OBJECTIVE: Second-generation antipsychotics offer more choice in antimanic pharmacologic treatment. Unclear though is whether they are expanding antimanic treatment, replacing mood stabilizers, or if/which patient characteristics influence prescribing choices. We studied the association between patient characteristics and patient-reported antimanic medication use upon entry in the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Observational study using STEP-BD baseline data from bipolar-I patients (N = 1,943) during years 2000-2004. Two logistic regression models (binomial and multinomial) were estimated to examine associations between patient characteristics and patient-reported drug use: 1) any antimanic medication (antipsychotic or mood stabilizer), and 2) mood stabilizer, antipsychotic monotherapy, or neither. PRINCIPAL OBSERVATIONS: At study entry over 80% of participants reported receiving at least one antimanic medication; 73% a mood stabilizer specifically. In general, there was no association between study year and the odds of entering on antimanic medication. Measures of psychiatric severity or complexity were more likely to be associated with differences in the drugs used; co-occurring medical conditions were not. Depressed states were associated with similar odds of antipsychotic monotherapy as elevated or mixed states. Compared to whites, blacks had greater odds of entering on antipsychotic monotherapy relative to a mood stabilizer. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing pharmacotherapy options, we found no evidence that over time more patients received antimanic medication. Not all prescribing differences were consistent with the medical literature. Also, blacks were more likely to receive antipsychotic monotherapy, even after adjusting for clinical characteristics. Future research examining provider characteristics that influence prescribing is needed.
OBJECTIVE: Second-generation antipsychotics offer more choice in antimanic pharmacologic treatment. Unclear though is whether they are expanding antimanic treatment, replacing mood stabilizers, or if/which patient characteristics influence prescribing choices. We studied the association between patient characteristics and patient-reported antimanic medication use upon entry in the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Observational study using STEP-BD baseline data from bipolar-Ipatients (N = 1,943) during years 2000-2004. Two logistic regression models (binomial and multinomial) were estimated to examine associations between patient characteristics and patient-reported drug use: 1) any antimanic medication (antipsychotic or mood stabilizer), and 2) mood stabilizer, antipsychotic monotherapy, or neither. PRINCIPAL OBSERVATIONS: At study entry over 80% of participants reported receiving at least one antimanic medication; 73% a mood stabilizer specifically. In general, there was no association between study year and the odds of entering on antimanic medication. Measures of psychiatric severity or complexity were more likely to be associated with differences in the drugs used; co-occurring medical conditions were not. Depressed states were associated with similar odds of antipsychotic monotherapy as elevated or mixed states. Compared to whites, blacks had greater odds of entering on antipsychotic monotherapy relative to a mood stabilizer. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing pharmacotherapy options, we found no evidence that over time more patients received antimanic medication. Not all prescribing differences were consistent with the medical literature. Also, blacks were more likely to receive antipsychotic monotherapy, even after adjusting for clinical characteristics. Future research examining provider characteristics that influence prescribing is needed.
Authors: Junling Wang; Ilene H Zuckerman; Nancy A Miller; Fadia T Shaya; Jason M Noel; C Daniel Mullins Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Sumita G Manwani; Kathleen A Szilagyi; Benjamin Zablotsky; John Hennen; Margaret L Griffin; Roger D Weiss Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Mauricio Tohen; Terence A Ketter; Carlos A Zarate; Trisha Suppes; Mark Frye; Lori Altshuler; John Zajecka; Leslie M Schuh; Richard C Risser; Eileen Brown; Robert W Baker Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Amy M Kilbourne; Jaspreet S Brar; Rebecca A Drayer; Xiangyan Xu; Edward P Post Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: Gary S Sachs; Michael E Thase; Michael W Otto; Mark Bauer; David Miklowitz; Stephen R Wisniewski; Philip Lavori; Barry Lebowitz; Mathew Rudorfer; Ellen Frank; Andrew A Nierenberg; Maurizio Fava; Charles Bowden; Terence Ketter; Lauren Marangell; Joseph Calabrese; David Kupfer; Jerrold F Rosenbaum Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2003-06-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Stacie B Dusetzina; Alisa B Busch; Rena M Conti; Julie M Donohue; G Caleb Alexander; Haiden A Huskamp Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Dominic Hodgkin; Joanna Volpe-Vartanian; Elizabeth L Merrick; Constance M Horgan; Andrew A Nierenberg; Richard G Frank; Sue Lee Journal: Health Econ Date: 2011-04-19 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Marcela Horvitz-Lennon; Rita Volya; Katya Zelevinsky; Mimi Shen; Julie M Donohue; Andrew Mulcahy; Sharon-Lise T Normand Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2021-05-19