Medication costs to private insurers of diversion of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

Trends in stimulant dispensing by age, sex, state of residence, and prescriber specialty - United States, 2014-2019

BACKGROUND

Stimulant medications are commonly prescribed for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; however, they also have high potential for diversion and misuse. We estimated national stimulant dispensing trends from 2014 to 2019 and differences in dispensing by age, sex, state, prescriber specialty, payor type, patient copay, and stimulant type.

METHODS

We calculated rates of stimulant dispensing using IQVIA National Prescription Audit (NPA) New to Brand, NPA Regional, and NPA Extended Insights data, which provide dispensing estimates from approximately 49,900 pharmacies representing 92 % of prescriptions dispensed in the United States. Average annual percent change (AAPC) from 2014 to 2019 was analyzed using Joinpoint regression.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2019, the national annual rate of stimulant dispensing increased significantly from 5.6 to 6.1 prescriptions per 100 persons. Rates differed by prescription stimulant type, with increases occurring among both amphetamine-type stimulants and long-acting stimulants. Rates among females (AAPC = 3.6 %; P = 0.001) and adults aged 20-39 years (AAPC=6.7 %; P = 0.002), 40-59 years (AAPC=9.7 %; P < 0.001), and ≥60 years (AAPC = 6.9 %; P = 0.001) increased significantly during the study period. Stimulant dispensing rates varied substantially across states, ranging from 1.0 per 100 in Hawaii to 13.6 per 100 in Alabama.

CONCLUSIONS

National stimulant dispensing rates increased from 2014 to 2019, driven by notable increases among females and adults aged ≥20 years. These trends should be considered when prescribing stimulants given growing concerns over prescription stimulant diversion, misuse, and related health harms.

Systematic Review: Nonmedical Use of Prescription Stimulants: Risk Factors, Outcomes, and Risk Reduction Strategies

OBJECTIVE

To review all literature on the nonmedical use (NMU) and diversion of prescription stimulants to better understand the characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes of NMU and to review risk-reduction strategies.

METHOD

We systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS from inception to May 2018 for studies containing empirical data about NMU and diversion of prescription stimulants. Additional references identified by the authors were also assessed for inclusion.

RESULTS

A total of 111 studies met inclusion criteria. NMU and diversion of stimulants are highly prevalent; self-reported rates among population samples range from 2.1% to 58.7% and from 0.7% to 80.0%, respectively. A variety of terms are used to describe NMU, and most studies have examined college students. Although most NMU is oral, non-oral NMU also occurs. The majority of NMU is associated with no, or minor, medical effects; however, adverse medical outcomes, including death, occur in some individuals, particularly when administered by non-oral routes. Although academic and occupational performance enhancement are the most commonly cited motivations, there is little evidence that academic performance is improved by NMU in individuals without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

CONCLUSION

NMU of stimulants is a significant public health problem, especially in college students, but variations in the terms used to describe NMU and inconsistencies in the available data limit a better understanding of this problem. Further research is needed to develop methods to detect NMU, identify individuals at greatest risk, study routes of administration, and devise educational and other interventions to help reduce occurrence of NMU. Colleges should consider including NMU in academic integrity policies.

Psychosis with Methylphenidate or Amphetamine in Patients with ADHD

BACKGROUND

The prescription use of the stimulants methylphenidate and amphetamine for the treatment of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been increasing. In 2007, the Food and Drug Administration mandated changes to drug labels for stimulants on the basis of findings of new-onset psychosis. Whether the risk of psychosis in adolescents and young adults with ADHD differs among various stimulants has not been extensively studied.

METHODS

We used data from two commercial insurance claims databases to assess patients 13 to 25 years of age who had received a diagnosis of ADHD and who started taking methylphenidate or amphetamine between January 1, 2004, and September 30, 2015. The outcome was a new diagnosis of psychosis for which an antipsychotic medication was prescribed during the first 60 days after the date of the onset of psychosis. To estimate hazard ratios for psychosis, we used propensity scores to match patients who received methylphenidate with patients who received amphetamine in each database, compared the incidence of psychosis between the two stimulant groups, and then pooled the results across the two databases.

