Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundReal-world evidence examining the incremental health care resource use (HCRU) and cost burden of incident dementia among patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP) are needed within the United States (US).ObjectivesTo compare HCRU and cost burden between PDP patients with incident dementia (PDP + D) versus without incident dementia (PDP).MethodsA retrospective analysis of inpatient (Part A), outpatient (Part B), and prescription drug (Part D) claims from the 100% Medicare sample was conducted to compare PDP + D patients versus PDP patients between 01/01/14-12/31/18. Patients with a diagnosis of dementia, psychosis, secondary parkinsonism, or other psychotic disorders, during 12-month pre-index were excluded. Patients in both groups were matched using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) methodology using 31 variables (age, sex, race, region and 27 Elixhauser comorbidity characteristics). Differences in 12-month post-index HCRU rates and mean per patient per year (PPPY) costs for all-cause inpatient (IP) hospitalizations, and by type of IP stay (i.e., short-term [ST-stay], skilled nursing facility [SNF-stay] and long-term [LT-stay]) were analyzed via logistic and gamma log-link regression models.ResultsOf the 12,484 patients who met our study criteria, 1855 PSM-matched cohorts were identified. Mean age, gender, and comorbidities were similar in PSM groups. Approximately, 50.3% with PDP + D reported ≥1 all-cause IP hospitalizations versus 36.0% with PDP (p ConclusionsPatients with PDP + D experience significantly higher all-cause and psychiatric-related IP hospitalizations, including ST-stays, LT stays, and SNF stays. They also had 54% greater mean PPPY IP hospitalization costs versus PDP patients.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.