Dataset Information

Real-world determinants of adjunctive antipsychotic prescribing for patients with major depressive disorder and inadequate response to antidepressants: a case review study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) often fail to respond to first-line antidepressant treatments (ADTs); subsequent strategies include dosage increase, switch to a different ADT, or addition of another ADT or other drug. The objective of this prospective, case review study was to identify factors that influence the decision to prescribe adjunctive antipsychotics for patients with MDD and inadequate response to ADT.

Methods

Psychiatrists or primary care physicians (n=411) based in the USA and Europe each completed an online survey for ten consecutive adults with MDD and inadequate response to ADTs, and for whom a treatment change was considered. A t test was used to compare survey responses between groups of patients.

Results

The survey was completed for 4018 patients; an adjunctive antipsychotic was considered for 961/4018 patients (23.9%) and actually prescribed for 514/4018 (12.8%). Compared with patients not considered for an adjunctive antipsychotic, those who were considered for this treatment had more previous major depressive episodes (MDEs), longer duration of the current MDE, more severe illness both at ADT initiation and current consultation, and more treatment changes. Patients who were prescribed adjunctive antipsychotics had at baseline more functional impairment and absences from work than those considered for but not prescribed this treatment. Key symptoms that prompted physicians to consider antipsychotics were psychotic symptoms, psychomotor agitation, hostility, irritability, impulsivity, and anger bursts. Anxious mood and irritability were mentioned significantly more often by physicians who actually prescribed adjunctive antipsychotics. Obstacles to prescribing included a tendency to wait to see if symptoms improved and concern over side effects.

Conclusion

This real-world study suggested that the decision to prescribe an adjunctive antipsychotic for patients with MDD and inadequate response to ADT is influenced by a broad spectrum of factors, predominantly related to severity of illness, functional impairment, and symptom profile.

Funding

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc. (Princeton, USA) and H. Lundbeck A/S (Valby, Denmark).

SUBMITTER: McIntyre RS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4449372 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThere is little evidence regarding the most effective timing of augmentation of antidepressants (AD) with antipsychotics (AP) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who inadequately respond to first-line AD (inadequate responders). The study's objective was to understand the association between timing of augmentation of AD with AP and overall healthcare costs in inadequate responders.MethodsUsing the Truven Health MarketScan® Medicaid, Commercial, and Medicare Supplemental databases (7/1/09-12/31/16), we identified adult inadequate responders if they had one of the following indicating incomplete response to initial AD: psychiatric hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit, initiating psychotherapy, or switching to or adding on a different AD. Two mutually exclusive cohorts were identified on the basis of time from first qualifying event date to first date of augmentation with an AP (index date): 0-6 months (early add-on) and 7-12 months (late add-on). Patients were further required to be continuously enrolled 1 year before (baseline) and 1 year after (follow-up) index date. Patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder diagnoses were excluded. General linear regression was used to estimate adjusted healthcare costs in the early versus late add-on cohort, controlling for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, insurance type, medications, and ED visits or hospitalizations.ResultsOf the 6935 identified inadequate responders, 68.7% started an AP early and 31.3% late. At baseline, before AP augmentation, patients in the early add-on cohort had higher psychiatric comorbid disease burden (47.3% vs. 42.5%; p < 0.001) and higher inpatient utilization [mean (SD) 0.41 (0.72) vs. 0.27 (0.67); p < 0.001] than in late add-on cohort. During follow-up, the adjusted total all-cause healthcare cost was significantly lower in the early vs. late add-on cohort ($18,864 vs. $20,452; p = 0.046).ConclusionFindings of this real-world study suggest that, in patients with MDD who inadequately responded to first-line AD treatment, adding an AP earlier reduces overall healthcare costs.FundingOtsuka Pharmaceutical Development and Commercialization, Inc. and Lundbeck.

