scholarly journals Treatment patterns and sequences of pharmacotherapy for patients diagnosed with depression in the United States: 2014 through 2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda ◽  
Frank Defalco ◽  
Mila Etropolski
Keyword(s):  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
First Line ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Class Level ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Antidepressive Treatment

Abstract Background Understanding how patients are treated in the real-world is vital to identifying potential gaps in care. We describe the current pharmacologic treatment patterns for the treatment of depression. Methods Patients with depression were identified from four large national claims databases during 1/1/2014–1/31/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for depression or an inpatient hospitalization with a diagnosis of depression. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and 3 years following their first depression diagnosis. Treatment patterns were captured at the class level and included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, other antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics/sedatives, and antipsychotics. Treatment patterns were captured during all available follow-up. Results We identified 269,668 patients diagnosed with depression. The proportion not receiving any pharmacological treatment during follow-up ranged from 29 to 52%. Of the treated, approximately half received ≥2 different classes of therapy, a quarter received ≥3 classes and more than 10% received 4 or more. SSRIs were the most common first-line treatment; however, many patients received an anxiolytic, hypnotic/sedative, or antipsychotic prior to any antidepressive treatment. Treatment with a combination of classes ranged from approximately 20% of first-line therapies to 40% of fourth-line. Conclusions Many patients diagnosed with depression go untreated and many others receive a non-antidepressant medication class as their first treatment. More than half of patients received more than one type of treatment class during the study follow up, suggesting that the first treatment received may not be optimal for most patients.

scholarly journals Treatment Patterns and Sequences of Pharmacotherapy for Patients Diagnosed with Depression in the United States: 2014 through 2019

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda ◽  
Frank Defalco ◽  
Mila Etropolski
Keyword(s):  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
First Line ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Class Level ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Antidepressive Treatment

Abstract Background: Understanding how patients are treated in the real-world is vital to identifying potential gaps in care. We describe the current pharmacologic treatment patterns for the treatment of depression. Methods: Patients with depression were identified from four large national claims databases during 1/1/2014-1/31/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for depression or an inpatient hospitalization with a diagnosis of depression. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and three years following their first depression diagnosis. Treatment patterns were captured at the class level and included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, other antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics/sedatives, and antipsychotics. Treatment patterns were captured during all available follow-up. Results: We identified 269,668 patients diagnosed with depression. The proportion not receiving any pharmacological treatment during follow-up ranged from 29% to 52%. Of the treated, approximately half received ≥2 different classes of therapy, a quarter received ≥3 classes and more than 10% received 4 or more. SSRIs were the most common first-line treatment; however, many patients received an anxiolytic, hypnotic/sedative, or antipsychotic prior to any antidepressive treatment. Treatment with a combination of classes ranged from approximately 20% of first-line therapies to 40% of fourth-line. Conclusions: Many patients diagnosed with depression go untreated and many others receive a non-antidepressant medication class as their first treatment. More than half of patients received more than one type of treatment class during the study follow up, suggesting that the first treatment received may not be optimal for most patients.

scholarly journals Treatment Patterns and Sequences of Pharmacotherapy for Patients Diagnosed with Depression in the United States: 2014 through 2019

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda ◽  
Frank Defalco ◽  
Mila Etropolski
Keyword(s):  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
First Line ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Class Level ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Antidepressive Treatment

Abstract Background: Understanding how patients are treated in the real-world is vital to identifying potential gaps in care. We describe the current pharmacologic treatment patterns for the treatment of depression. Methods: Patients with depression were identified from four large national claims databases during 1/1/2014-1/31/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for depression or an inpatient hospitalization with a diagnosis of depression. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and three years following their first depression diagnosis. Treatment patterns were captured at the class level and included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, other antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics/sedatives, and antipsychotics. Treatment patterns were captured during all available follow-up. Results: We identified 269,668 patients diagnosed with depression. The proportion not receiving any pharmacological treatment during follow-up ranged from 29% to 52%. Of the treated, approximately half received ≥2 different classes of therapy, a quarter received ≥3 classes and more than 10% received 4 or more. SSRIs were the most common first-line treatment; however, many patients received an anxiolytic, hypnotic/sedative, or antipsychotic prior to any antidepressive treatment. Treatment with a combination of classes ranged from approximately 20% of first-line therapies to 40% of fourth-line. Conclusions: Many patients diagnosed with depression go untreated and many others receive a non-antidepressant medication class as their first treatment. More than half of patients received more than one type of treatment class during the study follow up, suggesting that the first treatment received may not be optimal for most patients.

