Becaris
Browse

Supplementary material: Healthcare resource utilization among nursing home residents with Parkinson’s disease psychosis: an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries treated with pimavanserin or other-atypical antipsychotics

Download (35.43 kB)
dataset
posted on 2024-06-28, 13:28 authored by Krithika Rajagopalan, Nazia Rashid, Daksha Gopal, Dilesh Doshi

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'Healthcare resource utilization among nursing home residents with Parkinson’s disease psychosis: an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries treated with pimavanserin or other-atypical antipsychotics' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.

  • Supplementary Table 1: Diagnostic Code List Used in Patient Selection
  • Supplementary Table 2: STROBE Statement—Checklist of Items that Should be Included in Reports of Observational Studies

Aim: Real-world healthcare resource use (HCRU) burden among patients with Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP) treated with pimavanserin (PIM) versus other atypical antipsychotics (other-AAPs) including quetiapine (QUE) in long term care (LTC) and nursing home (NH) settings are lacking. This analysis examines HCRU differences among residents in LTC/NH settings who initiate PIM versus QUE or other-AAPs. Methods: A retrospective analysis of LTC/NH residents with PDP from the 100% Medicare claims between 1 April 2015 and 31 December 2021 was conducted. Treatment-naive residents who initiated ≥6 months continuous monotherapy with PIM or QUE or other-AAPs between 04/01/16 and 06/30/2021 were propensity score matched (PSM) 1:1 using 31 variables (age, sex, race, region and 27 Elixhauser comorbidity characteristics). Post-index (i.e., 6 months) HCRU outcomes included: proportion of residents with ≥1 all-cause inpatient (IP) hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits. HCRU differences were assessed via log binomial regression and reported as relative risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals after controlling for dementia, insomnia and index year. Results: From a total of PIM (n = 1827), QUE (n = 7770) or other-AAPs (n = 9557), 1:1 matched sample (n = 1827) in each cohort were selected. All-cause IP hospitalizations (PIM [29.8%]) versus QUE [36.7%]) and ER visits (PIM [47.3%] versus QUE [55.8%]), respectively, were significantly lower for PIM. PIM versus QUE cohort also had significantly lower RR for all-cause IP hospitalizations and ER visits, respectively, (IP hospitalizations RR: 0.82 [0.75. 0.9]; ER visits RR: 0.85 [0.8. 0.9]). PIM versus other-AAPs also had lower likelihood of HCRU outcomes. Conclusion: In this analysis, LTC/NH residents on PIM monotherapy (versus QUE) had a lower likelihood of all-cause hospitalizations (18%) and ER (15%) visits. In this setting, PIM also had lower likelihood of all-cause HCRU versus other-AAPs.

Funding

This study was financially sponsored by Acadia Pharmaceuticals

History

Usage metrics

    Becaris

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC