Health resource utilization, costs, and community treatment order status before and after the initiation of second-generation long acting-injectable antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics and community treatment orders (CTOs) are used in patients with schizophrenia to improve treatment effectiveness through adherence. Objectives Understanding healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and associated costs, and medication adherence in patients with schizophrenia overall and by CTO status before and after second generation antipsychotic (SGA) LAI initiation may guide strategies to optimize health. Methods A retrospective observational single-arm study using administrative data from Alberta was performed. Adults with schizophrenia who initiated SGA-LAI (index date) were included. Medication possession ratio (MPR) was determined; paired t-tests were used to examine differences in HRU and costs ($CDN) between the 2-year pre-index period and 2-year post-index period. Stratified analysis by presence or absence of an active CTO during the pre-post periods was performed. Results Among 1,211 patients who initiated SGA-LAIs, MPR was greater post-index (0.84) compared with pre-index (0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36, 0.41). All-cause and mental health-related HRU and costs were lower post-index versus pre-index (p<0.001); total all-cause HRU costs were $33,788 lower post- versus pre-index ($40,343 [standard deviation, SD $68,887] versus $74,131 [SD $75,941], 95% CI [-$38,993, -$28,583]), and total mental health-related HRU costs were $34,198 lower post- versus pre-index ($34,205 [SD $63,428] CDN versus $68,403 [SD $72,088] CDN, 95%CI [-$39,098, -$29,297]). Forty-three percent had ≥1 active CTO during the study period; HRU and costs varied according to CTO status. Conclusions SGA-LAIs are associated with improved adherence, and lower HRU and costs however the latter vary according to CTO status. Disclosure The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this abstract: SD and MS have no competing interest to declare. LR, SK, KW, and KM are members of the Real-World Evidence
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".