Hospitalization rates in patients switched from oral anti-psychotics to aripiprazole once-monthly: final efficacy analysis

Abstract

Objective:

To compare hospitalization rates in patients with schizophrenia treated prospectively with aripiprazole once-monthly 400?mg (AOM 400; an extended-release injectable suspension) vs the same patients’ retrospective rates with their prior oral anti-psychotic therapy.

Research design and methods:

Multi-center, open-label, mirror-image, naturalistic study in a community setting in North America. Patients who required a change in treatment and/or would benefit from long-acting injectable anti-psychotic therapy were treated prospectively for 6 months with AOM 400. Retrospective data on hospitalization rates were obtained.

Clinical trial registration:

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01432444.

Main outcome measures:

The proportion of patients with ≥1 psychiatric inpatient hospitalization with oral anti-psychotic therapy examined retrospectively (months –4 to –1 before oral conversion) and after switching to AOM 400 (months 4–6 after initiating AOM 400).

Results:

Psychiatric hospitalization rates were significantly lower when patients were treated with AOM 400 compared with oral anti-psychotic therapy both in the 3-month primary efficacy sample (2.7% [n?=?9/336] vs 27.1% [n?=?91/336], respectively; p?<?0.0001) and in the total sample (6-month prospective rate: 8.8% [n?=?38/433] vs 6-month retrospective rate: 38.1% [n?=?165/433]; p?<?0.0001). Discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) during cross-titration were lower in patients cross-titrated on oral aripiprazole for >1 and <4 weeks (2.9% [n?=?7/239]) compared with patients cross-titrated for ≤1 week (10.4% [n?=?5/48]). The most common treatment-emergent AEs during the prospective treatment phase were insomnia (6.7% [n?=?29/431]) and akathisia (6.5% [n?=?28/431]). Patient-rated injection-site pain decreased from the first injection to the last visit.

Conclusions:

In a community setting, patients with schizophrenia demonstrated significantly lower psychiatric hospitalization rates after switching from their prior oral anti-psychotic therapy to AOM 400. Patients served as their own control, and thus an active control group was not included in this study. Confounding factors, such as insurance coverage and availability of hospital beds, were not examined here and deserve further consideration.     

Economic analysis of paliperidone long-acting injectable for chronic schizophrenia in Portugal

Objective: Patients with chronic schizophrenia suffer a huge burden, as do their families/caregivers. Treating schizophrenia is costly for health systems. The European Medicines Agency has approved paliperidone palmitate (PP-LAI; Xeplion), an atypical antipsychotic depot; however, its pharmacoeconomic profile in Portugal is unknown. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the viewpoint of the Portuguese National Health Service.

Methods: PP-LAI was compared with long acting injectables risperidone (RIS-LAI) and haloperidol (HAL-LAI) and oral drugs (olanzapine; oral-OLZ) adapting a 1-year decision tree to Portugal, guided by local experts. Clinical information and costs were obtained from literature sources and published lists. Outcomes included relapses (both requiring and not requiring hospitalization) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were expressed in 2014 euros. Economic outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs); including cost-utility (outcome?=?QALYs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (outcomes?=?relapse/hospitalization/emergency room (ER) visit avoided).

Results: The base-case cost of oral-OLZ was 4447€ (20% drugs/20% medical/60% hospital); HAL-LAI cost 4474€ (13% drugs/13% medical/74% hospital); PP-LAI cost 5326€ (49% drugs/12% medical/39% hospital); RIS-LAI cost 6223€ (44% drugs/12% medical/44% hospital). Respective QALYs/hospitalizations/ER visits were oral-OLZ: 0.761/0.615/0.242; HAL-LAI: 0.758/0.623/0.250; PP-LAI: 0.823/0.288/0.122; RIS-LAI: 0.799/0.394/0.168. HAL-LAI was dominated by oral-OLZ and RIS-LAI by PP-LAI for all outcomes. The ICER of PP-LAI over oral-OLZ was 14,247€/QALY, well below NICE/Portuguese thresholds (≈24,800€/30,000€/QALY). ICERs were 1973€/relapse avoided and 2697€/hospitalization avoided. Analyses were robust against most variations in input values, as PP-LAI was cost-effective over oral-OLZ in >99% of 10,000 simulations.

