Healthcare costs associated with treatment of bipolar disorder using a mood stabilizer plus adjunctive aripiprazole, quetiapine, risperidone, olanzapine or ziprasidone

Hospitalization risk among adults with bipolar I disorder treated with lurasidone versus other oral atypical antipsychotics: a retrospective analysis of Medicaid claims data

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of hospitalization for adult Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar I disorder treated with lurasidone vs. other oral atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) as monotherapy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of the IBM MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid Claims database identified adults with bipolar I disorder who initiated an AAP (index date) between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2019. Patients were continuously enrolled 12 months pre- and 24 months post-index date. Each month during the post-index period was categorized as monotherapy with lurasidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine or risperidone, no/minimal treatment, or other. Marginal structural models were performed to estimate hospitalization risk and length of stay (LOS) (all-cause and bipolar I disorder-related) compared to lurasidone.

RESULTS

The analysis included 8262 adults. Compared to lurasidone, the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of all-cause hospitalization were significantly higher for olanzapine (aOR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.09-2.10) and quetiapine (aOR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.18-1.89). The risk was significantly higher for bipolar I disorder-related hospitalization for quetiapine (aOR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.10-2.04) and risperidone (aOR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.04-2.56) compared to lurasidone. The bipolar I disorder-related LOS per 100 patient-months was more than twice as long for quetiapine (8.42 days) compared to lurasidone (3.97 days, p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Lurasidone-treated adult Medicaid patients with bipolar I disorder had significantly lower risk of all-cause hospitalization than those treated with olanzapine and quetiapine and lower risk of bipolar I disorder-related hospitalization than quetiapine and risperidone. Bipolar I disorder-related hospital LOS was significantly shorter for patients treated with lurasidone compared to quetiapine.

Real-World Patterns of Utilization and Costs Associated with Second-Generation Oral Antipsychotic Medication for the Treatment of Bipolar Disorder: A Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

Treatment with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for bipolar disorder, including bipolar I disorder (BD-I), is common. This review evaluated real-world utilization patterns with oral SGAs in the United States (US) for bipolar disorder (and BD-I specifically when reported) and economic burden associated with these patterns.

METHODS

Structured, systematic searches of MEDLINE^®, EMBASE^®, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database identified primary research studies (published 2008-2018) describing real-world SGA use in adults with bipolar disorder/BD-I.

RESULTS

Among 769 studies screened, 39 met inclusion criteria. Most studies (72%) were analyses of commercial or Medicare/Medicaid claims databases. Patient-related (eg, demographic, comorbidities) and disease-related (eg, mania, psychosis) factors were associated with prescribed SGA. Suboptimal utilization patterns (ie, nonadherence, nonpersistence, treatment gaps, medication switching, and discontinuation) were common for patients treated with SGAs. Also common were SGAs prescribed with another psychotropic medication and SGA combination treatment (use of ≥2 SGAs concurrently). Suboptimal adherence and SGA combination treatment were both associated with increased health care resource use (HCRU); suboptimal adherence was associated with higher total direct medical and indirect costs.

LIMITATIONS

Different definitions for populations and concepts limited between-study comparisons. Focusing on SGAs limits contextualizing findings within the broader treatment landscape (eg, lithium, anticonvulsants). Given the nature of claims data, prescribing rationale (eg, acute episodes vs maintenance) and factors influencing observed utilization patterns could not be fully derived.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased use of SGAs to treat bipolar disorder over the last decade, reports of suboptimal utilization patterns of SGAs (eg, nonadherence, nonpersistence) were common as was combination treatment. Patterns of SGA use associated with additional HCRU and/or costs were suboptimal adherence and SGA combination treatment; economic consequences associated with other utilization patterns (eg, nonpersistence) were unclear. Strategies to improve SGA treatment continuity, particularly adherence, may improve clinical and economic outcomes among people living with bipolar disorder.

