DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.25075433.v1
title: Supplementary material: Risk of long-term care admissions among Medicare beneficiaries treated with pimavanserin or quetiapine for Parkinson’s disease psychosis in USA: a retrospective administrative claims database analysis

description: <b>These are peer-reviewed supplementary tables and figures for the article '</b><b>Risk of long-term care admissions among Medicare beneficiaries treated with pimavanserin or quetiapine for Parkinson’s disease psychosis in USA: a retrospective administrative claims database analysis</b><b>' published in the</b><b> </b><b><i>Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research</i></b><b>.</b><br><b>Supplementary Table 1: </b>Diagnostic Code List Used in Patient Selection<b>Supplementary Table 2:</b> PIM vs. Other-AAPs: Rates and Time to first LTC admission in 1 year of follow-up<b>Supplementary Table 3: </b>Baseline Patient Demographics among Pre-matched and Post-matched Pimavanserin and Other-Atypical Antipsychotics<b>Supplementary Table 4: </b>Baseline Patient Comorbidities among Pre-matched and Post-matched Pimavanserin and Other-Atypical Antipsychotics<b>Supplementary Table 5:</b> Odds Ratios and 95% Confidence Interval in Matched Cohort, by setting for PIM vs. Other-AAPs*<b>Supplementary Table 6: </b>STROBE Statement—Checklist of Items that Should be Included in Reports of Observational Studies<b>Supplementary Figure 1:</b> The density of propensity scores before and after matching for PIM vs. other-AAPs<b>Supplementary Figure 2:</b> The boxplot of propensity scores before and after matching PIM vs. AAP<b>Supplementary Figure 3:</b> The density of propensity scores before and after matching for PIM vs. QUE<b>Supplementary Figure 4: </b>The boxplot of propensity scores before and after matching for PIM vs. QUEAim: Risk of long-term care (LTC) admission (LTCA) associated with atypical antipsychotic (AAP) use among patients with Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP) is a major concern. However, no comparative studies have examined the differences in risk of LTC admissions between pimavanserin (PIM), the only FDAapproved AAP for PDP, and other off-label AAPs including quetiapine (QUE). Objective: To examine all cause LTCA rates and risk among PDP patients treated with AAPs such as QUE or PIM. Methods: Analysis of Parts A, B and D claims (100% Medicare sample; 2013–2019) of Medicare beneficiaries with PDP that initiate ≥12-month continuous PIM or QUE monotherapy from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018 (i.e.,index date) without any AAP use in the 12-month pre-index period was conducted. Outcome assessments among 1:1 propensity score-matched (31 variables – age, sex, race, region and 27 Elixhauser comorbidities) beneficiaries on PIM versus QUE included risk of all-cause skilled nursing facility stays (SNF-stays), LTCstays, and overall LTCA (i.e., SNF-stays or LTC-stays). All-cause LTCA rates and LTCA risk were compared using logistic regression and cox proportional hazards models, respectively, controlling for demographics, comorbidities and co-existing-dementia or insomnia. Results: Of the matched sample (n = 842 for each group) from total sample (n = 9652), overall all-cause LTCA and SNF-stay rates were 23.2 and 20.2% for PIM versus 33.8 and 31.4% for QUE, respectively (p &lt; 0.05, for each). Hazard ratio (95% CI) for risk of SNF-stay and overall LTCA was 0.78 (0.61, 0.98) and 0.80 (0.66, 0.97), respectively, for PIM versus QUE beneficiaries (p &lt; 0.05, for each). Conclusion: The 20% lower risk of LTCA (i.e., greater delay) with PIM versus QUE in this analysis may suggest that PIM should be started early for the treatment of PDP.<br>