Factors associated with costs of hospitalization of severely mentally Ill patients

Background: Efforts to contain costs associated with general medical care include particular efforts for psychiatric disorders. Hospitalization represents the largest component of costs for psychiatric care and there is growing interest in balancing clinical needs against limiting costs of inpatient psychiatric care of patients with severe mental illnesses. This study aimed to evaluate clinical factors associated with actual costs of inpatient psychiatric care. Method: We evaluated a cohort of 589 hospitalized psychiatric patients with severe mental illnesses at a nonprofit, university-affiliated psychiatric hospital for factors associated with annualized total costs of inpatient care over a three-year period, using bivariate and multivariate analyses. Results: As expected, days-hospitalized was the major determinant of total costs of hospital care. In addition, several clinical and treatment factors also were associated significantly and independently with costs in multivariate modeling. These included presence of psychosis, electroconvulsive treatment, specialist consultations, use of multiple antipsychotics or of clozapine, and being discharged to a supervised living arrangement, but not sex, age, marital status, employment, or substance abuse. Discussion: As expected, costs of psychiatric hospitalization were dominated by per-diem charges, but also influenced by other, potentially modifiable treatment factors generally associated with more severe psychotic illnesses. The study is based on actual costs rather than on insurer-reimbursements and a large study-sample, though at a single institution. Specific factors identified encourage focusing on patient characteristics associated with greater costs and redoubled efforts to apply and improve alternative, cost-effective interventions such as partialhospital and intensive outpatient treatment

Multiple Versus Single Antipsychotic Agents for Hospitalized Psychiatric Patients: Case-Control Study of Risks Versus Benefits

OBJECTIVE: Since use of multiple drugs to treat psychiatric patients is increasing, and research on this practice is rare, the authors carried out a retrospective case-control study of multiple versus single antipsychotic treatment in psychiatric inpatients. METHOD: Inpatient treatment groups receiving either antipsychotic monotherapy or polytherapy were matched in terms of age, sex, diagnostic category, and admission clinical ratings (Global Assessment of Functioning [GAF] and Clinical Global Impression [CGI]), which yielded 70 subject pairs. They were compared in terms of total chlorpromazine-equivalent daily dose, changes in total daily dose, length of hospitalization, incidence of adverse effects, and changes in clinical ratings (CGI, GAF, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale score) between admission and discharge. RESULTS: Initial doses were closely similar at admission for both treatment groups, but the median total final antipsychotic dose was 78% higher for those receiving antipsychotic polytherapy versus monotherapy. Also, median length of stay in the hospital was 55% (8.5 days) longer, and risk of adverse effects was 56% higher with polytherapy, whereas clinical improvement scores were similar (within 11%) for both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term treatment with multiple antipsychotics was associated with major increases in drug exposure, adverse events, and time in the hospital but with no apparent gain in clinical benefit. These findings require further testing in controlled prospective studies

Inpatient Antipsychotic Drug Use in 1998, 1993, and 1989

OBJECTIVE: Patterns of clinical use of antipsychotic agents have changed greatly in the past decade. The authors’ goal was to examine these patterns. METHOD: They evaluated medication use in all McLean Hospital inpatients treated with antipsychotic drugs during 3 months in 1998 (N=349) and compared the results with McLean Hospital inpatients treated with antipsychotics in 1993 (N=299) and Boston area inpatients in 1989 (N=50). RESULTS: The most commonly prescribed antipsychotics in 1998 were atypical agents; olanzapine was prescribed more often than risperidone or quetiapine, which were prescribed more often than other antipsychotics. Two or more antipsychotics were prescribed at some time during their hospitalization for 150 (43%) of the patients in 1998. The total discharge dose in chlorpromazine equivalents for the 349 patients for whom antipsychotics were prescribed at discharge was 371 mg/day, 29% higher than the total discharge dose for patients in 1993 and 46% greater than the dose in 1989. The dose of antipsychotics was greater for patients with psychotic illnesses than for those with affective illnesses. Higher doses were associated with greater clinical improvement, polypharmacotherapy, and younger patient age. CONCLUSIONS: Emerging trends toward higher total antipsychotic doses and polypharmacotherapy require critical assessments of cost-benefit relationships

Use of combinations of antipsychotics: McLean Hospital inpatients, 2002

Background The empirical use of combinations of antipsychotic agents appears to be increasing with little research support for the relative efficacy, safety or cost-effectiveness of this practice. Such treatment was evaluated in hospitalized psychiatric patients. Methods Samples of consecutive inpatients treated with > 2 ('polytherapy') vs 1 antipsychotic ('monotherapy') were matched on age, sex, diagnosis and admission clinical ratings, and these groups were compared on total daily chlorpromazine-equivalent doses, days in hospital, and changes in clinical ratings between admission and discharge. Results The study sample included 69 polytherapy and 115 well-matched monotherapy subjects. Despite matching for initial CGI and GAF ratings, polytherapy was associated with high PANSS subscale scores of positive symptoms among affective psychosis, and relatively greater PANSS subscale ratings of excitement-agitation among patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. Estimated clinical improvement during hospitalization was similar among poly- and monotherapy patients, but total daily CPZ-eq doses at discharge averaged twice-greater with polytherapy, and hospitalization lasted 1.5 times longer. Conclusions Antipsychotic polytherapy as well as the types of agents combined may reflect clinician responses to particular symptom patterns. The value of specific combinations of antipsychotic agents and their comparison with monotherapies requires specific, prospective, randomized and well-controlled trials that consider matching on clinical characteristics and truly comparable doses across regimens. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Aripiprazole: Initial clinical experience with 142 hospitalized psychiatric patients