The Economic Burden of Bipolar Disorder in the United States: A Systematic Literature Review

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a mood disorder with subtypes characterized by episodes of mania, hypomania, and/or depression. BD is associated with substantial economic burden, and the bipolar I disorder (BD-I) subtype is associated with high medical costs. This review further evaluated the economic burden of BD and BD-I in the United States (US), describing health-care resource utilization (HCRU) and sources of direct medical and indirect costs. Data were obtained from systematic searches of MEDLINE^®, EMBASE^®, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. Citations were screened to identify primary research studies (published 2008-2018) on the economic burden of BD/BD-I or its treatment in real-world settings. Reported costs were converted to 2018 US dollars. Of identified abstracts (N=4111), 56 studies were included. The estimated total annual national economic burden of BD/BD-I was more than $195 billion, with approximately 25% attributed to direct medical costs. Individuals with BD/BD-I used health-care services more frequently and had higher direct medical costs than matched individuals without the disease. Drivers of higher direct costs included frequent psychiatric interventions, presence of comorbid medical/psychiatric conditions, and both suboptimal medication adherence and clinical management. Indirect costs (eg, unemployment, lost work productivity for patients/caregivers) accounted for 72-80% of the national economic burden of BD/BD-I. Different definitions for study populations and cost categories limited comparisons of economic outcomes. This review builds on existing literature describing the economic burden of BD and confirmed cost drivers of BD/BD-I. Improved clinical management of BD/BD-I and associated comorbidities, together with better medication adherence, may reduce health-care costs and improve patient outcomes.

Dopamine Receptor Partial Agonists for the Treatment of Bipolar Disorder

Bipolar disorder is a chronic, disabling, and costly illness with frequent relapses and recurrences, high rates of co-morbid conditions, and poor adherence to treatment. Mood stabilizers and antipsychotics are the cornerstones of treatment. Dopamine receptor partial agonists are a novel class of antipsychotic agents with original pharmacodynamic properties. Among them, two have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of bipolar disorder. Aripiprazole (oral formulation) has been approved as monotherapy for the treatment of manic/mixed episodes in adult and pediatric populations and for maintenance treatment in adults, and as adjunctive treatment to mood stabilizers, for the acute treatment of manic/mixed episodes and for maintenance in adults. An intramuscular formulation of aripiprazole has been approved for the treatment of agitation in mania and a long-acting injectable formulation has been approved as maintenance treatment. In the USA, cariprazine has been approved as monotherapy for the acute treatment of manic/mixed as well as bipolar depressive episodes. Brexpiprazole is not yet approved to treat bipolar disorder. The evidence supporting these indications is reviewed via an analysis of clinical registration trials as well as additional studies, on the basis of a systematic literature search. Further studies dealing with other aspects of bipolar illness are also presented. Aripiprazole and cariprazine are efficacious and generally well tolerated agents that have shown cost effectiveness, and may therefore enrich our therapeutic armamentarium for bipolar illness. Brexpiprazole, which displays an overall promising tolerability profile, deserves further efficacy studies.

Medication Adherence and Discontinuation of Aripiprazole Once-Monthly 400 mg (AOM 400) Versus Oral Antipsychotics in Patients with Schizophrenia or Bipolar I Disorder: A Real-World Study Using US Claims Data

Introduction

Few studies have compared adherence between long-acting injectable antipsychotics, especially for newer agents like aripiprazole once-monthly 400 mg (AOM 400; aripiprazole monohydrate) and oral antipsychotics, in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder (BD-I) in a real-world setting.

Methods

Two separate retrospective cohort analyses using Truven MarketScan data from January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2016 were conducted to compare medication adherence and discontinuation in patients with schizophrenia or BD-I who initiated treatment with AOM 400 vs. patients changed from one oral antipsychotic monotherapy to another. Adherence was defined as proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥ 0.80 in the year following the index date. Linear regression models examined the association between AOM 400 and oral antipsychotic cohorts and medication adherence. Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox regression estimated time to and risk of discontinuation, while adjusting for baseline covariates. A sensitivity analysis was conducted using a combination of propensity score matching and exact matching to create matched cohorts.

