Medicaid spending burden among beneficiaries with treatment-resistant depression

Relationship between social determinants of health and hospitalizations and costs in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

The relationship of patient characteristics and social determinants of health (SDOH) with hospitalizations and costs in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) has not been assessed using real-world data.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with higher hospitalizations and costs in patients with MDD.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study identified patients aged 18 years and older newly diagnosed with MDD between July 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. SDOH were linked to patients at the "near-neighborhood" level. Multivariable models assessed association of patient characteristics with hospitalizations (incidence rate ratios [95% CI]) and costs (cost ratios [95% CI]).

RESULTS

Of 1,958,532 patients with MDD, 49.6% had Commercial and 50.4% Medicaid insurance; mean ages were similar (43.9; 43.4) with more female patients (67.6%; 70.5%). MDD patients with Commercial insurance had a mean household income of $75,044; 53.2% were married; 76.5% owned their home; 64.4% completed high school or less; and 2.8% had limited English-language proficiency (LEP). Patients covered by Medicaid had a household income of $46,708; 68.1% lived alone with 41.6% married; 54.6% owned their home; more than 4-in-5 patients (80.8%) completed high school or less, and 6.3% had LEP. Nearly one-third of Medicaid insured patients with MDD had at least 1 hospitalization (29.6%) with a mean length of stay 6.8 days; total health care costs were $21,467 annually. Commercially insured patients with MDD had 14.7% hospitalization rates with a length of stay of 5.9 days; total costs were $14,531. Multivariable models show female patients are less likely (Commercial 0.87; Medicaid 0.80; P < 0.05), and patients with more comorbidities are more likely to be hospitalized (Commercial 1.33; Medicaid 1.27; P < 0.05). All treatment classes relative to antidepressants only increased likelihood of hospitalizations-particularly antipsychotic+antianxiety use (Commercial 2.99; Medicaid 2.29)-and costs (Commercial 2.32; Medicaid 2.00) (all P < 0.05). Household income was inversely associated with hospitalizations for both insured populations. LEP reduced the likelihood of hospitalizations by more than 70% among Medicaid patients (0.27, P < 0.05) and was associated with higher costs for Commercial (2.01) but lower costs for Medicaid (0.37) (P < 0.05). Living in areas with no shortage of mental health practitioners was associated with higher hospitalizations and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified patient characteristics associated with higher rates of hospitalizations and costs in patients with MDD in 2 insured populations. Female sex, higher comorbidities, and living in areas with no shortage of mental health practitioners were associated with higher hospitalizations and costs, whereas income was inversely associated with hospitalizations. The findings suggest disparities in access to care related to income, LEP, and availability of mental health practitioners that should be addressed to assure equitable care for patients with MDD.

Depression and suicidality severity among TRD patients after 1-year under standard of care: Findings from the TRAL study, a multicenter, multinational, observational study in Latin America

INTRODUCTION

Treatment resistant depression (TRD) is one of the most pressing issues in mental healthcare in LatAm. However, clinical data and outcomes of standard of care (SOC) are scarce. The present study reported on the Treatment-Resistant Depression in America Latina (TRAL) project 1-year follow-up of patients under SOC assessing clinical presentation and outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

420 patients with clinical diagnoses of TRD from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico were included in a 1-year follow-up to assess clinical outcomes of depression (MADRS) and suicidality (C-SSRS), as well as evolution of clinical symptoms of depression. Patients were assessed every 3 months and longitudinal comparison was performed based on change from baseline to each visit and end of study (12 months). Socio demographic characterization was also performed.

RESULTS

Most patients were female (80.9%), married (42.5%) or single (34.4%), with at least 10 years of formal education (71%). MDD diagnosis was set at 37.29 (SD=14.00) years, and MDD duration was 11.11 years (SD=10.34). After 1-year of SOC, 79.1% of the patients were still symptomatic, and 40% of the patients displayed moderate/severe depression. Only 44.1% of the patients achieved a response (≥50% improvement in MADRS), and 60% of the sample failed to achieve remission. Suicidal ideation was reported by more than half of the patients at the end of study.

CONCLUSIONS

Depression and suicidality symptoms after a 1-year of SOC is of great concern. Better therapeutic options are needed to tackle this debilitating and burdensome disease.

Comparison on the clinical features in patients with or without treatment-resistant depression: A National Survey on Symptomatology of Depression report

Patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) have fewer treatment options and worse prognoses than those without TRD. Although the etiology or pathophysiology of TRD remains unclear, certain clinical variables have been found to be related to its severity and prognosis. Therefore, 1151 patients with recurrent depression were recruited from the National Survey on Symptomatology of Depression (NSSD) and their depressive symptoms were assessed by using the doctor-rating assessment questionnaire. Then, the differences between patients with or without TRD were compared by parametric or nonparametric tests and the risk factors for TRD were explored by logistic regression. The results showed there were differences in clinical variables between patients with and without TRD. Additionally, we found depression with more somatic symptoms had a higher risk for TRD. Further analysis by stepwise logistic regression showed that age, gender, religious belief, drinking habit, the total course of depression, the number of hospitalizations, characteristics of seasonal episode remission, depressed mood, hypersexuality, emotionally incoherent psychotic symptoms, psychomotor agitation, respiratory system symptoms and history of suicide attempts were strongly associated with TRD. So, it is crucial for clinicians to identify these clinical features and adjust treatments timely.

Prevalence and Financial Burden of Digestive Diseases in a Commercially Insured Population

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Digestive diseases represent a diverse group of clinical conditions that impact the population. Their heterogeneity in classification, presentation, acuity, chronicity, and need for drug therapy presents a challenge when comparing and contrasting the burden associated with these conditions. Prior studies use an outdated classification system and aggregate costs at the population level or focus on specific diseases, limiting the ability to characterize the overall landscape. Our aim was to provide the most up-to-date assessment of cost, utilization, and prevalence associated with digestive diseases.

METHODS

We examined digestive disease claims and payment data for a commercially insured adult population between 2016 and 2018 to provide a comprehensive summary of costs, utilization, and prevalence across 38 conditions. Outcome variables included point prevalence and relative prevalence, annualized all-cause medical and drug costs, digestive disease-specific average medical cost, digestive disease-specific cost per fill, and utilization by clinical setting and by clinical condition.

RESULTS

A total of 7,297,435 individuals with a digestive disease diagnosis were included in the study. The point prevalence of having a digestive disease in the total population was 24%. Annualized total costs by clinical category ranged from $10,038 (eosinophilic esophagitis) to $107,007 (hepatitis C), with medical costs accounting for most of the expenditures in a majority of conditions. Annualized total costs for common conditions included $39,653 for alcoholic liver disease, $42,554 for acute pancreatitis, $62,735 for Crohn's disease, $13,948 for functional gastrointestinal disorders, $53,214 for nonalcoholic cirrhosis, and $36,441 for ulcerative colitis. Average cost of inpatient stays ranged from $12,218 (noninfectious gastroenteritis/colitis) to $78,259 (nonalcoholic steatohepatitis). Outpatient visits ranged from $784 (gastrointestinal infection) to $4629 (gallbladder and biliary tract disease). Average drug cost per fill ranged from $83 (gastroesophageal reflux disease) to $1458 (hepatitis C). A total of 27,429,046 clinical encounters occurred across all conditions during the study period, with 90% taking place as outpatient visits. Abdominal pain was the single largest contributor to outpatient visits and emergency department to home encounters. Inpatient stays were considerably more heterogeneous, with no condition accounting for more than 12% (gallbladder and biliary tract disease) of the total.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate digestive diseases are common, heterogeneous in cost and utilization, and collectively exact a significant financial burden on the U.S. adult population.

Comparison of Estimated Incentives for Preventing Postpartum Depression in Value-Based Payment Models Using the Net Present Value of Care vs Total Cost of Care

Importance

Strong financial incentives are critical to promoting widespread implementation of interventions that prevent postpartum depression. Value-based payment (VBP) approaches could be adapted to capture longer-term value and offer stronger incentives for postpartum depression prevention by sharing the expected future health care savings estimated by reduced postpartum depression incidence with clinicians.

Objective

To evaluate whether sharing 5-year expected savings estimated by reduced postpartum depression incidence offers stronger incentives for prevention than traditional VBP under a variety of circumstances.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This decision analytic model used a simulated cohort of 1000 Medicaid-enrolled pregnant individuals. Health care costs for individuals receiving postpartum depression preventive intervention or not, over 1 or 5 years post partum, in a variety of scenarios, including varying rates of Medicaid churn (ie, transitions to a new Medicaid managed care plan, commercial insurance plan, or loss of coverage) were estimated for the period 2020 to 2025. The model was developed between March 5 and July 30, 2021.

Exposure

Sharing 100% of 1-year actual health care cost saving vs 50% of 5-year estimated health care cost savings associated with reduced postpartum depression incidence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was the amount of clinician incentive shared in a VBP model from providing preventive interventions. The likelihood of the health care payer realizing a positive return on investment if it shared 50% of 5-year expected savings with a clinician up front was also measured.

Results

The simulated cohort was designed to be reflective of the demographics characteristics of pregnant individuals receiving Medicaid; however, no specific demographic features were simulated. Providing preventive interventions for postpartum depression resulted in an estimated 5-year savings of $734.12 (95% credible interval [CrI], $217.21-$1235.67) per person. Without health insurance churn, sharing 50% of 5-year expected savings could offer more than double the financial incentives for clinicians to prevent postpartum depression compared with traditional VBP ($367.06 [95% CrI, $108.61-$617.83] vs $177.74 [95% CrI, $52.66-$296.60], respectively), with a high likelihood of positive return for the health care payer (91%). As health insurance churn increased, clinician incentives from sharing estimated savings decreased (73% reduction with 50% annual churn).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this decision analytic model of VBP approaches to incentivizing postpartum depression prevention, VBP based on 5-year expected savings offered stronger incentives when churn was low. Policy should support health care payers and clinicians to share estimated savings and overcome health insurance churn issues to promote wide-scale implementation of interventions to prevent perinatal mental health conditions.

Prevalence and Impact of Treatment-Resistant Depression in Latin America: a Prospective, Observational Study

Approximately one-third of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) have treatment-resistant depression (TRD). The TRAL study will evaluate the prevalence and impact of TRD among patients with MDD in four Latin American countries. In this multicenter, prospective, observational study, patients with MDD were recruited from 33 reference sites in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and Argentina. Patients were assessed for TRD, defined as failure to respond to ≥ 2 antidepressant medications of adequate dose and duration. Demographics, previous/current treatments, depressive symptoms, functioning, healthcare resource utilization, and work impairment were also collected and evaluated using descriptive statistics, chi-square test, Fisher exact test, t-test for independent samples, or the Mann-Whitney nonparametric test, as appropriate. 1475 patients with MDD were included in the analysis (mean age, 45.6 years; 78% women); 89% were receiving relevant psychiatric treatment. 429 patients met criteria for TRD, and a numerically higher proportion of patients with TRD was present in public versus private sites of care (31% vs 27%). The mean Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score was 25.0 among all MDD patients and was significantly higher for patients with TRD versus non-TRD (29.4 vs 23.3; P < 0.0001). Patients with TRD, versus those with non-TRD, were significantly more likely to be older, have a longer disease duration, have more comorbidities, be symptomatic, have a higher median number of psychiatric consultations, and report greater work impairment. Patients with TRD have a disproportionate burden of disease compared to those with non-TRD. Appropriate treatment for TRD is a substantial unmet need in Latin America. https://www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03207282, 07/02/2017.

Prevalence of Pre-existing Conditions Relevant for Adverse Events and Potential Drug-Drug Interactions Associated with Augmentation Therapies Among Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression

INTRODUCTION

Pre-existing conditions relevant for adverse events (AE) and the potential for drug-drug interactions (DDIs) may limit safe pharmacotherapeutic augmentation options for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). This concern may be heightened among patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), who often have comorbid medical disorders.