scholarly journals Treatment Patterns and Sequences of Pharmacotherapy for Patients Diagnosed with Depression in the United States: 2014 through 2019

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda ◽  
Frank Defalco ◽  
Mila Etropolski
Keyword(s):  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Tricyclic Antidepressants ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Class Level ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Antidepressive Treatment

Abstract Background : Understanding how patients are treated in the real-world is vital to identifying potential gaps in care. We describe the current pharmacologic treatment patterns for the treatment of depression. Methods : Patients with depression were identified from four large national claims databases during 1/1/2014-1/31/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for depression or an inpatient hospitalization with a diagnosis of depression. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and three years following their first depression diagnosis. Treatment patterns were captured at the class level and included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, other antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics/sedatives, and antipsychotics . Treatment patterns were captured during all available follow-up. Results : We identified 269,668 patients diagnosed with depression . The proportion not receiving any pharmacological treatment during follow-up ranged from 31% to 54%. Of the treated, approximately half received ≥2 different classes of therapy, a quarter received ≥3 classes and 10% received 4 or more. SSRIs were the most common first-line treatment; however, many patients received an anxiolytic, hypnotic/sedative, or antipsychotic prior to any antidepressive treatment. Treatment with a combination of classes was relatively uncommon across all treatment lines. Conclusions : Many patients diagnosed with depression go untreated and many others receive a non-antidepressant medication class as their first treatment. More than half of patients received more than one type of treatment class during the study follow up, suggesting that the first treatment received may not be optimal for most patients.

Second or none: Many patients treated for refractory differentiated thyroid cancer with small molecular kinase inhibitors do not receive a second line of therapy.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17589-e17589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronda Copher ◽  
Oluwakayode Adejoro ◽  
Stacey DaCosta Byfield ◽  
Mary DuCharme ◽  
Debanjana Chatterjee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Differentiated Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Medicare Advantage ◽  
First Line ◽  
Line Of Therapy

e17589 Background: Describe the treatment patterns of patients initiated on NCCN-recommended small molecular kinase inhibitors (SMKIs) for radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) approved in the United States. Methods: A large national US claims database was used to identify adult patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer (≥2 non-DX medical claims, ≥ 30 days apart) from 1/1/2006 - 6/30/2016 (study period) with claims for SMKIs from 1/1/2010 - 5/31/2016. Continuous enrollment required participation in a commercial or Medicare Advantage health plan ≥3 months before and ≥1 month following index date (date of first pharmacy claim for SMKI). Line of therapy (LOT) periods were defined by receipt and timing of SMKIs. Patient follow up was earliest disenrollment, death or end of the study period. Patient characteristics and SMKI treatment patterns were described. Results: A total of 217 DTC patients were identified; 63% commercially insured and 37% Medicare Advantage. Almost half were male (48%); mean age was 61.2 years (standard deviation SD 12.5 years) and mean follow-up period was 499 days (SD 414 days). In the study period, 35% (n = 77) of patients had ≥2 LOTs and 18% (n = 39) had ≥3 LOTs. Mean treatment duration was 5.4 months (SD 6.7 mos) for LOT1, 4.9 months (SD 3.8 mos) for LOT2, and 4.2 months (SD 4.9 mo) for LOT3. During the full study period, the most used regimens were Sorafenib for both LOT1 (37%) and LOT2 (25%), pazopanib (18%) and sunitinib (18%) in LOT3. Also, in the study period, 33 patients had sorafenib in LOT1 of which 16 were treated with sorafenib again (48%) in LOT2. Post FDA approval in 2015, Lenvatinib became the predominant first-line regimen (47%, n = 29) during study period. Across all first line therapies, for those patients with ≥12 months of follow-up, 53% (n = 60) initiated LOT2. Conclusions: Sorafenib was the most common first line of therapy for DTC, with Lenvatinib adoption increasing as first-line therapy since the drug’s approval in 2015. Depending on the period evaluated, almost half to 2/3 of patients are not receiving a second line of treatment, efficacious and patient appropriate therapy is of importance in treating this rare cancer.