Results

Final cohort sizes were as follows—Schizophrenia: AOM 400 n = 408, oral antipsychotic n = 3361; BD-I: AOM 400 n = 413, oral antipsychotic n = 15,534. In patients with schizophrenia, adjusted mean PDC was higher in patients in the AOM 400 cohort vs. the oral antipsychotic cohort (0.57 vs. 0.48 P < 0.001), and patients in the oral antipsychotic cohort had a higher risk of discontinuing treatment vs. the AOM 400 cohort (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.29–1.64). For patients with BD-I, adjusted mean PDC was higher for the AOM 400 cohort (0.59 vs. 0.44, P < 0.001), and patients in the oral antipsychotic cohort had a higher risk of discontinuation (HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.53–1.92).

Conclusions

In a real-word setting, AOM 400 resulted in a significantly higher percentage of patients with a PDC ≥ 0.80 and significantly longer time to treatment discontinuation compared to patients with schizophrenia or BD-I who received treatment with an oral antipsychotic.

Funding

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development and Commercialization, Inc. and Lundbeck.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0785-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Health Care Utilization and Treatment Persistence Associated with Oral Paliperidone and Lurasidone in Schizophrenia Treatment

BACKGROUND

Oral paliperidone and lurasidone are new second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs). Empirical evidence on the comparative costs and persistence of these 2 agents are absent in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

To assess health care use and persistence associated with the 2 new agents oral paliperidone and lurasidone and other SGAs.

METHODS

Schizophrenia patients who initiated SGA therapy were identified in the January 2007-June 2013 claims databases of a large managed care organization. Multivariate regressions using aripiprazole as the comparator were conducted. Ordinary least squares regressions were used to estimate the total medical and pharmacy costs associated with each drug. Poisson regressions were conducted to evaluate the frequency of hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits associated with each drug. A censored regression model was used to evaluate the comparative persistence. Sensitivity analyses using generalized linear models, two-part models, hurdle models, and instrumental variable regressions were also performed.  

RESULTS

Compared with aripiprazole, paliperidone was not associated with significantly different total costs, yet lurasidone was associated with lower total costs (-$7,052; 95% CI = -$9,221, -$4,882). Lurasidone was also associated with significantly lower medical services costs (-$5,025; 95% CI = -$7,096, -$2,955), drug costs (-$2,026; 95% CI = -$2,695, -$1,357), hospital costs (-$3,026; 95% CI = -$4,731, -$1,321), outpatient costs (-$1,999; 95% CI = -$2,536, -$1,463), and ED costs (-$2,284; 95% CI = -$3,069, -$1,499), whereas paliperidone did not have significant effects on any types of costs. Paliperidone users had fewer ED visits (-0.25; 95% CI = -0.42, -0.08), while lurasidone users had fewer hospitalizations (-5.98; 95% CI = -6.61, -5.35) and fewer ED visits (-2.51; 95% CI = -2.92, -2.10). Both paliperidone and lurasidone were associated with lower levels of treatment persistence.

CONCLUSIONS

Paliperidone does not associate with lower total costs compared with commonly used SGAs, whereas lurasidone is associated with lower total health costs. Thus, high access fees of lurasidone are not necessarily a major concern in prescription.

Quetiapine: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in bipolar disorder

