Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of Antidepressant Use Through Hierarchical Disease Analysis

Using a Managed Care Administrative Database

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Disease Management and Health Outcomes

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of antidepressants through use of mutually exclusive disease indications using a managed care database.

Design and setting

A claims database from a 225 000 member managed care organisation was used for the study. A hierarchy of mutually exclusive antidepressant indications was developed: ‘Depression’, ‘Other Approved Indication’, ‘Mental Health’, ‘Surrogate Diagnosis’, ‘Other Uses’, ‘Chronic Disease’, and a residual ‘Unclassified’ hierarchical indication group.

Main outcome measures and results

Patients in the Depression and Other Approved Indication hierarchical groups likely received the antidepressant drugs primarily for these indications and frequently received selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Use of antidepressants in the Mental Health Disorders hierarchical group may have been for a related disease. The patients in the Surrogate Diagnosis, Other Uses, Chronic Diseases, and Unclassified hierarchical groups were significantly older than those patients in the Depression group and tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) use was more frequent than the SSRIs. The patients in the Unclassified diagnosis group may represent antidepressant use that is not adequately documented or not indicated. The Surrogate Diagnosis and Chronic Diseases hierarchical groups total healthcare costs were significantly higher than those observed in patients with a Depression diagnosis.

Conclusions

Use of mutually exclusive hierarchical diagnosis groups proved to be a useful strategy for assessing antidepressant drug use. SSRI use was more common in the Depression and Other Approved Indication hierarchical groups. Patients in the Surrogate Diagnosis, Other Uses, Chronic Diseases, and Unclassified hierarchical groups used TCAs more frequently.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Fig. 1
Table III
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rupp A, Narrow W, Rigueur D, et al. Epidemiology and costs of depression: a hidden burden. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 1997; 2: 134–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hirschfeld RMA, Keller MB, Panico S, et al. The national depressive and manic-depressive association consensus statement on the undertreatment of depression. JAMA 1997; 277: 333–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cambell LK, Robison LM, Skaer TL, et al. Depression. Interventions and their effectiveness. Dibs Manage Health Outcomes 1997; 2: 223–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fairman KA. ’The doctor told me to cut the pills in half’: practical considerations in using claims databases for outcomes research. Drug Benefit Trends 1997; 9: 30–6

    Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson IM. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors versus tricyclic antidepressants: a meta-analysis of efficacy and tolerability. J Affect Disord 2000; 58: 19–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Katzelnick DJ, Kobak KA, Jefferson JW, et al. Prescribing patterns of antidepressant medications for depression in a HMO. Hosp Formul 1996; 31: 374–88

    Google Scholar 

  7. Anderson IM. SSRIs versus tricyclic antidepressants in depressed inpatients: a meta-analysis of efficacy and tolerability. Depress Anxiety 1998; 7 Suppl. 1: 11–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Simon GE, Von Korff M, Heiligenstein JH, et al. Initial antidepressant choice in primary care. Effectiveness and cost of fluoxetine vs tricyclic antidepressants. JAMA 1996; 275: 1897–902

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Streator SE, Moss JT. Identification of off-label antidepressant use and costs in a network model HMO. Drug Benefit Trends 1997; 9: 42–56

    Google Scholar 

  10. Valdez C, Grier D. Determining the most economical SSRI for a Medicare risk contract. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999; 56: 23–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hutchins DS, Klein EG, Signa WF, et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor utilization patterns: consistency across research designs. Clin Ther 1998; 20: 797–805

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gevirtz F, Way K, Young CH, et al. SSRI-to-SSRI switching and associated dosing characteristics. J Managed Care Pharm 1999; 5: 138–43

    Google Scholar 

  13. Browne RA, Melfi CA, Croghan TW, et al. Data analysis issues to consider when conducting research using physician-reported antidepressant claims. Drug Benefit Trends 1998; 10: 33–42

    Google Scholar 

  14. Broadhead WE, Larson DB, Yarnall KSH, et al. Tricyclic antidepressant prescribing for nonpsychiatric disorders. J Fam Pract 1991; 33: 24–32

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wells BG, Jann MW, Marken P, et al. APhA special report. Therapeutic options in the treatment of depression. Am Pharm Assoc Special Report 1994: 1-20

  16. McCoombs JS, Nichol MB, Stimmel GL. The role of SSRI antidepressants for treating depressed patients in the California Medicaid (Medi-Cal) program. Value Health 1999; 2: 269–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Russell JM, Berndt ER, Miceli R, et al. Course and cost of treatment for depression with fluoxetine, paroxetine, and sertraline. Am J Managed Care 1999; 5: 597–606

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Thompson D, Buesching D, Gregor KJ, et al. Patterns of antidepressant use and their relation to costs of care. Am J Managed Care 1996; 2: 1239–46