Background: Aripiprazole is the first dopamine D2 receptor partial-agonist approved for treatment of schizophrenia. Its apparently benign adverse-effect profile encourages broader use in other disorders, especially to limit weight gain associated with other antipsychotic or antimanic agents. We considered the first 6 months of experience with aripiprazole in psychiatric inpatients with a range of disorders. Methods: We analyzed data obtained from medical records of patients treated with aripiprazole who were hospitalized at McLean Hospital (for 19 ±18 days) between December 2002 and June 2003 to evaluate dosing, tolerability, and clinical effects of this new agent in patients diagnosed with DSM-IV psychotic, major affective, or other disorders. Results: Out of a sample of 2766 adult inpatients (65.5% women), 142 were given aripiprazole (mean final daily dose, 16.1 ± 6.2 mg, 0.20 ± 0.09 mg/kg body weight) for major affective disorders (52%), primary psychotic disorders (40%), and dementia (8%). CGI ratings improved by 20% on average. Adverse effects were infrequent (15.5%), were three times more likely among women, and most often involved moderate behavioral activation or nausea, with no new episodes of mania. Of the patients who were given aripiprazole, 83% continued it at discharge. Many patients were obese when they were admitted, and obesity was associated with relatively low mg/kg doses of aripiprazole. Conclusions: Aripiprazole was used in a range of disorders and was generally well tolerated. Adverse effects may reflect its unique dopamine partial-agonist activity. Since aripiprazole is likely to be considered for obese patients, body weight should be considered in establishing adequate doses. Controlled trials of this antipsychotic agent in disorders other than schizophrenia are needed. Copyright © 2005 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Inc

Article 686 International Consensus Study of Antipsychotic Dosing

tions of available antipsychotics for both clinical and research applications, we used a Delphi method Method Participants We identified colleagues with experience in clinical research and in the clinical use of antipsychotic drugs, based on preliminary literature searches, reputation among peers, and by investigator consensus. We sought geographically and demographically diverse participation. Research experts were considered eligible only if they had at least five peer-reviewed publications related specifically to clinical trials of antipsychotic drugs. Clinical experts were referred by participating research experts as particularly knowledgeable in the use of antipsychotic medicines, with extensive clinical practice experience. Survey The survey instrument included three sections: [A] clinically equivalent doses; [B] dosing recommendations; and [C] dosing adjustments for specific, defined, circumstances. In section A, participants were to estimate the clinically equivaCl inical management of antipsychotic drug treatment is increasingly complex, with growing numbers and applications of clinically employed agents, inconclusive findings among treatment efficacy and effectiveness trials involving first-or second-generation antipsychotic drugs, and polytherapy with complex drug combinations (1-12). Despite growing clinical and research requirements for reliable dosing estimates, available dosing guidelines rest on an inadequate research base (2, 13-18). Proposed schemes usually are based on averages of doses recommended by manufacturers and approved by regulatory bodies or on expert-estimates of approximate clinically equivalent potency (2, 13, 19). It would be desirable to base such potency comparisons on randomized, especially head-tohead, comparisons of a range of antipsychotics at several fixed doses, and across various diagnostic, illness severity, comorbidity, and demographic variables. However, currently available information arising from research of this kind is severely limited, and such studies remain rare Given the unsatisfactory evidence base to define clinically equivalent doses and dosing range recommenda- Objective: Potency equivalents for antipsychotic drugs are required to guide clinical dosing and for designing and interpreting research studies. Available dosing guidelines are limited by the methods and data from which they were generated. Method: With a two-step Delphi method, the authors surveyed a diverse group of international clinical and research experts, seeking consensus regarding antipsychotic dosing. The authors determined median clinical dosing equivalents and recommended starting, target range, and maximum doses for 61 drugs, adjusted for selected clinical circumstances. Results: Participants (N=43) from 18 countries provided dosing recommendations regarding treatment of psychotic disorders for 37 oral agents and 14 shortacting and 10 long-acting parenteral agents. With olanzapine 20 mg/day as reference, estimated clinical equivalency ratios of oral agents ranged from 0.025 for sulpiride to 10.0 for trifluperidol. Seventeen patient and treatment characteristics, including age, hepatic and renal function, illness stage and severity, sex, and diagnosis, were associated with dosing modifications. Conclusion: In the absence of adequate prospective, randomized drug-drug comparisons, the present findings provide broad, international, expert consensusbased recommendations for most clinically employed antipsychotic drugs. They can support clinical practice, trial design, and interpretation of comparative antipsychotic trials