scholarly journals Treatment patterns and comorbid burden of patients newly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Dimethyl Fumarate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Metabolic Conditions

Abstract Background: The treatment landscape for multiple sclerosis (MS) is quickly evolving. Understanding real-world treatment patterns of patients is necessary to identifying potential gaps in care.Methods: Patients with incident MS were identified from a large national claims database during 1/1/2014-6/30/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for MS or an inpatient hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of MS. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and ≥1 year following their first MS diagnosis. Treatment sequences were captured for all available disease modifying therapies (DMTs) during all available follow-up. Presence of comorbid conditions were captured during the one year prior to and following (and including) the index date; absolute change in prevalence from the pre- to post-index periods was calculated. Results: We identified 5,691 patients with incident MS. Common comorbidities included physical symptoms (e.g., pain, weakness, fatigue), mental health conditions (anxiety, depression), and cardiovascular/metabolic conditions (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity). Just 1,994 (35.0%) of patients received a DMT at any time during follow-up. Of those receiving a DMT, 28.2% went on to receive a second line of therapy, 5.8% received a third, and just 0.9% went on to a fourth line. Use of more than one DMT concomitantly occurred in just 1.8% of all treated patients. Glatiramer and dimethyl fumarate were by far the most common first-line treatments received accounting for nearly 62% of patients receiving a DMT. Conclusion: Approximately two-thirds of patients newly diagnosed with MS did not receive a DMT and the disease is accompanied by a significant comorbid burden.

scholarly journals Treatment patterns and comorbid burden of patients newly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Dimethyl Fumarate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Metabolic Conditions

Abstract Background: The treatment landscape for multiple sclerosis (MS) is quickly evolving. Understanding real-world treatment patterns of patients is necessary to identifying potential gaps in care.Methods: Patients with incident MS were identified from a large national claims database during 1/1/2014-6/30/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for MS or an inpatient hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of MS. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and ≥1 year following their first MS diagnosis. Treatment sequences were captured for all available disease modifying therapies (DMTs) during all available follow-up. Presence of comorbid conditions were captured during the one year prior to and following (and including) the index date; absolute change in prevalence from the pre- to post-index periods was calculated. Results: We identified 5,691 patients with incident MS. Common comorbidities included physical symptoms (e.g., pain, weakness, fatigue), mental health conditions (anxiety, depression), and cardiovascular/metabolic conditions (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity). Just 1,994 (35.0%) of patients received a DMT at any time during follow-up. Of those receiving a DMT, 28.2% went on to receive a second line of therapy, 5.8% received a third, and just 0.9% went on to a fourth line. Use of more than one DMT concomitantly occurred in just 1.8% of all treated patients. Glatiramer and dimethyl fumarate were by far the most common first-line treatments received accounting for nearly 62% of patients receiving a DMT. Conclusion: Approximately two-thirds of patients newly diagnosed with MS did not receive a DMT and the disease is accompanied by a significant comorbid burden.

scholarly journals Treatment patterns and comorbid burden of patients newly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Dimethyl Fumarate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Metabolic Conditions

