MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406690128 · doi:10.1080/13696998.2025.2457872

Healthcare resource utilization and costs of using cariprazine as the first versus subsequent adjunctive therapy for major depressive disorder

2025· article· en· W4406690128 on OpenAlexaff
Prakash S. Masand, Anita H. Clayton, Mousam Parikh, François Laliberté, Guillaume Germain, Malena Mahendran, Cristina Martínez, Nadia Nabulsi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHealth careMajor depressive disorderIntensive care medicinePsychiatryMood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim Inadequate response to antidepressant therapy (ADT) is common in major depressive disorder (MDD); atypical antipsychotic (AA) adjunctive therapy may be effective for these patients. This study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs between patients initiating the AA cariprazine as their first adjunctive therapy vs those initiating cariprazine subsequently.Methods The MerativeTM MarketScan® Commercial Database (January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2021) was used to identify US adults with MDD and ≥1 pharmacy claim for cariprazine adjunctive to ADT in 2018 or after. Rates of mental health (MH)‑related and all‑cause HRU per patient-year (PPY) and mean healthcare costs per-patient-per-year (PPPY) were assessed after patients first initiated adjunctive therapy. HRU and costs were compared between cohorts using rate ratios (RRs) and mean cost differences, respectively, estimated from multivariable regression models.Results Of 838 patients receiving cariprazine, 44.7% initiated cariprazine as their first adjunctive therapy to ADT, and 55.3% initiated it subsequently. Those initiating cariprazine first had significantly lower rates of MH‑related hospitalizations (RR [95% confidence interval] = 0.55 [0.30, 0.90], P = 0.020) and outpatient (OP) visits (0.67 [0.57, 0.82], P < 0.001) PPY than those initiating cariprazine subsequently. Moreover, patients initiating cariprazine as their first adjunctive therapy had lower annual total MH‑related healthcare costs (mean cost difference [95% confidence interval] -$2,182 [-$4,206, -$69], P = 0.040), driven primarily by lower OP visit costs (-$1,511 [-$2,330, -$615], P < 0.001). Similar trends were observed for all-cause HRU and costs.Limitations This was a retrospective analysis of secondary data with limited follow-up. Claims were a proxy for cariprazine use.Conclusions Results from this real‑world study of commercially insured US adults suggest that initiating cariprazine as the first adjunctive therapy rather than a subsequent therapy could help mitigate the considerable economic burden of MDD for appropriate patients.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EconomicsSame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207