RESULTS

We assessed 337,919 adolescents and young adults who received a prescription for a stimulant for ADHD. The study population consisted of 221,846 patients with 143,286 person-years of follow up; 110,923 patients taking methylphenidate were matched with 110,923 patients taking amphetamines. There were 343 episodes of psychosis (with an episode defined as a new diagnosis code for psychosis and a prescription for an antipsychotic medication) in the matched populations (2.4 per 1000 person-years): 106 episodes (0.10%) in the methylphenidate group and 237 episodes (0.21%) in the amphetamine group (hazard ratio with amphetamine use, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.31 to 2.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Among adolescents and young adults with ADHD who were receiving prescription stimulants, new-onset psychosis occurred in approximately 1 in 660 patients. Amphetamine use was associated with a greater risk of psychosis than methylphenidate. (Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and others.).

The source and diversion of pharmaceutical drugs for non-medical use: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The non-medical use (NMU) of pharmaceutical drugs is an increasing public health concern. This systematic review consolidates current knowledge about how pharmaceutical drugs are obtained for NMU and the processes and people involved in diversion.

METHODS

Peer-reviewed and grey literature databases were searched for empirical studies published between 1996 and 2017 that examined the source or diversion of pharmaceutical opioids, sedatives or stimulants for NMU in countries with reported misuse problems. Pooled prevalence meta-analyses using random effects models were used to estimate the prevalence of medical and non-medical sourcing reported by end-users, and gifting, selling and trading by various populations.

RESULTS

This review synthesizes the findings of 54 cross-sectional studies via meta-analyses, with a remaining 95 studies examined through narrative review. Pharmaceutical drugs are primarily sourced for NMU from friends and family (57%, 95% CI 53%-62%, I² = 98.5, n = 30) and despite perceptions of healthcare professionals to the contrary, illegitimate practices such as doctor shopping are uncommon (7%, 95% CI 6%-10%, I² = 97.4, n = 29). Those at risk of diversion include patients displaying aberrant medication behaviors, people with substance use issues and students in fraternity/sorority environments. Sourcing via dealers is also common (32%, 95% CI 23%-41%, I² = 99.8, n = 25) and particularly so among people who use illicit drugs (47%, 95% CI 35%-60%, I² = 99.1, n = 15). There is little to no organized criminal involvement in the pharmaceutical black market.

CONCLUSION

Pharmaceutical drugs for NMU are primarily sourced by end-users through social networks. Future research should examine how dealers source pharmaceutical drugs.

Atomoxetine treatment in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

BACKGROUND

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a CNS disorder that has its onset in childhood, but often persists into adulthood. There is growing recognition that adult ADHD can result in multiple negative consequences for individuals. ADHD is also often associated with a number of comorbid psychiatric disorders. Atomoxetine (ATX), a nonstimulant, selective noradrenergic reuptake inhibitor, was approved in the United States in 2002 for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents, as well as adults. We review here the safety and efficacy of ATX in adults with ADHD, including data in special populations, functional outcomes, as well as provider and patient real-world perceptions.

METHODS

We searched the databases Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO using the terms 'ADHD' and 'adult' and 'ATX' capturing publications from January 1, 1998, to March 27, 2014. Only publications in English were considered.

RESULTS

ATX demonstrated significantly greater improvement than placebo (PBO) on the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Investigator rated:Screening Version (CAARS-Inv:SV) in all trials (N = 6; total score difference ranged from -3.5 to -5.5). For long-term trials using the CAARS-Inv:SV, ATX demonstrated significantly greater improvement than PBO in three of four trials (total score differences ranged from -0.1 to -6.0). In short-term studies, ATX showed significantly greater improvement than PBO on the Adult ADHD Quality-of-Life scale total score in three of three studies, but results were mixed on the Sheehan Disability Scale. Three studies of ATX have reported statistically significant improvement (compared with PBO) on the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version Self Report scale. The most common adverse events (occurring in ≥ 10% of patients taking ATX) were nausea, dry mouth, decreased appetite, insomnia and fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

ATX is an important treatment option for the right patient. ATX can provide long-term, consistent symptom relief and functional improvement for adults with ADHD.