Abstract Background: The treatment landscape for multiple sclerosis (MS) is quickly evolving. Understanding real-world treatment patterns of patients is necessary to identifying potential gaps in care.Methods: Patients with incident MS were identified from a large national claims database during 1/1/2014-6/30/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for MS or an inpatient hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of MS. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and ≥1 year following their first MS diagnosis. Treatment sequences were captured for all available disease modifying therapies (DMTs) during all available follow-up. Presence of comorbid conditions were captured during the one year prior to and following (and including) the index date; absolute change in prevalence from the pre- to post-index periods was calculated. Results: We identified 5,691 patients with incident MS. Common comorbidities included physical symptoms (e.g., pain, weakness, fatigue), mental health conditions (anxiety, depression), and cardiovascular/metabolic conditions (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity). Just 1,994 (35.0%) of patients received a DMT at any time during follow-up. Of those receiving a DMT, 28.2% went on to receive a second line of therapy, 5.8% received a third, and just 0.9% went on to a fourth line. Use of more than one DMT concomitantly occurred in just 1.8% of all treated patients. Glatiramer and dimethyl fumarate were by far the most common first-line treatments received accounting for nearly 62% of patients receiving a DMT. Conclusion: Approximately one-third of patients newly diagnosed with MS received a DMT and the disease is accompanied by a significant comorbid burden.

scholarly journals Selection of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes from a large electronic medical records database and a study of the use of disease-modifying therapy in the United States

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e019955 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaomei Ma ◽  
David P Steensma ◽  
Bart L Scott ◽  
Pavel Kiselev ◽  
Mary M Sugrue ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myelodysplastic Syndromes ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
First Line ◽  
Disease Modifying Therapy ◽  
Disease Modifying Therapies ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Disease Modifying

ObjectivesTreatment patterns for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) outside clinical trials are not well described. Our objective was to evaluate treatment patterns and patient characteristics that influence time to disease-modifying therapy in patients with MDS in the USA.Design, participants and outcome measuresPatients with MDS treated with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), iron chelation therapy, lenalidomide (LEN) and the hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine and decitabine, were retrospectively identified in the GE Centricity Electronic Medical Record database between January 2006 and February 2014; LEN and HMAs were defined as ‘disease-modifying’ therapies. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to ascertain patient characteristics associated with time to disease-modifying therapy.ResultsOf the 5162 patients with MDS, 35.7%, 40.3% and 4.6% received 1, ≥1 and ≥2 therapies, respectively. ESAs were the first-line (72.5%) and only (64.0%) treatment in the majority of patients who received ≥1 therapy. ESA-only patients were older and had more comorbidities, including isolated anaemia. LEN and HMAs were first-line treatment in 12.4% of patients each; 32.7% received LEN or HMAs at any time. The majority of del(5q) patients (77.6%) received ≥1 therapy, most commonly LEN, compared with 40% of patients without del(5q). A shorter time to disease-modifying therapy was significantly associated with absence of comorbidities, diagnosis after February 2008, lower baseline haemoglobin level, age <80 years and male gender (p<0.002 for all).ConclusionsA high proportion of patients diagnosed with MDS in the USA do not receive approved disease-modifying therapies. It is important to improve access to these therapies.

scholarly journals Prescribing patterns of antidepressants in Europe: Results from the Factors Influencing Depression Endpoints Research (FINDER) study

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bauer ◽  
Brigitta U. Monz ◽  
Angel L. Montejo ◽  
Deborah Quail ◽  
Nicolas Dantchev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
Prescribing Patterns ◽  
First Episode ◽  
Recurrent Depression ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Physical Conditions ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Tetracyclic Antidepressants

AbstractAntidepressant prescribing patterns and factors influencing the choice of antidepressant for the treatment of depression were examined in the Factors Influencing Depression Endpoints Research (FINDER) study, a prospective, observational study in 12 European countries of 3468 adults about to start antidepressant medication for their first episode of depression or a new episode of recurrent depression. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were the most commonly prescribed antidepressant (63.3% patients), followed by serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs, 13.6%), but there was considerable variation across countries. Notably, tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were prescribed for 26.5% patients in Germany. The choice of the antidepressant prescribed was strongly influenced by the previous use of antidepressants, which was significantly associated with the prescription of a SSRI (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.54, 0.76), a SNRI (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.18, 1.88) or a combination of antidepressants (OR 2.78; 95% CI 1.96, 3.96). Physician factors (age, gender, speciality) and patient factors (severity of depression, age, education, smoking, number of current physical conditions and functional syndromes) were associated with initial antidepressant choice in some models. In conclusion, the prescribing of antidepressants varies by country, and the type of antidepressant chosen is influenced by physician- as well as patient-related factors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document