因癫痫发作紧急情况而反复开具苯并二氮杂卓抢救处方的大多数儿科患者从直肠途径转为鼻内途径治疗

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Epilepsy & Behavior Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1016/j.yebeh.2024.110038
{"title":"因癫痫发作紧急情况而反复开具苯并二氮杂卓抢救处方的大多数儿科患者从直肠途径转为鼻内途径治疗","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.yebeh.2024.110038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To describe the changes in Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved non-intravenous rescue benzodiazepine (non-IV-rBZD) use and cost after the introduction of intranasal midazolam and intranasal diazepam.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Retrospective descriptive study using the MarketScan Database between the years 2016 and 2022. We considered patients who had at least one non-IV-rBZD prescription before the introduction of intranasal rescue medications and at least one non-IV-rBZD prescription after the introduction of intranasal rescue medications.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 4,444 patients (45.8 % female, median (p<sub>25</sub>-p<sub>75</sub>) age of 10.0 (5.0–15.0) years). 2,255 of 4,444 (50.7 %) patients switched from rectal diazepam to either intranasal midazolam (1,110 (25.0 %)) or intranasal diazepam (1,145 (25.8 %)) as their last non-IV-rBZD. The change from rectal to intranasal non-IV-rBZDs has been increasing over the years from 2019 to 2022. On multivariable analysis, having a non-IV-rBZD for epilepsy (rather than for other reasons including febrile seizures), the year of the last rescue medication, urban (non-rural) patient’s residence, and certain regions of the United States were the factors most strongly associated with a change from rectal diazepam to intranasal non-IV-rBZDs. After adjusting for inflation, the median (p<sub>25</sub>-p<sub>75</sub>) average wholesale price (AWP) of the last non-IV-rBZD was higher than that of the first non-IV-rBZD [702 (406–748) versus 417 (406–426), Wilcoxon signed rank test p &lt; 0.0001)]. This difference was mainly driven by the patients who changed from rectal diazepam to intranasal non-IV-rBZD [748 (714–755) versus 417 (406–426), Wilcoxon signed rank test p &lt; 0.0001)]. After adjusting for inflation, the median (p<sub>25</sub>-p<sub>75</sub>) patient cost of the last non-IV-rBZD was higher than that of the first non-IV-rBZD [16 (3–55) versus 12 (6–31), Wilcoxon signed rank test p &lt; 0.0001)]. This difference was mainly driven by the patients who changed from rectal diazepam to intranasal non-IV-rBZD [41 (6–83) versus 12 (6–30), Wilcoxon signed rank test p &lt; 0.0001)].</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Approximately half of patients changed from rectal diazepam to intranasal midazolam or intranasal diazepam and that transition has been progressively increasing from the year 2019 to the year 2022. The inflation-adjusted AWP and patient cost increased, especially among those patients who changed from rectal to intranasal rescue medication.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11847,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsy & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transition from rectal to intranasal route among mostly pediatric patients with repeated prescriptions of rescue benzodiazepines for seizure emergencies\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.yebeh.2024.110038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To describe the changes in Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved non-intravenous rescue benzodiazepine (non-IV-rBZD) use and cost after the introduction of intranasal midazolam and intranasal diazepam.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Retrospective descriptive study using the MarketScan Database between the years 2016 and 2022. We considered patients who had at least one non-IV-rBZD prescription before the introduction of intranasal rescue medications and at least one non-IV-rBZD prescription after the introduction of intranasal rescue medications.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 4,444 patients (45.8 % female, median (p<sub>25</sub>-p<sub>75</sub>) age of 10.0 (5.0–15.0) years). 2,255 of 4,444 (50.7 %) patients switched from rectal diazepam to either intranasal midazolam (1,110 (25.0 %)) or intranasal diazepam (1,145 (25.8 %)) as their last non-IV-rBZD. The change from rectal to intranasal non-IV-rBZDs has been increasing over the years from 2019 to 2022. On multivariable analysis, having a non-IV-rBZD for epilepsy (rather than for other reasons including febrile seizures), the year of the last rescue medication, urban (non-rural) patient’s residence, and certain regions of the United States were the factors most strongly associated with a change from rectal diazepam to intranasal non-IV-rBZDs. After adjusting for inflation, the median (p<sub>25</sub>-p<sub>75</sub>) average wholesale price (AWP) of the last non-IV-rBZD was higher than that of the first non-IV-rBZD [702 (406–748) versus 417 (406–426), Wilcoxon signed rank test p &lt; 0.0001)]. This difference was mainly driven by the patients who changed from rectal diazepam to intranasal non-IV-rBZD [748 (714–755) versus 417 (406–426), Wilcoxon signed rank test p &lt; 0.0001)]. After adjusting for inflation, the median (p<sub>25</sub>-p<sub>75</sub>) patient cost of the last non-IV-rBZD was higher than that of the first non-IV-rBZD [16 (3–55) versus 12 (6–31), Wilcoxon signed rank test p &lt; 0.0001)]. This difference was mainly driven by the patients who changed from rectal diazepam to intranasal non-IV-rBZD [41 (6–83) versus 12 (6–30), Wilcoxon signed rank test p &lt; 0.0001)].</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Approximately half of patients changed from rectal diazepam to intranasal midazolam or intranasal diazepam and that transition has been progressively increasing from the year 2019 to the year 2022. The inflation-adjusted AWP and patient cost increased, especially among those patients who changed from rectal to intranasal rescue medication.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epilepsy & Behavior\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epilepsy & Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525505024004207\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsy & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525505024004207","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 描述在引入鼻内咪达唑仑和鼻内地西泮后,美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)批准的非静脉注射抢救性苯二氮卓类药物(non-IV-rBZD)的使用和成本的变化。结果共有 4444 名患者(45.8% 为女性,中位数(p25-p75)年龄为 10.0(5.0-15.0)岁)。4,444 名患者中有 2,255 人(50.7%)从地西泮直肠给药改为咪达唑仑鼻内给药(1,110 人(25.0%))或地西泮鼻内给药(1,145 人(25.8%))作为最后一种非 IV-rBZD 给药。从 2019 年到 2022 年,从直肠使用到鼻内使用非 IV-rBZD 的人数逐年增加。在多变量分析中,因癫痫(而非其他原因,包括发热性癫痫发作)而使用非 IV-rBZD 药物、最后一次使用抢救药物的年份、城市(非农村)患者的居住地以及美国的某些地区是与直肠地西泮改为鼻内非 IV-rBZDs 最密切相关的因素。扣除通货膨胀因素后,最后一种非 IV-rBZD 的平均批发价格(AWP)中位数(p25-p75)高于第一种非 IV-rBZD [702 (406-748) 对 417 (406-426),Wilcoxon 符号秩检验 p < 0.0001]。这一差异主要由从直肠地西泮改为鼻内非 IV-rBZD 的患者造成 [748 (714-755) 对 417 (406-426),Wilcoxon 符号秩检验 p < 0.0001]。扣除通货膨胀因素后,最后一次使用非 IV-rBZD 的患者费用中位数(p25-p75)高于第一次使用非 IV-rBZD 的患者费用中位数[16(3-55)对 12(6-31),Wilcoxon 符号秩检验 p <0.0001]。这一差异主要是由从直肠地西泮改为鼻内非 IV-rBZD 的患者造成的 [41 (6-83) 对 12 (6-30),Wilcoxon 符号秩检验 p < 0.0001)]。结论约有一半的患者从直肠地西泮改为鼻内咪达唑仑或鼻内地西泮,从 2019 年到 2022 年,这一转变一直在逐步增加。经通胀调整后的AWP和患者费用有所增加,尤其是那些从直肠给药改为鼻内给药的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Transition from rectal to intranasal route among mostly pediatric patients with repeated prescriptions of rescue benzodiazepines for seizure emergencies