This article briefly summarizes the burden of bipolar disorder and the clinical profile of quetiapine (Seroquel®) in the management of bipolar disorder, followed by a detailed review of pharmacoeconomic analyses. Quetiapine is an atypical antipsychotic that is available in numerous countries as immediate-release and extended-release tablets for the treatment of major psychiatric disorders, including bipolar disorder. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with quetiapine have demonstrated its efficacy in bipolar I and II disorders, and the drug has been generally well tolerated in clinical trials. Three cost-effectiveness analyses of maintenance therapy in bipolar I disorder, which used similar Markov models and incorporated data from key clinical trials and a number of other sources, showed that quetiapine, as adjunctive therapy with mood stabilizers (lithium or divalproex), was a cost-effective treatment option from the healthcare payer perspective in the UK and the US. Quetiapine either dominated comparators (typically mood stabilizers alone) or was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios that were usually well below widely accepted thresholds of cost effectiveness. One of the studies evaluated extended-release quetiapine, although clinical efficacy data used in the Markov model were for the immediate-release formulation. In another analysis, which used a discrete-event simulation model and was conducted from the perspective of the UK healthcare payer, quetiapine monotherapy was cost effective compared with olanzapine monotherapy as maintenance treatment for all phases of bipolar I or II disorder. In this model, favourable results were also shown for quetiapine (with or without mood stabilizers) compared with a wide range of maintenance therapy regimens. Another modelled analysis conducted from the UK healthcare payer perspective showed that quetiapine was dominated by haloperidol in the short-term treatment of a manic episode in patients with bipolar I disorder. Both favourable and unfavourable results have been reported in cost analyses of quetiapine in bipolar disorder (type I or type not specified). Possible explanations for some of the variability in results of the pharmacoeconomic analyses include heterogeneity among the models in terms of input parameters or assumptions in the base-case analyses, country- or region-specific differences in estimates of healthcare resource use and associated costs, variability in treatment alternatives, and differences in the year of costing and discounting used in the analyses. In addition, some of the studies had short time horizons and focused on acute manic episodes only, whereas others were longer-term analyses that considered the full spectrum of health states in patients with bipolar disorder. Various limitations of the studies have been recognized, and results from one country may not be applicable to other countries. In conclusion, results of available pharmacoeconomic analyses provide evidence of the cost effectiveness of quetiapine as an adjunct to mood stabilizers for maintenance therapy in (primarily type I) bipolar disorder from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK and the US. Some evidence is available to support the cost effectiveness of quetiapine monotherapy or the use of extended-release quetiapine as adjunctive therapy with mood stabilizers in this setting, although further analyses appear to be warranted. Whether these findings apply to other geographical regions requires further study. Evidence for the long-term (>2-year) cost effectiveness of quetiapine in bipolar disorder is currently limited and further studies are also needed to address the cost effectiveness of quetiapine from a societal perspective and in bipolar II disorder.

Aripiprazole: a review of its use in the management of mania in adults with bipolar I disorder

Aripiprazole (Abilify®) is an atypical antipsychotic indicated for the treatment of mania associated with bipolar I disorder. It is unique in its class, as it is a partial agonist of dopamine D(2) and D(3), and serotonin 5-HT(1A) receptors and a modest antagonist of 5-HT(2A) receptors. This article reviews the pharmacological properties, clinical efficacy and tolerability of oral aripiprazole in the management of mania associated with bipolar I disorder in adults. In well designed clinical trials in patients with recent manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder, oral aripiprazole monotherapy or adjunctive therapy to lithium or valproate improved symptoms of mania following short-term (≤12 weeks) or maintenance (≤100 weeks) treatment. In addition, maintenance treatment with aripiprazole (as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy) prevented the recurrence of any mood episodes or manic episodes (but not depressive episodes) in patients who had previously been stabilized and maintained on aripiprazole. Aripiprazole was generally well tolerated in these studies and was associated with a low risk of prolactin elevation, corrected QT interval prolongation and metabolic disturbances. Extrapyramidal symptoms occurred in up to 28% of aripiprazole recipients, but after longer-term treatment (≤100 weeks), symptom severity did not differ significantly from that in placebo recipients. Aripiprazole treatment generally did not increase bodyweight to a clinically relevant extent; however, more patients receiving aripiprazole monotherapy than placebo had clinically significant bodyweight gain during 100 weeks' treatment. Additionally, in a comparative trial, aripiprazole monotherapy was at least as effective as haloperidol monotherapy in terms of improving symptoms of mania, but had the advantage of a lower incidence of some adverse events, such as extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse events. Further trials comparing aripiprazole with other agents, including atypical antipsychotics, would help to definitively position aripiprazole relative to these agents. Current guidelines recommend aripiprazole as a first-line option (as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy) for the short-term treatment of mania associated with bipolar I disorder, and as a first-line (as monotherapy) or second-line (as adjunctive therapy) option for preventing the recurrence of mood episodes during longer-term therapy.

Intent-to-treat analysis of health care expenditures of patients treated with atypical antipsychotics as adjunctive therapy in depression

OBJECTIVE

To compare health care utilization and expenditures in patients with depression whose initial antidepressant (AD) treatment was augmented with a second-generation antipsychotic.

