Abstract
Background Ketamine and esketamine are efficacious for treatment resistant depression. Unlike other antidepressants, ketamine and esketamine lack a therapeutic delay and do not increase risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors in adolescents and young-adults. Esketamine gained FDA approval in March of 2019.
Objective This cross-sectional study aimed to geographically characterize ketamine and esketamine prescribing to US Medicaid patients.
Methods Ketamine and esketamine prescription rate and spending per state were obtained from the Medicaid State Drug Utilization Database. States outside of a 95% Confidence Interval were considered statistically significant.
Results Between 2009-2020, ketamine prescribing rates peaked in 2013 followed by a general decline. For ketamine and esketamine in 2019, Montana (967/million enrollees) and Indiana (425) showed significantly higher prescription rates, respectively, relative to the national average. A total of 21 states prescribed neither ketamine nor esketamine in 2019. Since its approval, esketamine prescriptions have surpassed those of ketamine. There was a 121.3% increase in esketamine prescriptions from 2019 to 2020. North Dakota (1,423) and North Carolina (1,094) were significantly elevated for esketamine in 2020. Ten states prescribed neither ketamine nor esketamine in 2020. State Medicaid programs in 2020 spent 72.7 fold more for esketamine ($25.3 million) than on ketamine (0.3 million) prescriptions.
Conclusion Despite the effectiveness of ketamine and esketamine for treatment resistant depression, their use among Medicaid patients was limited and variable in many areas of the US.
Competing Interest Statement
BJP was part of an osteoarthritis research team supported by Pfizer/Eli Lilly from 2019 to 2021.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding. BJP was supported by the Health Resources Services Administration ((D34HP31025). Software used in this effort was provided by the NIEHS (T32- ES007060-31A1).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/prescription-drugs/state-drug-utilization-data/index.html
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Disclosures: BJP was part of an osteoarthritis research team supported by Pfizer/Eli Lilly from 2019 to 2021.
↵* psy391{at}gmail.com; bpiper{at}som.geisinger.edu
The version of the manuscript has a new paragraph in the discussion. The raw Medicaid data has also been included.
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/prescription-drugs/state-drug-utilization-data/index.html
https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/prescription-drugs/state-drug-utilization-data/index.html
