Search

Objective: To assess risk factors for injury among children and adolescents treated with stimulants for ADHD., Method: An analysis was performed of pharmacy and service claims data from 2000-2003 California Medicaid (Medi-Cal) focusing on children and adolescents ages 6 to 17 years who initiated stimulant therapy for ADHD. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to examine associations of demographic and clinical characteristics with injury., Results: In a Cox proportional hazard model that controlled for background patient characteristics, patients ages 13 to 17 years, male gender, prescription of anxiolytic/hypnotic medications, and diagnosis of a mood disorder were each independently associated with increased risk of injury, whereas African American ancestry and other minority racial/ethnic ancestry were associated with lower risk. Youth with high stimulant medication possession ratios (MPR) had a nonsignificantly lower risk of injury as compared to those with a low stimulant MPR., Conclusion: These findings reveal several patient characteristics that may be associated with increased risk of injury among children and adolescents treated for ADHD.

Objective: To compare the continuity of methylphenidate hydrochloride (MPH) therapy among youth Medicaid beneficiaries treated for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with immediate-release (IR) or extended-release (ER) MPH formulations. Method An analysis was conducted of statewide California Medicaid claims (2000-2003) focusing on children and adolescents, ages 6 to 17 years, who started ER-MPH or IR-MPH treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The study cohorts were limited to youth who had not filled a prescription for MPHs, amphetamines, pemoline, or atomoxetine for 6 months preceding the index prescription and remained eligible for Medicaid benefits for the following 12 months. The study groups were compared with respect to background demographic traits and clinical characteristics. Mean and median duration of MPH treatment episodes were defined to terminate if a gap of 30 or more days occurred from the end of the last prescription supply to the start of the next prescription. Survival time ratios were used to assess treatment duration controlling for group differences in background characteristics., Results: As compared with patients initiating IR-MPH treatment, patients initiating ER-MPH treatment had a significantly longer mean estimated duration of treatment (ER-MPH, 140.3 days [95% confidence interval (CI), 136.3-144.4 days] vs IR-MPH, 103.4 days [95% CI, 101.3-103.4 days]). Similar results were found in analyses stratified by patient age, race/ethnicity, and sex. Controlling for group differences in age, sex, race/ethnicity, coprescribed psychotropic medications, other treated mental disorders, case management, managed care participation, and seasonal effects, ER-MPH treatment initiation was associated with an average 37% longer duration of treatment than IR-MPH treatment (survival time ratio, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.32-1.42]). Among patients treated with ER-MPH, treatment initiation with an osmotic release oral system MPH (Concerta) was associated with significantly longer mean duration (147.2 days [95% CI, 142.6-151.7 days]) than treatment initiation with Metadate CD (controlled delivery) (113.0 days [95% CI, 100.9-125.1 days]) or Ritalin LA (long acting) (101.1 days [95% CI, 91.2-111.0 days]), respectively., Conclusions: Extended-release MPH formulations were associated with greater continuity of MPH treatment than IR formulations in the study population. Initial selection of an ER formulation may help to prolong continuity of MPH therapy among youth Medicaid beneficiaries with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Study Objective: To compare treatment adequacy in the management of depression during the acute and continuation phases between patients newly treated with venlafaxine extended release (XR) and those newly treated with fluoxetine., Design: Retrospective observational analysis of pharmacy claims data., Setting: Large California-based managed care organization., Patients: A total of 11,298 patients newly prescribed venlafaxine XR or fluoxetine between January 1, 2000, and February 28, 2001, and continuously enrolled throughout the study, as well as a subset of 7430 patients who continued taking venlafaxine XR or fluoxetine during the follow-up period., Measurements and Main Results: The Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set definition was used for continuous antidepressant treatment during the acute and continuation phases. Treatment adequacy was determined for those deemed continuous. Patients receiving within +/- 10% of the target dose for each drug (venlafaxine XR 75-150 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg) were defined as receiving an adequate dose. Logistic regression was used to evaluate venlafaxine XR versus fluoxetine on treatment adequacy, controlling for age, sex, physician specialty, and pharmacy benefit. The unadjusted adequacy rate for the venlafaxine XR-only group was 79% versus 57% for the fluoxetine-only group for 84 continuous days (p<0.0001) and 77% versus 52%, respectively, for 180 continuous days (p<0.0001). The adjusted odds ratios of achieving treatment adequacy with venlafaxine XR only versus that with fluoxetine only were 3.05 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.65-3.52) for 84 continuous days and 3.57 (95% CI 3.00-4.24) for 180 continuous days., Conclusion: Patients newly prescribed venlafaxine XR were at least 3 times more likely to achieve treatment adequacy for 84 and 180 days compared with those newly prescribed fluoxetine. Treatment adequacy as a proxy for optimal treatment may be an important factor to consider when selecting an antidepressant drug.