METHODS

Claims data from January 1, 2001, through June 30, 2009, were used to select patients aged 18 to 64 years with depression treated with ADs augmented with aripiprazole, olanzapine, or quetiapine. Patients were required to have 6 months of continuous eligibility before the first AD prescription and 6 months after the second-generation antipsychotic augmentation (index) date. Utilization and expenditures were assessed for 6 months after the index date. Multivariate regression was used to estimate adjusted expenditures and risks for hospitalizations and emergency department visits.

RESULTS

A total of 483 patients treated with aripiprazole, 978 with olanzapine, and 2471 with quetiapine were selected. Mean adjusted expenditures for aripiprazole were significantly lower than those for olanzapine for each service category (all-cause, all-cause medical care, mental health-related, and mental health-related medical care) and were significantly lower than those for quetiapine for each category with the exception of mental health-related. The adjusted risks for hospitalization and emergency department visits were significantly higher for quetiapine than for aripiprazole.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with patients treated with ADs and aripiprazole, those treated with ADs and olanzapine or quetiapine had greater utilization and higher expenditures.

Applying comparative effectiveness research methods in bipolar disorders

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials [RCT] are the Gold Standard of medical evidence. However, observational comparative effectiveness research [CER] based on real-world data is receiving national attention. This paper demonstrates how observational CER can fill important gaps in clinical knowledge left behind by RCT approaches. An example of CER in bipolar disorders is presented.

METHODS

Paid claims data from a large commercial insurer were used to identify episodes of drug therapy. Episodes were defined each time a patient initiated or restarted therapy using an antipsychotic, antidepressant or mood stabilizing medication. Episode definitions were based on calculations of continuous days of drug therapy using a 15 day gap definition. 105,440 episodes of drug therapy were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Most episodes were initiated using a mood stabilizing drug (40%) or an antidepressant (40%). Over 59% of all episodes were for augmentation therapy, followed by switching episodes (25%) and restart episodes (16%). Patient outcomes measured by either duration of uninterrupted therapy or one-year post-treatment cost varied significantly with patient treatment history, especially episode type. The comparative effectiveness of alternative therapies was sensitive to the extent to which treatment history is taken into account.

CONCLUSIONS

Observational research can evaluate patient outcomes across a wide range of clinical presentations with regard to the patient's treatment history. Treatment history is a major determinant of patient compliance and future treatment costs. Failure to account for treatment history can introduce bias into comparative effectiveness results. Observational CER research can also uncover important questions that require future research.

One-year risk of psychiatric hospitalization and associated treatment costs in bipolar disorder treated with atypical antipsychotics: a retrospective claims database analysis

BACKGROUND

This study compared 1-year risk of psychiatric hospitalization and treatment costs in commercially insured patients with bipolar disorder, treated with aripiprazole, ziprasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine or risperidone.

METHODS

This was a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study using the Ingenix Lab/Rx integrated insurance claims dataset. Patients with bipolar disorder and 180 days of pre-index enrollment without antipsychotic exposure who received atypical antipsychotic agents were followed for up to 12 months following the initial antipsychotic prescription. The primary analysis used Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate time-dependent risk of hospitalization, adjusting for age, sex and pre-index hospitalization. Generalized gamma regression compared post-index costs between treatment groups.

RESULTS

Compared to aripiprazole, ziprasidone, olanzapine and quetiapine had higher risks for hospitalization (hazard ratio 1.96, 1.55 and 1.56, respectively; p < 0.05); risperidone had a numerically higher but not statistically different risk (hazard ratio 1.37; p = 0.10). Mental health treatment costs were significantly lower for aripiprazole compared with ziprasidone (p = 0.004) and quetiapine (p = 0.007), but not compared to olanzapine (p = 0.29) or risperidone (p = 0.80). Total healthcare costs were significantly lower for aripiprazole compared to quetiapine (p = 0.040) but not other comparators.

CONCLUSIONS

In commercially insured adults with bipolar disorder followed for 1 year after initiation of atypical antipsychotics, treatment with aripiprazole was associated with a lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization than ziprasidone, quetiapine, olanzapine and risperidone, although this did not reach significance with the latter. Aripiprazole was also associated with significantly lower total healthcare costs than quetiapine, but not the other comparators.