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hartman T, Watanabe MD. Pharmacotherapy of depression: focused considerations for primary care. J Am Pharm Assoc 1996; NS36: 521–33

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Blandford L, Dans PE, Ober JD, et al. Analyzing variations in medication compliance related to individual drug, drug class, and prescribing physician. J Managed Care Pharm 1999; 5: 47–51

    Google Scholar 

  21. Moss JT. Editorial comment concerning manuscript Data analysis issues to consider when conducting research using physician-reported antidepressant claims. Drug Benefit Trends 1998; May: 37

  22. Rost K, Smith GR, Matthews DB, et al. The deliberate misdiagnosis of major depression in primary care. Arch Fam Med 1994; 3: 333–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Jencks SF. Recognition of mental disorder in primary care. JAMA 1985; 253: 1903–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lloyd SS, Rissing JP. Physician coding errors in patient records. JAMA 1985; 254: 1330–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Jencks SJ. Accuracy in recorded diagnoses. JAMA 1992; 267: 2238–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bright RA, Avorn J, Everitt DE. Medicaid data as a resource for epidemiologic studies: strengths and limitations. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 937–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hsia DC, Krushat WM, Fagan AB, et al. Accuracy of diagnostic coding for Medicare patients under the prospective payment system. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 352–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Motheral BR, Fairman KA. The use of claims databases for outcomes research: rationale, challenges, and strategies. Clin Ther 1997; 19: 346–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Strom BL, Carson JL. Use of automated databases for pharmacoepidemiology research. Epidemiol Rev 1990; 12: 87–107

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Garnick DW, Hendricks AM, Comstock CB. Measuring quality of care: fundamental information from administrative datasets. Int J Quality Health Care 1994; 6: 163–77

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lohr KN. Use of insurance claims data in measuring quality of care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1990; 6: 263–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Tierney WM, McDonald CJ. Practice databases and their uses in clinical research. Stat Med 1991; 10: 541–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Davey PG. Cost management in community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. Am J Med 1995; 99 Suppl. 6B: 20S–23S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Armstrong EP, Manuchehri F. Ambulatory care databases for managed care organizations. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1997; 54: 1973–83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Beto JA, Geraci MC, Marshall PA, et al. Pharmacy computer prescription databases: methodologic issues of access and confidentiality. Ann Pharmacother 1992; 26: 686–91

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Selby JV. Linking automated databases for research in managed care settings. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 719–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Lewis NJW, Patwell JT, Briesacher BA. The role of insurance claims databases in drug therapy outcomes research. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4: 323–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. McDonald CJ, Overhage M, Dexter P, et al. A framework for capturing clinical data sets from computerized sources. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 675–82

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Arnold RG, Kotsanos JG, Motheral B, et al. Panel 3: methodological issues in conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations — retrospective and claims database studies. Value Health 1999; 2: 82–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Weiner JP, Parente ST, Garnick DW, et al. Variation in officebased quality. A claims-based profile of care provided to medicare patients with diabetes. JAMA 1995; 273: 1503–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Iezzoni LI. Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 666–74

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Glauber HS, Brown JB. Use of health maintenance organization data bases to study pharmacy resource usage in diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 1992; 15: 870–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Else BA, Armstrong EP, Cox ER. Data sources for pharmacoeconomic and health services research. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1997; 54: 2601–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Ray WA. Policy and program analysis using administrative databases. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 712–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Quam L, Ellis LBM, Venus P, et al. Using claims data for epidemiologic research. The concordance of claims-based criteria with the medical record and patient survey for identifying a hypertensive population. Med Care 1993; 131: 498–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Palmer RH. Process-based measures of quality: the need for detailed clinical data in large health care databases. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 733–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Larson LN, Bjornson DC. Interface between pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics in managed care pharmacy. J Managed Care Pharm 1996; 2: 282–9

    Google Scholar 

  48. Weiner JP, Powe NR, Steinwachs DM, et al. Applying insurance claims data to assess quality of care: a compilation of potential indicators. QRB Q Rev Bull 1990; 16: 424–38

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Piecoro LT, Wang LS, Dixon WS, et al. Creating a computerized database from administrative claims data. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 1999; 56: 1326–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research project was funded by a research grant from Eli Lilly.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, AZ 85721, USA

    Edward P. Armstrong Pharm. D., BCPS, FASHP (Associate Professor, an investigator)

Authors
  1. Edward P. Armstrong Pharm. D., BCPS, FASHP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward P. Armstrong Pharm. D., BCPS, FASHP.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Armstrong, E.P. Analysis of Antidepressant Use Through Hierarchical Disease Analysis. Dis-Manage-Health-Outcomes 9, 255–267 (2001). https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200109050-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200109050-00003

Keywords

Search

Navigation