Dataset Information

The Impact of Antipsychotic Dose Reduction on Clinical Outcomes and Health Care Resource Use Among Medicare Patients with Schizophrenia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Antipsychotic medications are used to treat schizophrenia and may be associated with adverse effects, including tardive dyskinesia (TD), following prolonged use or upon changes in dosing regimen.

Objective

This retrospective analysis evaluated the burden of antipsychotic dose reduction in Medicare patients with schizophrenia.

Methods

This matched cohort study used Medicare claims data (2006-2017) analyzed for patients with schizophrenia and two or more claims for antipsychotics, with one or more antipsychotic monotherapy period ≥ 90 days. Cohorts were defined for patients with antipsychotic dose reductions ≥ 10% and stable doses. A separate analysis was conducted using patients with dose reductions ≥ 30%. Outcomes included all-cause emergency room (ER) visits, all-cause inpatient visits, schizophrenia relapse, other psychiatric relapse, and TD diagnosis. Covariates included age, disease duration, comorbidities, and medication use.

Results

The analysis included 276,030 patients with ≥ 10% dose reductions and 211,575 patients with ≥ 30% dose reductions. Patient characteristics were balanced between cohorts. Patients with ≥ 10% or ≥ 30% dose reductions had a shorter time to ER visit, inpatient visit, schizophrenia relapse, other psychiatric relapse, and TD diagnosis versus those receiving stable doses (all p < 0.001). Significance was maintained when unmatched baseline characteristics were adjusted.

Conclusions

Patients with antipsychotic dose reductions may be at risk for increased ER visits, increased hospitalizations, and significant unfavorable mental health-related clinical outcomes, suggesting that dose reduction may increase overall health care burden in some patients with schizophrenia. This work highlights the need for alternative strategies in the management of patients with TD.

SUBMITTER: Zichlin ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8481169 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBetter evidence is needed on whether Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can control the use of postacute care services while achieving excellent outcomes.ObjectiveTo compare self-reported use of postacute care services and outcomes among traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries and MA enrollees.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) with linked Medicare enrollment data from 2015 to 2017. Participants were community-dwelling MA or TM beneficiaries 70 years and older; those with dual Medicare and Medicaid eligibility were also identified. Analyses were conducted from May 2022 to February 2023 and were weighted to account for the complex survey design.ExposuresEnrollment in MA and dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid.Main outcomes and measuresPostacute care service use including site of use, duration, primary indication, and whether participants met their goals or experienced improved functional status during or after services.ResultsIncluded in the analysis were 2357 Medicare beneficiaries who used postacute care. Of these beneficiaries, 815 (32.6%; 62.0% were females [weighted percentages]) had MA and 1542 (67.4%; 59.5% were females [weighted percentages]) had TM. Enrollees in MA reported using postacute care services across all NHATS survey rounds: between 16.2% (95% CI, 14.3%-18.4%) and 17.7% (95% CI, 15.4%-20.4%) of MA enrollees reported using postacute care services each round, vs 22.4% (95% CI, 20.9%-24.1%) to 24.1% (95% CI, 21.8%-26.6%) of TM beneficiaries (P for all rounds <.002). Enrollees in MA reported less functional improvement during postacute care use (63.1% [95% CI, 59.2%-66.8%] vs 71.7% [95% CI, 68.9%-74.3%], P < .001). Among beneficiaries who ended postacute service use, fewer MA enrollees than TM enrollees reported that they met their goals (70.5% [95% CI, 65.1%-75.3%] vs 76.2% [95% CI, 73.1%-79.1%]; P = .053) or had improved functional status (43.9% [95% CI, 38.9%-49.1%] vs 46.0% [95% CI, 42.5%-49.5%]; P = .42), but differences were not statistically significant. Differences in postacute care use and functional improvement were not statistically significant between MA and TM enrollees with dual eligibility.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries, we found that MA enrollees overall used less postacute care services than their TM counterparts. Among users of postacute care services, MA enrollees reported less favorable outcomes compared with TM enrollees. These findings highlight the importance of assessing patient-reported outcomes, especially as MA and other payment models seek to reduce inefficient use of postacute care services.

