatment and entered follow-up from level 1 or 2 were included in the non-TRD group. The first visit in level 1 was used for baseline assessments. The time-point of assessments for comparison was the first visit in level 3 for TRD patients (median day: 141), and the visit closest to 141 ± 60 days from baseline for non-TRD patients. Outcomes were assessed by the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF12), 16-item Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q), Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scale (WPAI). Scores were compared in a linear model with adjustment for covariates including age, gender, and depression severity measured by the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HDRS17) and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS).

RESULTS

A total of 2467 (TRD: 377; non-TRD: 2090) patients were studied. TRD patients were slightly older (mean age 44 vs 42 years), had a higher proportion of men (49% vs 37%, p < .0001), and baseline depression severity (HDRS17: 24.4 vs 22.0, p < .0001) vs non-TRD patients. During follow-up, TRD patients had lower health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores on mental (30 vs 45.7) and physical components (47.7 vs 48.9) of the SF12, and lower Q-LES-Q scores (43.6 vs 63.7), greater functional and work impairments and productivity loss vs non-TRD patients (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients with TRD had worse HRQOL, work productivity, and social functioning than the non-TRD patients.