Comparison of second-generation antipsychotic treatment on psychiatric hospitalization in Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE

To compare second-generation antipsychotics on time to and cost of psychiatric hospitalization in Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder.

METHODS

Retrospective study using healthcare claims from 10 US state Medicaid programs. Included beneficiaries were aged 18-64, initiated a single second-generation antipsychotic (aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone) between 1/1/2003-6/30/2008 (initiation date=index), and had a medical claim with an ICD-9-CM diagnosis code for bipolar disorder. A 360-day post-index period was used to measure time to and costs of psychiatric hospitalization (inpatient claims with a diagnosis code for a mental disorder [ICD-9-CM 290.xx-319.xx] in any position). Cox proportional hazards models and Generalized Linear Models compared time to and costs of psychiatric hospitalization, respectively, in beneficiaries initiating aripiprazole vs each other second-generation antipsychotic, adjusting for beneficiaries' baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Included beneficiary characteristics: mean age 36 years, 77% female, 80% Caucasian, aripiprazole (n=2553), mean time to psychiatric hospitalization or censoring=85 days; olanzapine (n=4702), 81 days; quetiapine (n=9327), 97 days; risperidone (n=4377), 85 days; ziprasidone (n=1520), 82 days. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, time to psychiatric hospitalization in beneficiaries initiating aripiprazole was longer compared to olanzapine (hazard ratio [HR]=1.52, p<0.001), quetiapine (HR=1.40, p<0.001), ziprasidone (HR=1.33, p=0.032), and risperidone, although the latter difference did not reach significance (HR=1.18, p=0.13). The adjusted costs of psychiatric hospitalization in beneficiaries initiating aripiprazole were significantly lower compared to those initiating quetiapine (incremental per-patient per-month difference=$42, 95% CI=$16-66, p<0.05), but not significantly lower for the other comparisons.

LIMITATIONS

This study was based on a non-probability convenience sample of the Medicaid population. Analyses of administrative claims data are subject to coding and classification error.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder initiating aripiprazole had significantly longer time to psychiatric hospitalization than those initiating olanzapine, quetiapine, or ziprasidone, and significantly lower adjusted costs for psychiatric hospitalization than those initiating quetiapine.

Exploratory analysis of psychiatric-related utilization and costs associated with paliperidone ER compared with other oral atypical antipsychotics using pharmacy claims from an administrative database

OBJECTIVE

To compare psychiatric-related healthcare resource utilization (inpatient facility admissions, emergency room visits and ambulatory visits) and costs (medical, pharmacy and total healthcare costs) in patients initiated on paliperidone extended release (ER), risperidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, ziprasidone or quetiapine.

METHODS

This exploratory, retrospective administrative claims analysis database compared patients from a large US commercial health plan who were initiated on their index oral atypical antipsychotics between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2007. Cohorts were assigned by first antipsychotic claim and propensity score-matched by age, gender, US census division, race, household income, baseline antipsychotic use, co-morbid conditions and psychiatric-related utilization. Psychiatric-related healthcare resource utilization and costs were measured for 6 months post-initiation. Descriptive analyses compared paliperidone ER with the other cohorts.

RESULTS

There were 562 patients in matched paliperidone ER (n = 95), risperidone (n = 94), aripiprazole (n = 94), olanzapine (n = 89), ziprasidone (n = 95) or quetiapine (n = 95) cohorts. The paliperidone ER cohort had fewer mean psychiatric-related ambulatory visits than the risperidone cohort (p = 0.05). The paliperidone ER cohort had significantly lower mean psychiatric-related medical costs than the olanzapine, quetiapine and ziprasidone cohorts (p < 0.05) and lower total costs than the ziprasidone and olanzapine cohorts (p = 0.02). No other outcomes were significantly different.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample sizes and short post-index observation times due to the launch of paliperidone ER in January 2007, coupled with the inherent lag time with medical claims data, limit the generalizability of the study findings.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with paliperidone ER may have psychiatric-related utilization costs that are comparable to those of patients who initiated treatment with other oral atypical antipsychotics.