METHODS

Adults with MDD and ≥ 1 antidepressant claim within the first observed major depressive episode were identified in the MarketScan® Databases. Those initiating a new regimen after two regimens at adequate dose and duration were considered to have TRD. The index date was defined at TRD onset or on a random antidepressant claim among patients with non-TRD MDD. Pre-existing conditions 12 months pre-index and potential DDIs 3 months pre/post-index associated with specific non-antidepressant augmentation therapies, including atypical antipsychotics (APs), buspirone, psychostimulants, anticonvulsants, thyroid hormone, and lithium were compared between 1:1 matched TRD and non-TRD MDD cohorts.

RESULTS

Overall, 3414 patients with TRD and non-TRD MDD (mean age 39.7 years, 69% female) were matched. Relative to non-TRD MDD, patients with TRD had 33% higher likelihood of ≥ 1 pre-existing condition relevant for AEs listed in product labels of non-antidepressant augmentation therapies (p < 0.001). Patients with TRD vs. non-TRD MDD had 12.9 and 6.4 times higher likelihood of ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 DDIs, respectively, based on their medication regimen (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Pre-existing conditions relevant for listed AEs and potential DDIs limit safe augmentation options in MDD, particularly among patients with TRD. Payer prior authorization policies requiring several augmentation therapy trials to access novel treatments may complicate clinical management of this population.

Economic burden of treatment-resistant depression among veterans in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Evidence is limited on the economic burden associated with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) among US veterans. We evaluated the economic burden among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with and without TRD, and those without MDD in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

METHODS

Three cohorts were identified using VHA claims data (01APR2014-31MAR2018). Patients with MDD (aged ≥18) who failed ≥2 antidepressant treatments of adequate dose and duration were defined as having TRD; patients with MDD not meeting this criterion constituted the non-TRD MDD cohort (index: first antidepressant claim). The non-MDD cohort included those without MDD diagnosis (index: randomly assigned). Patients with psychosis, schizophrenia, manic/bipolar disorder, or dementia in the 6-month pre-index period were excluded. Patients with non-TRD MDD and non-MDD were matched 1:1 to patients with TRD based on demographic characteristics (age, gender, race, index year). Health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs were analyzed during the post-index period using a negative binomial model and ordinary least squares regression model, respectively.

RESULTS

After 1:1 exact matching, 10,449 patients were included in each cohort (mean age: 48.9 years). Patients with TRD had higher per patient per year (PPPY) HRU than non-TRD MDD (all-cause inpatient visits: incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 1.70 [95% confidence interval: 1.57-1.83]) and non-MDD (IRR: 5.04 [95% confidence interval: 4.51-5.63]), and incurred higher total all-cause health care costs PPPY than non-TRD MDD (mean difference: $5,906) and non-MDD (mean difference: $11,873; all p<.0001).

CONCLUSION

Among US veterans, TRD poses a significant incremental economic burden relative to non-TRD MDD and non-MDD.

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.

Consequences of insurance denials among U.S. patients prescribed repository corticotropin injection (Acthar Gel) for nephrotic syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar Gel) is indicated to induce a diuresis or a remission of proteinuria in nephrotic syndrome (NS) without uremia of the idiopathic type or that due to lupus erythematosus. This study compares patient characteristics and measurable healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) between NS patients who received a prescription for RCI and then were either approved or denied treatment by their insurers.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of adults with NS from January 2015 to December 2018 was conducted using a de-identified open-source claims database. Patients were included in the study if they had ≥1diagnosis associated with NS, were age 18+, and had medical claims activity at some point in the year preceding ("baseline") and year following ("follow up") their first approved or denied RCI prescription. Baseline characteristics were reported with p-values indicating the significance of characteristics between cohorts. To assess outcomes, approved and denied patients were matched (1:1) using propensity-matching to account for underlying differences.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,232 patients met inclusion criteria for the study. At baseline, approved patients were older than denied patients (mean age 53.9 vs. 48.4) and had higher rates of comorbidities. A greater proportion of approved patients required inpatient admissions (34.1 vs. 28.0%) and "high" doses of corticosteroids (CS) (26.2 vs. 20.7%) at baseline. Matched outcomes showed directionally more denied patients with inpatient admissions compared to approved (64 vs. 52) and a greater utilization of deep vein thrombosis ultrasound (12.2 vs. 6.6%) and dialysis (10.5 vs. 6.1%). Matched, denied patients had directionally greater CS use during follow-up both in the number of patients receiving CS (104 vs. 95) and the average annualized daily dose (4.1 vs. 3.4 mg).

