4.3 Article

Real-world data on new users of atypical antipsychotics: characterisation, prescription patterns, healthcare costs and early cardio-metabolic occurrences from a large Italian database

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 76, 期 9, 页码 1301-1310

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-020-02899-9

关键词

Atypical antipsychotic; Cardio-metabolic risk; Administrative data; Real-world evidence; Italy

资金

  1. Angelini S.p.A.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To describe new users of atypical antipsychotics (APs) in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, cardio-metabolic risk profile, prescription patterns, healthcare costs and cardio-metabolic events over the 24 months after treatment initiation. Methods Atypical AP new users were selected from the ReS database and grouped into three: patients already affected by cardio-metabolic diseases (group A), patients without these clinical conditions but with predisposing conditions (group B) and patients without cardio-metabolic diseases and predisposing conditions (group C). Annual prescription patterns and healthcare costs were analysed. Subjects of groups B and C were matched with controls to compare the occurrences of cardio-metabolic events over 24 months. Results Thirty-two thousand thirty-four new users of atypical APs were selected (median age 69). The 22.3% had cardio-metabolic diseases, 14.8% had predisposing conditions and 62.9% had none of these. The 99.3% received monotherapy. The mean annual cost per patient was euro2785, and the median cost was euro1108. After 24 months, a cardio-metabolic event occurred in 11.5% of group B vs. 8.7% of the controls (p < .01), and in 5.0% of group C vs. 2.1% of the controls (p < .01). Conclusion Patients treated with atypical AP were on average old and, in a non-negligible amount, with cardio-metabolic disease or predisposing conditions. New users of atypical APs showed a significantly higher likelihood to develop a cardio-metabolic event early after treatment initiation.

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

4.3
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