4.7 Article

Prevalence, treatment patterns, and stay characteristics associated with hospitalizations for major depressive disorder

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 249, 期 -, 页码 378-384

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.01.044

关键词

Major depressive disorder; Hospitalization; Healthcare costs; Economic burden; Antidepressant; Readmission

资金

  1. Allergan plc (Madison, NJ, USA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hospitalizations for major depressive disorder (MDD) are a significant burden on patients, their families, and to healthcare systems. This study characterized the prevalence of MDD hospitalizations in the US and described clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, length of stay, costs, and MDD-related hospitalization readmissions. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the Premier Perspective (R) Hospital Database was conducted using records of hospital admissions for MDD from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015. To supplement this analysis, healthcare claims data from Truven MarketScan (R) Research Database were also evaluated between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014. Results: Among adult hospital stays in the Premier network, 1.3% included a primary diagnosis of MDD. The mean length of MDD-related stays was 6 days, with a mean total hospital charge per stay of $6713. Of those with hospital stays, 5.2% of patients had at least 1 readmission for MDD within 30 days of discharge. In the MarketScan database, 4% of adults with MDD had a MDD-related hospital stay, with a mean length of stay of 6 days and total reimbursed amount per stay of $8441. Of those with hospital stays, 5.4% had at least 1 readmission for MDD within 30 days. Limitations: Results may not be generalizable to hospitals outside of those represented by these databases. Conclusions: Adult MDD hospitalizations are costly and associated with high rates of readmission. There is a need for new treatments that may help reduce hospitalizations and costs related to hospitalizations in patients with MDD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据