CONCLUSION

Patients denied access to RCI treatment had directionally higher HCRU compared to matched, approved counterparts. Thus, the results of this study may aid providers and payers in evaluating scenarios where RCI may be beneficial and improve quality of care for NS patients.

Cost-per-remitter with esketamine nasal spray versus standard of care for treatment-resistant depression

Aim: Estimate the cost-per-remitter with esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant (ESK + oral AD) versus oral AD plus nasal placebo (oral AD + PBO) among patients with treatment-resistant depression. Patients & methods: An Excel-based model was developed to estimate the cost-per-remitter for ESK + oral AD versus oral AD + PBO over 52 weeks from multiple US payer perspectives. Clinical end points and cost inputs were derived from clinical trials and the literature, respectively. Results: Under the base-case scenario, the cost-per-remitter for ESK + oral AD and oral AD + PBO were as follows: Commercial: US$85,808 versus US$100,198; Medicaid: US$76,236 versus US$96,067; Veteran's Affairs: US$77,765 versus US$104,519; and Integrated Delivery Network: US$103,924 versus US$142,766. Conclusion: The findings suggest that ESK + oral AD is a cost-efficient alternative treatment for treatment-resistant depression compared with oral AD + PBO.

Economic burden of treatment-resistant depression in privately insured US patients with co-occurring anxiety disorder and/or substance use disorder

OBJECTIVE

To assess the burden of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) among privately insured patients with anxiety disorder and/or substance use disorders (SUD).

METHODS

Adults <65 years old were identified in the Optum Health Care Solutions Inc. database (July 2009-March 2017). Among those with major depressive disorder (MDD) and antidepressant use, patients who initiated a third antidepressant (index date) after two regimens at adequate dose and duration were classified in the TRD cohort and patients without evidence of TRD were classified in the non-TRD MDD control cohort. The non-MDD control cohort comprised patients without MDD. In the non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts, the index date was imputed to mimic the distribution of time in the TRD cohort from the first antidepressant to the index date or from the start of eligibility to the index date, respectively. Patients with <6 months of continuous insurance eligibility pre-/post-index, psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and related conditions, dementia, and development disorders, and/or no baseline anxiety disorder and/or SUD were excluded. Patients with TRD were matched 1:1 to patients with non-TRD MDD and patients without MDD, based on exact matching factors (i.e. availability of work loss data) and propensity scores computed based on characteristics measured pre-index. Outcomes, including healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs, work productivity loss and related costs measured per patient per year ≤24 months post-index were compared between matched TRD, non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 3166 patients were identified in the TRD cohort and matched to non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts. Among patients with TRD (mean age 39 years, 60.5% female), 87.3% had an anxiety disorder, 24.1% had SUD. The TRD cohort had higher HRU vs non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts: 0.32 vs 0.20 and 0.14 inpatient admissions, 0.91 vs 0.73 and 0.58 emergency department visits, and 23.8 vs 16.8 and 11.6 outpatient visits, respectively (all p < .01). The TRD cohort had higher healthcare costs ($16,674) vs non-TRD MDD ($10,945) and non-MDD ($6493) cohorts (all p < .01). Among patients with work loss data (N = 310/cohort), patients with TRD had more work loss days (54) and higher work loss-related costs ($13,674) vs patients with non-TRD MDD (32 days; $7131) and without MDD (17 days; $4798; all p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with an anxiety disorder and/or SUD, TRD was associated with higher HRU, healthcare costs, work loss days and work loss-related costs.