Project description:BackgroundMany people with schizophrenia do not reach a satisfactory clinical response with a standard dose of an initially prescribed antipsychotic drug. In such cases, clinicians face the dilemma of increasing the antipsychotic dose in order to enhance antipsychotic efficacy.ObjectivesTo examine the efficacy of increasing antipsychotic dose compared to keeping the same dose in the treatment of people with schizophrenia who have not responded (as defined in the individual studies) to an initial antipsychotic drug trial. We also examine the adverse effects associated with such a procedure.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (10 June 2014, 6 October 2015, and 30 March 2017). We examined references of all included studies for further trials.Selection criteriaAll relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), reporting useable data, comparing increasing the antipsychotic dose rather than maintaining the original dose for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment.Data collection and analysisAt least two review authors independently extracted data . We analysed dichotomous data using relative risks (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table.Main resultsTen relevant RCTs with 675 participants are included in this review. All trials were double blind except one single blind. All studies had a run-in phase to confirm they did not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment. The trials were published between 1980 and 2016. In most studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. In addition sample sizes were often small, limiting the overall quality of the evidence. Overall, no clear difference was found between groups in terms of the number of participants who showed clinically relevant response (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.40, 9 RCTs, N = 533, low-quality evidence), or left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.07, very low quality evidence), or due to any reason (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90, 5 RCTs, N = 353, low-quality evidence). Similarly, no clear difference was found in general mental state as measured by PANSS total score change (MD -1.44, 95% CI -6.85 to 3.97, 3 RCTs, N = 258, very low quality evidence). At least one adverse effect was equivocal between groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50, 2 RCTs, N = 191, very low quality evidence). Data were not reported for time in hospital or quality-of-life outcomes. Finally, subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not show any effect on the primary outcome but these analyses were clearly underpowered.Authors' conclusionsCurrent data do not show any clear differences between increasing or maintaining the antipsychotic dose for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment. Adverse effect reporting was limited and poor. There is an urgent need for further trials in order to determine the optional treatment strategy in such cases.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Accountable care organizations (ACOs) were established to improve care and outcomes for beneficiaries requiring highly coordinated, complex care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between hospital ACO participation and the outcomes of major surgical oncology procedures. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who were undergoing a major surgical resection for colorectal, bladder, esophageal, kidney, liver, ovarian, pancreatic, lung, or prostate cancer from 2011 through 2013. A difference-in-differences analysis was implemented to compare the postimplementation period (January 2013 through December 2013) with the baseline period (January 2011 through December 2012) to assess the impact of hospital ACO participation on 30-day mortality, complications, readmissions, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS:Among 384,519 patients undergoing major cancer surgery at 106 ACO hospitals and 2561 control hospitals, this study found a 30-day mortality rate of 3.4%, a readmission rate of 12.5%, a complication rate of 43.8%, and a prolonged LOS rate of 10.0% in control hospitals and similar rates in ACO hospitals. Secular trends were noted, with reductions in perioperative adverse events in control hospitals between the baseline and postimplementation periods: mortality (percentage-point reduction, 0.1%; P?=?.19), readmissions (percentage-point reduction, 0.4%; P?=?.001), complications (percentage-point reduction, 1.0%; P?<?.001), and prolonged LOS (percentage-point reduction, 1.1%; P?<?.001). After accounting for these secular trends, this study identified no significant effect of hospital participation in an ACO on the frequency of perioperative outcomes (difference-in-differences estimator P values, .24-.72). CONCLUSIONS:Early hospital participation in the Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO program was not associated with greater reductions in adverse perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing major cancer surgery in comparison with control hospitals. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2739-2746. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Project description:BackgroundRelatively little is known about various aspects of low-dose CT (LDCT) scan lung cancer screening in US clinical practice, including characteristics of cases diagnosed after screening. We assessed this using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database.Research questionWhat were the characteristics of patients with lung cancer, including stage and survival, whose disease was diagnosed after LDCT scan screenings?Study design and methodsWe created an LDCT scan use cohort consisting of everyone in the 5% SEER-Medicare sample with ≥ 12 months of non-health maintenance organization (HMO) Part A and B coverage while 65 to 77 years of age from 2015 through 2019. LDCT scan use and lung cancer diagnosis rates were assessed in this cohort. Additionally, we created a lung cancer cohort consisting of patients who received a diagnosis between 2015 and 2017 at 65 to 78 years of age with complete (non-HMO Part A and B) coverage the year before diagnosis. The cases cohort comprised those screened or unscreened based on undergoing screening during that period; lung cancer characteristics and survival were compared between these groups.ResultsIn the LDCT scan use cohort (n = 414,358), use rates increased from 0.10 (per 100 person-years) in 2015 to 1.3 in 2019. Among those with first screenings, 39.2% underwent a subsequent screen within 18 months. The 1-year cumulative lung cancer diagnosis rate after initial screenings was 2.4%. Claims for prescreen counseling were infrequent (about 10%). Of 48,891 patients in the lung cancer cohort, 1,150 (2.4%) underwent screening. Among screened patients, 52.3%, 11.0%, 20.7%, and 16.0% received diagnoses of stages I, II, III, and IV disease, respectively. Lung cancer-specific survival through 3 years was significantly greater in screened versus unscreened patients overall and for all stages except stage II; 3-year lung cancer-specific survival was 89.0% in screened patients with stage I disease.InterpretationLDCT scan use was low but increased over time. The lung cancer yield was substantial; cases among those who underwent screening primarily were in the early stage with high survival rates. Although screening rates were unacceptably low, screening outcomes in those Medicare recipients undergoing screening were favorable.