Objective

To describe the changes in Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved non-intravenous rescue benzodiazepine (non-IV-rBZD) use and cost after the introduction of intranasal midazolam and intranasal diazepam.

Methods

Retrospective descriptive study using the MarketScan Database between the years 2016 and 2022. We considered patients who had at least one non-IV-rBZD prescription before the introduction of intranasal rescue medications and at least one non-IV-rBZD prescription after the introduction of intranasal rescue medications.

Results

There were 4,444 patients (45.8 % female, median (p25-p75) age of 10.0 (5.0–15.0) years). 2,255 of 4,444 (50.7 %) patients switched from rectal diazepam to either intranasal midazolam (1,110 (25.0 %)) or intranasal diazepam (1,145 (25.8 %)) as their last non-IV-rBZD. The change from rectal to intranasal non-IV-rBZDs has been increasing over the years from 2019 to 2022. On multivariable analysis, having a non-IV-rBZD for epilepsy (rather than for other reasons including febrile seizures), the year of the last rescue medication, urban (non-rural) patient’s residence, and certain regions of the United States were the factors most strongly associated with a change from rectal diazepam to intranasal non-IV-rBZDs. After adjusting for inflation, the median (p25-p75) average wholesale price (AWP) of the last non-IV-rBZD was higher than that of the first non-IV-rBZD [702 (406–748) versus 417 (406–426), Wilcoxon signed rank test p < 0.0001)]. This difference was mainly driven by the patients who changed from rectal diazepam to intranasal non-IV-rBZD [748 (714–755) versus 417 (406–426), Wilcoxon signed rank test p < 0.0001)]. After adjusting for inflation, the median (p25-p75) patient cost of the last non-IV-rBZD was higher than that of the first non-IV-rBZD [16 (3–55) versus 12 (6–31), Wilcoxon signed rank test p < 0.0001)]. This difference was mainly driven by the patients who changed from rectal diazepam to intranasal non-IV-rBZD [41 (6–83) versus 12 (6–30), Wilcoxon signed rank test p < 0.0001)].

Conclusion

Approximately half of patients changed from rectal diazepam to intranasal midazolam or intranasal diazepam and that transition has been progressively increasing from the year 2019 to the year 2022. The inflation-adjusted AWP and patient cost increased, especially among those patients who changed from rectal to intranasal rescue medication.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Epilepsy & Behavior
Epilepsy & Behavior 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
15.40%
发文量
385
审稿时长
43 days
期刊介绍: Epilepsy & Behavior is the fastest-growing international journal uniquely devoted to the rapid dissemination of the most current information available on the behavioral aspects of seizures and epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior presents original peer-reviewed articles based on laboratory and clinical research. Topics are drawn from a variety of fields, including clinical neurology, neurosurgery, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, neurophysiology, neuropharmacology, and neuroimaging. From September 2012 Epilepsy & Behavior stopped accepting Case Reports for publication in the journal. From this date authors who submit to Epilepsy & Behavior will be offered a transfer or asked to resubmit their Case Reports to its new sister journal, Epilepsy & Behavior Case Reports.
期刊最新文献
Periconceptional folic acid supplementation for women with epilepsy: A systematic review of the literature Experiences of COVID-19 in an Australian community cohort of adults with epilepsy Reading and language profiles among children with epilepsy A roadmap to closing the evidence-to-practice gap in status epilepticus Factors influencing efficacy and relapse of adrenocorticotropic hormone in infantile epileptic spasms syndrome
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1