Health care resource use, short-term disability days, and costs associated with states of persistence on antidepressant lines of therapy

AIMS

To compare health care resource utilization (HCRU), short-term disability days, and costs between states of persistence on antidepressant lines of therapy after evidence of treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

METHODS

Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) were identified in the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases (01/01/2013-03/04/2019), Multi-State Medicaid Database (01/01/2013-12/31/2018), and Health Productivity Management Database (01/01/2015-12/31/2018). The index date was the date of the first evidence of TRD during the first observed major depressive episode. The follow-up period was divided into 45-day increments and categorized into persistence states: (1) evaluation (first 45 days after evidence of TRD); (2) persistence on the early line after evidence of TRD; (3) persistence on a late line; and (4) non-persistence. HCRU, short-term disability days, and costs were compared between persistence states using multivariate generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

Among 10,053 patients with TRD, the evaluation state was associated with higher likelihood of all-cause inpatient admissions (odds ratio [OR; 95% confidence interval (CI)] = 1.79 [1.49, 2.14]), emergency department visits (OR [95% CI] = 1.23 [1.12, 1.34]), and outpatient visits (OR [95% CI] = 3.83 [3.51, 4.18]; all p < .001) versus persistence on the early-line therapy. This resulted in $374 higher mean PPPM all-cause health care costs (95% CI = 265, 470; p < .001) during evaluation versus persistence on the early line therapy. The evaluation state was associated with 89% more short-term disability days (OR [95% CI] = 1.89 [1.49, 2.57] and $212 higher mean PPPM short-term disability costs (95% CI = 64, 259) relative to persistence on the early line (both p < .001). Moreover, during persistence on a later line, mean PPPM all-cause health care costs were $141 higher (95% CI = 13, 242; p = .028) relative to the early line.

LIMITATIONS

Medication may have been dispensed but not actually taken.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher costs during the first 45 days after evidence of the presence of TRD and during persistence on a late line relative to persistence on the early-line therapy suggest there are benefits to using more effective treatments earlier.

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.

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.

Use of home health and other healthcare delivery pathways among privately insured patients with and without treatment-resistant depression

Objective: To assess the real-world use of home health services (HHS) among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with and without treatment-resistant depression (TRD).Methods: Adults (18-64 years) from a commercial claims database (07/2009 to 03/2015) were categorized into three cohorts: "TRD"(N = 6411), "non-TRD MDD"(N = 33,068), "non-MDD"(N = 149,884) stratified based on use of HHS (HHS vs. no-HHS). Healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs were evaluated up to two years following the first antidepressant pharmacy claim using descriptive statistics. HRU (e.g. inpatient, outpatient, emergency department visits) and costs were measured per-patient-per-year (PPPY) in 2015 USD.Results: During the follow-up period, 18.0% of TRD, 12.4% of non-TRD MDD, and 6.5% of non-MDD patients received HHS. Mean all-cause healthcare costs PPPY were numerically higher among patients with HHS use. Among the TRD cohort, patients using HHS had healthcare costs of $40,040 PPPY while patients with TRD and no-HHS had healthcare costs of $12,272 PPPY. Within the non-TRD MDD cohort, HHS users incurred healthcare costs of $28,767 PPPY and non-HHS users incurred costs of $7227 PPPY. Patients without MDD who used HHS had annual healthcare costs of $22,340 while non-MDD patients who did not use HHS had healthcare costs of $3479 PPPY. However, among HHS users, HHS costs represented a relatively small proportion of total healthcare costs.Conclusions: The high proportion of TRD patients using HHS suggests it is a utilized healthcare delivery pathway by TRD patients.

US Integrated Delivery Networks Perspective on Economic Burden of Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Retrospective Matched-Cohort Study

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.

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.