Cynthia A Fontanella1, Lynn A Warner, Gary S Phillips, Jeffrey A Bridge, John V Campo. 1. Dr. Fontanella and Dr. Campo are with the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, Wexner Medical Center, and Mr. Phillips is with the Department of Biostatistics, all at Ohio State University, Columbus (e-mail: fontanella.4@osu.edu ). Dr. Warner is with the Department of Social Work, University of Albany, Albany, New York. Dr. Bridge is with the Department of Pediatrics, Ohio State University, and the Research Institute, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined polypharmacy patterns and rates over time among Medicaid-enrolled youths by comparing three enrollment groups (youths in foster care, with a disability, or from a family with low income). METHODS: Serial cross-sectional trend analyses of Medicaid claims data were conducted for youths age 17 and younger who were continuously enrolled in Ohio Medicaid for a one-year period and prescribed one or more psychotropic medications during fiscal years 2002 (N=26,252) through 2008 (N=50,311). Outcome measures were any polypharmacy (three or more psychotropic medications from any drug class) and multiclass polypharmacy (three or more psychotropic medications from different drug classes). RESULTS: Both types of polypharmacy increased across all three eligibility groups. Any polypharmacy increased from 8.8% to 11.5% for low-income youths (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=1.12, 99% confidence interval [CI]=1.10-1.13), from 18.0% to 24.9% for youths with a disability (AOR=1.11, CI=1.09-1.13), and from 19.8% to 27.3% for youths in foster care (AOR=1.09, CI=1.07-1.11). Combinations associated with positive increases were two or more antipsychotics, two or more stimulants, and antipsychotics with stimulants. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy increased across all enrollment groups, with the highest absolute rates for youths in foster care. Both the overall prevalence and increases in prescriptions for drug combinations with limited evidence of safety and efficacy, such as the prescription of two or more antipsychotics, underscore the need for targeted quality improvement efforts. System oversight and monitoring of psychotropic medication use appears to be warranted, especially for higher-risk groups, such as youths in foster care and those from low-income households who were prescribed multiple antipsychotics.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined polypharmacy patterns and rates over time among Medicaid-enrolled youths by comparing three enrollment groups (youths in foster care, with a disability, or from a family with low income). METHODS: Serial cross-sectional trend analyses of Medicaid claims data were conducted for youths age 17 and younger who were continuously enrolled in Ohio Medicaid for a one-year period and prescribed one or more psychotropic medications during fiscal years 2002 (N=26,252) through 2008 (N=50,311). Outcome measures were any polypharmacy (three or more psychotropic medications from any drug class) and multiclass polypharmacy (three or more psychotropic medications from different drug classes). RESULTS: Both types of polypharmacy increased across all three eligibility groups. Any polypharmacy increased from 8.8% to 11.5% for low-income youths (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=1.12, 99% confidence interval [CI]=1.10-1.13), from 18.0% to 24.9% for youths with a disability (AOR=1.11, CI=1.09-1.13), and from 19.8% to 27.3% for youths in foster care (AOR=1.09, CI=1.07-1.11). Combinations associated with positive increases were two or more antipsychotics, two or more stimulants, and antipsychotics with stimulants. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy increased across all enrollment groups, with the highest absolute rates for youths in foster care. Both the overall prevalence and increases in prescriptions for drug combinations with limited evidence of safety and efficacy, such as the prescription of two or more antipsychotics, underscore the need for targeted quality improvement efforts. System oversight and monitoring of psychotropic medication use appears to be warranted, especially for higher-risk groups, such as youths in foster care and those from low-income households who were prescribed multiple antipsychotics.
Authors: Jessica L Gören; Joseph J Parks; Frank A Ghinassi; Celeste G Milton; John M Oldham; Pablo Hernandez; Jeffrey Chan; Richard C Hermann Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2008-10
Authors: Elizabeth Pappadopulos; Peter S Jensen; Sarah B Schur; James C MacIntyre; Scott Ketner; Kimberly Van Orden; Jeffrey Sverd; Sadhana Sardana; David Woodlock; Robert Schweitzer; David Rube Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2002 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Christoph U Correll; Peter Manu; Vladimir Olshanskiy; Barbara Napolitano; John M Kane; Anil K Malhotra Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David M Rubin; Evaline A Alessandrini; Chris Feudtner; David S Mandell; A Russell Localio; Trevor Hadley Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Courtney Baker; James A Feinstein; Xuan Ma; Shari Bolen; Neal V Dawson; Negar Golchin; Alexis Horace; Lawrence C Kleinman; Sharon B Meropol; Elia M Pestana Knight; Almut G Winterstein; Paul M Bakaki Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Alexis E Horace; Negar Golchin; Elia M Pestana Knight; Neal V Dawson; Xuan Ma; James A Feinstein; Hannah K Johnson; Lawrence Kleinman; Paul M Bakaki Journal: Paediatr Drugs Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.022
Authors: Jennifer L McLaren; Erin R Barnett; Stephanie C Acquilano; Milangel T Concepcion Zayas; Robert E Drake; JoAnna K Leyenaar Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2021-05-31
Authors: Deborah Winders Davis; W David Lohr; Yana Feygin; Liza Creel; Kahir Jawad; V Faye Jones; P Gail Williams; Jennifer Le; Marie Trace; Natalie Pasquenza Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.630