Hospitalization risk among adults with bipolar I disorder treated with lurasidone versus other oral atypical antipsychotics: a retrospective analysis of Medicaid claims data

1Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the risk of hospitalization for adult Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar I disorder treated with lurasidone vs. other oral atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) as monotherapy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of the IBM MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid Claims database identified adults with bipolar I disorder who initiated an AAP (index date) between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2019. Patients were continuously enrolled 12 months pre- and 24 months post-index date. Each month during the post-index period was categorized as monotherapy with lurasidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine or risperidone, no/minimal treatment, or other. Marginal structural models were performed to estimate hospitalization risk and length of stay (LOS) (all-cause and bipolar I disorder-related) compared to lurasidone. Results: The analysis included 8262 adults. Compared to lurasidone, the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of all-cause hospitalization were significantly higher for olanzapine (aOR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.09–2.10) and quetiapine (aOR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.18–1.89). The risk was significantly higher for bipolar I disorder-related hospitalization for quetiapine (aOR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.10–2.04) and risperidone (aOR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.04–2.56) compared to lurasidone. The bipolar I disorder-related LOS per 100 patient-months was more than twice as long for quetiapine (8.42 days) compared to lurasidone (3.97 days, p

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Niu, X., Veeranki, P., Dennen, S., Dembek, C., Laubmeier, K., Liu, Y., … Loebel, A. (2021). Hospitalization risk among adults with bipolar I disorder treated with lurasidone versus other oral atypical antipsychotics: a retrospective analysis of Medicaid claims data. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 37(5), 839–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2021.1897557

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free