ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2020
Impact of Atypical Antipsychotics as Adjunctive Therapy on Psychiatric Cost and Utilization in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and costs associated with use of atypical antipsychotics as first vs subsequent adjunctive treatment in major depressive disorder.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2023Article
- Reduced Plasma Dopamine-β-Hydroxylase Activity Is Associated With the Severity of Bipolar Disorder: A Pilot Study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) incur high costs, despite established treatment options. Adding an atypical antipsychotic (AAP) to antidepressant therapy has shown to reduce depressive symptoms in MDD, but it remains unclear with which adjunctive AAP to initiate. As economic burden is one factor that can influence treatment selection, this study's objective was to evaluate the impact of adjunctive AAP choice on psychiatric costs and healthcare utilization in MDD. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed de-identified data from: (1) IBM
resultsThe final study sample consisted of 10,325 patients (7657 aripiprazole, 1219 brexpiprazole, 827 lurasidone, 622 quetiapine). Using brexpiprazole as reference, lurasidone and quetiapine users had $1662 and $3894 higher psychiatric costs, respectively. Psychiatric costs were not statistically significantly different between aripiprazole and brexpiprazole (p>0.05). Quetiapine users had $15,159 (p<0.001) higher psychiatric hospitalization costs among those hospitalized, and higher odds of psychiatric hospitalization [2.11 (1.46-3.04); p<0.001] compared to brexpiprazole users. No statistically significant differences observed in psychiatric hospitalization risk comparing aripiprazole and lurasidone with brexpiprazole (p>0.05).
conclusionIn MDD, brexpiprazole users had significantly lower psychiatric costs than lurasidone and quetiapine users, and significantly lower psychiatric hospitalization risk than quetiapine users. Adjunctive AAP choice may impact subsequent healthcare costs and utilization in MDD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.