Project description:BackgroundAtypical antipsychotic medications are widely prescribed for the adjunctive treatment of depression, yet their total risk-benefit profile is not well understood. We thus conducted a systematic review of the efficacy and safety profiles of atypical antipsychotic medications used for the adjunctive treatment of depression.Methods and findingsWe included randomized trials comparing adjunctive antipsychotic medication to placebo for treatment-resistant depression in adults. Our literature search (conducted in December 2011 and updated on December 14, 2012) identified 14 short-term trials of aripiprazole, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC), quetiapine, and risperidone. When possible, we supplemented published literature with data from manufacturers' clinical trial registries and US Food and Drug Administration New Drug Applications. Study duration ranged from 4 to 12 wk. All four drugs had statistically significant effects on remission, as follows: aripiprazole (odds ratio [OR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.48-2.73), OFC (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.0), quetiapine (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.33-2.42), and risperidone (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.31-4.30). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 19 for OFC and nine for each other drug. All drugs with the exception of OFC also had statistically significant effects on response rates, as follows: aripiprazole (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.58-2.72; NNT, 7), OFC (OR, 1.30, 95% CI, 0.87-1.93), quetiapine (OR, 1.53, 95% CI, 1.17-2.0; NNT, 10), and risperidone (OR, 1.83, 95% CI, 1.16-2.88; NNT, 8). All four drugs showed statistically significant effects on clinician-rated depression severity measures (Hedges' g ranged from 0.26 to 0.48; mean difference of 2.69 points on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale across drugs). On measures of functioning and quality of life, these medications produced either no benefit or a very small benefit, except for risperidone, which had a small-to-moderate effect on quality of life (g?=?0.49). Treatment was linked to several adverse events, including akathisia (aripiprazole), sedation (quetiapine, OFC, and aripiprazole), abnormal metabolic laboratory results (quetiapine and OFC), and weight gain (all four drugs, especially OFC). Shortcomings in study design and data reporting, as well as use of post hoc analyses, may have inflated the apparent benefits of treatment and reduced the apparent incidence of adverse events.ConclusionsAtypical antipsychotic medications for the adjunctive treatment of depression are efficacious in reducing observer-rated depressive symptoms, but clinicians should interpret these findings cautiously in light of (1) the small-to-moderate-sized benefits, (2) the lack of benefit with regards to quality of life or functional impairment, and (3) the abundant evidence of potential treatment-related harm. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:Objective: Determine the accuracy of nursing home self-reported antipsychotic prescribing before and after implementation of a Medicare campaign to reduce use.Methods: Quasi-experimental study comparing trends in self-reported antipsychotic prescribing relative to claims-based prescribing. Setting is a nationwide sample of 11,912 facilities, 2011-2013. Participants are long-stay nursing home residents (n?=?586,281) with prescribing data in Medicare Minimum Data Set 3.0 and Medicare Part D claims database. Verified with a pharmacy dispensing database. Main outcomes are the discrepancies in quarterly prevalence of antipsychotic prescribing between nursing home self-reports and claims data and the characteristics of facilities and residents where discrepancies were identified.Results: Nursing homes underreport their antipsychotic prescribing levels, on average, by 1 percentage point per quarter relative to Medicare Part D claims (0.013, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.012-0.015; p<.001). After the Medicare campaign, the underreporting gap increased by another half a percentage point (0.004, 95% CI .003-.005; p = .012). Nursing home residents with dementia, Alzheimer's disease or bipolar disorders were at the highest risk for underreported antipsychotic prescribing before the campaign (Adjusted Odds ratio (AOR) 1.385, 95% CI: 1.330-1.444; AOR 1.234, 95% CI: 1.172-1.300; AOR 1.574, 95% CI: 1.444-1.716, respectively) and afterwards. After the launch of the Medicare campaign, underreported antipsychotic prescribing occurred most in for-profit nursing homes (AOR 1.088, 95% CI: 1.005-1.178) and facilities in the US South (AOR 1.262, 95% CI: 1.145-1.391). Agreement was high between claims and dispensing data (99.7%).Conclusion: Nursing homes did not identify up to 6,000 residents per calendar quarter as having received antipsychotics despite these prescriptions being paid by Medicare and dispensed by a pharmacy. Nursing home rates of antipsychotic prescribing from self-reported data may be biased.