Diversion of prescription stimulant drugs among 10-18-year-olds

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Public health concern regarding the nonmedical use of prescription stimulants among youth has generated the need for increased understanding of diversion, which is the illegal sharing and selling of prescription drugs. Although our understanding of nonmedical use of stimulants has increased, the same cannot be said of diversion behavior among youth.

RECENT FINDINGS

The aim of this article is to use data from the National Monitoring of Adolescent Prescription Stimulants Study, which assessed prescription stimulant use among 10-18 years old across 10 US cities to report on prescription stimulant diversion among those who misused those medications. Findings indicate that more than one half (52%) of youth had engaged in one of the three forms of diversion (incoming only, outgoing only and both incoming and outgoing diversion). Engaging in incoming diversion only and both incoming and outgoing diversion increased with age and nonmedical use of prescription stimulants. All forms of diversion increased with marijuana use and among 16-18 years old with a friend's use of prescription stimulant.

SUMMARY

Findings provide an understanding of the subtypes of diversion and risk correlates of youth prescription stimulant diverter's that has value in preventing prescription stimulant diversion.

Misuse of Methylphenidate

This chapter reviews methylphenidate misuse, abuse, dependence, diversion, and malingering associated with its use as a prescription medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and the nonmedical use linked to its stimulant effects. Methylphenidate-induced regional elevations in brain dopamine appear to be integral to both efficacy in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and potential for abuse, raising potential concerns for drug safety and prescription drug diversion costs associated with nonmedical use. Regardless, methylphenidate is an important treatment option, and detecting malingering for the purpose of illicit access to methylphenidate for subsequent misuse or diversion is a difficult challenge. Also discussed are the effects of methylphenidate in patients with comorbid substance use disorder and the potential linkage of methylphenidate use with subsequent substance abuse. The current data suggest that methylphenidate misuse and diversion are common health-care problems with a stimulant prescription drug diversion prevalence of approximately 5-10 % of high school students and 5-35 % of college students. The effectiveness and speed of action of methylphenidate are deemed desirable to enhance attention and focus performance for activities such as studying for exams, but methylphenidate is also misused recreationally. These data suggest a need for close screening and therapeutic monitoring of methylphenidate use in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance abuse

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and substance use disorders are inextricably intertwined. Children with ADHD are more likely than peers to develop substance use disorders. Treatment with stimulants may reduce the risk of substance use disorders, but stimulants are a class of medication with significant abuse and diversion potential. The objectives of this clinical report were to present practical strategies for reducing the risk of substance use disorders in patients with ADHD and suggestions for safe stimulant prescribing.

Economic impact of childhood and adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most prevalent mental disorders in children in the United States and often persists into adulthood with associated symptomatology and impairments. This article comprehensively reviews studies reporting ADHD-related incremental (excess) costs for children/adolescents and adults and presents estimates of annual national incremental costs of ADHD.

METHOD

A systematic search for primary United States-based studies published from January 1, 1990 through June 30, 2011 on costs of children/adolescents and adults with ADHD and their family members was conducted. Only studies in which mean annual incremental costs per individual with ADHD above non-ADHD controls were reported or could be derived were included. Per-person incremental costs were adjusted to 2010 U.S. dollars and converted to annual national incremental costs of ADHD based on 2010 U.S. Census population estimates, ADHD prevalence rates, number of household members, and employment rates by age group.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall national annual incremental costs of ADHD ranged from $143 to $266 billion (B). Most of these costs were incurred by adults ($105 B-$194 B) compared with children/adolescents ($38 B-$72 B). For adults, the largest cost category was productivity and income losses ($87 B-$138 B). For children, the largest cost categories were health care ($21 B-$44 B) and education ($15 B-$25 B). Spillover costs borne by the family members of individuals with ADHD were also substantial ($33 B-$43 B).

CONCLUSION

Despite a wide range in the magnitude of the cost estimates, this study indicates that ADHD has a substantial economic impact in the United States. Implications of these findings and future directions for research are discussed.