Influence of medication choice and comorbid diabetes: the cost of bipolar disorder in a privately insured US population.

i3 Innovus, MN002-0258, 12125 Technology Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344, USA.
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 2.58). 09/2007; 42(9):690-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00127-007-0222-z
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Bipolar disorder is the most expensive mental disorder for US employer health plans. No published studies have examined the impact of comorbid diabetes on the cost of treating bipolar disorder. The objectives of this work were to determine the direct costs incurred by patients with bipolar disorder in a US managed care plan, and to examine the influence (1) of drug therapy regimen on bipolar-related costs, and (2) of diabetes on bipolar-related and all-cause costs.
A retrospective analysis of claims in a US private insurance database from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2002 was performed. The database included at least 4.7 million enrollees each year. Diagnosis codes were used to identify patients with bipolar disorder; patients with diabetes were identified using diagnosis codes and medication use.
From 1999-2002, treated bipolar disorder was identified in 262 (33.9) [mean (standard deviation)] cases per 100,000 enrollees. Among patients with bipolar disorder in this cohort, between 6.3 and 7.4% were treated for diabetes each year. Among patients with newly treated bipolar disorder, 61.8% received initial therapy with only mood stabilizers, 24.3% received only atypical antipsychotics, and 13.9% received both. Mean all-cause cost for patients with bipolar disorder was US$2,690 in the 6 months before the first bipolar-related claim, and US$6,826 in the following year. Of the latter cost, bipolar-related cost was US$1,272. Patients with comorbid diabetes had much higher all-cause cost (US$11,317) than those without diabetes in the year following the first bipolar-related claim, but only slightly higher bipolar-related cost (US$1,349). Among newly treated bipolar disorder patients, all-cause and bipolar-related cost in the year after diagnosis was lowest in patients receiving only mood stabilizers. Ordinary least squares regression analysis found that treatment with mood stabilizers only was associated with 41% lower bipolar-related cost than treatment with atypical antipsychotics only (P < .001). Significant individual associations were also found between bipolar-related cost and bipolar disorder I diagnosis, severe bipolar disorder and comorbid personality disorders (P < .001 for each) but not comorbid diabetes (P = .27).
These results suggest that patients with bipolar disorder who receive only mood stabilizer therapy incur lower bipolar-related and all-cause cost than those receiving only atypical antipsychotics. In contrast to that for all-cause cost, comorbid diabetes had little impact on direct costs related to treating bipolar disorder itself.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Yatham LN, Kennedy SH, Parikh SV, Schaffer A, Beaulieu S, Alda M, O'Donovan C, MacQueen G, McIntyre RS, Sharma V, Ravindran A, Young LT, Milev R, Bond DJ, Frey BN, Goldstein BI, Lafer B, Birmaher B, Ha K, Nolen WA, Berk M. Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) collaborative update of CANMAT guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder: update 2013. Bipolar Disord 2012: 00: 000-000. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments published guidelines for the management of bipolar disorder in 2005, with updates in 2007 and 2009. This third update, in conjunction with the International Society for Bipolar Disorders, reviews new evidence and is designed to be used in conjunction with the previous publications.The recommendations for the management of acute mania remain largely unchanged. Lithium, valproate, and several atypical antipsychotic agents continue to be first-line treatments for acute mania. Monotherapy with asenapine, paliperidone extended release (ER), and divalproex ER, as well as adjunctive asenapine, have been added as first-line options.For the management of bipolar depression, lithium, lamotrigine, and quetiapine monotherapy, as well as olanzapine plus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and lithium or divalproex plus SSRI/bupropion remain first-line options. Lurasidone monotherapy and the combination of lurasidone or lamotrigine plus lithium or divalproex have been added as a second-line options. Ziprasidone alone or as adjunctive therapy, and adjunctive levetiracetam have been added as not-recommended options for the treatment of bipolar depression. Lithium, lamotrigine, valproate, olanzapine, quetiapine, aripiprazole, risperidone long-acting injection, and adjunctive ziprasidone continue to be first-line options for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. Asenapine alone or as adjunctive therapy have been added as third-line options.
    Bipolar Disorders 12/2012; 15(1). DOI:10.1111/bdi.12025 · 4.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    The Neuropsychology of Psychopathology, Edited by Chad Noggle, Raymond Dean, 01/2013: chapter Bipolar Disorders: pages 221-242; Springer Publishing Company., ISBN: 978-0826107008
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent reviews lack important information on the high cost-of-illness worldwide for bipolar disorder (BD). Therefore, the present study systematically analyzed those costs, their driving components, and the methodological quality with which the few existing cost-of-illness investigations have been performed. In June 2012, we conducted a systematic literature review of electronic databases to identify relevant cost-of-illness studies published since 2000. Their methodological quality was assessed. Costs were standardized by first extrapolating them to 2009 using country-specific gross domestic product inflators and then converting them into US dollars via purchasing power parities (PPP). The main characteristics of 22 studies were evaluated. Ignoring outliers, costs per capita ranged from 8,000 to 14,000 US$-PPP for overall direct healthcare, from 4,000 to 5,000 US$-PPP for direct mental healthcare, and from 2,500 to 5,000 US$-PPP for direct BD-related care. Indirect costs ranged from 2,000 to 11,000 US$-PPP. Inpatient care was the main cost driver in three studies; drug costs, in two studies. Methodological quality was deemed satisfactory. The cost variance was great between studies. This was likely due to differences in methodology rather than healthcare systems, thereby making such comparisons difficult. The results showed that BD has a substantial economic burden on society. To gain more evidence, international standardized checklists are needed when undertaking cost-of-illness studies.
    Bipolar Disorders 12/2013; 16(4). DOI:10.1111/bdi.12165 · 4.62 Impact Factor