Conclusion: In Portugal, PP-LAI dominated HAL-LAI and RIS-LAI and was cost-effective over oral-OLZ with respect to QALYs gained, relapses avoided, and hospitalizations avoided.     

Recovery outcomes of schizophrenia patients treated with paliperidone palmitate in a community setting: patient and provider perspectives on recovery

Objectives:

This study evaluated the effect of paliperidone palmitate long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic on recovery-oriented mental health outcomes from the perspective of healthcare providers and patients during the treatment of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders.

Methods:

Archival data for patients with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder receiving ≥6 months of paliperidone palmitate LAI were retrieved from the electronic medical records system at the Mental Health Center of Denver. Mental health recovery was assessed from both a provider’s (Recovery Markers Inventory [RMI]) and patient’s (Consumer Recovery Measure [CRM]) perspective. A three-level hierarchical linear model (HLM) was utilized to determine changes in CRM and RMI scores by including independent variables in the models: intercept, months from treatment (slope), treatment time period (pretreatment and treatment), age, gender, primary diagnosis, substance abuse diagnosis, concurrent medications, and adherence to paliperidone palmitate LAI.

Results:

A total of 219 patients were identified and included in the study. Results of the final three-level HLMs indicated an overall increase in CRM scores (p?<?0.05), an overall increase (p?<?0.01), and an increased rate of change (p?<?0.05) in RMI scores during the paliperidone palmitate LAI treatment period vs the pre-treatment period.

Limitations:

This study contained a retrospective, non-comparative design, and did not adjust for multiplicity

Conclusions:

The current study demonstrates that changes in recovery-oriented mental health outcomes can be detected following the administration of a specific antipsychotic treatment in persons with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders. Furthermore, patients receiving paliperidone palmitate LAI can effectively improve recovery-oriented outcomes, thereby supporting the drug’s use as schizophrenia treatment from a recovery-oriented perspective.     

Cost-effectiveness of 3-month paliperidone treatment for chronic schizophrenia in Spain

Background: A 3-month long treatment of paliperidone palmitate (PP3M) has been introduced as an option for treating schizophrenia. Its cost-effectiveness in Spain has not been established.

Aims: To compare the costs and effects of PP3M compared with once-monthly paliperidone (PP1M) from the payer perspective in Spain.

Methods: This study used the recently published trial by Savitz et al. as a core model over 1 year. Additional data were derived from the literature. Costs in 2016 Euros were obtained from official lists and utilities from Osborne et al. The authors conducted both cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses. For the former, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated. For the latter, the outcomes were relapses and hospitalizations avoided. To assure the robustness of the analyses, a series of 1-way and probability sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: The expected cost was lower with PP3M (4,780€) compared with PP1M (5,244€). PP3M had the fewest relapses (0.080 vs 0.161), hospitalizations (0.034 v.s 0.065), and emergency room visits (0.045 v.s 0.096) and the most QALYs (0.677 v.s 0.625). In both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, PP3M dominated PP1M. Sensitivity analyses confirmed base case findings. For the primary analysis (cost-utility), PP3M dominated PP1M in 46.9% of 10,000 simulations and was cost-effective at a threshold of 30,000€/QALY gained.

Conclusions: PP3M dominated PP1M in all analyses and was, therefore, cost-effective for treating chronic relapsing schizophrenia in Spain. For patients who require long-acting therapy, PP3M appears to be a good alternative anti-psychotic treatment.     

The threshold rate of oral atypical anti-psychotic adherence at which paliperidone palmitate is cost saving

Abstract

Objective:

To identify, estimate, and compare ‘real world’ costs and outcomes associated with paliperidone palmitate compared with branded oral atypical anti-psychotics, and to estimate the threshold rate of oral atypical adherence at which paliperidone palmitate is cost saving.

Methods:

Decision analytic modeling techniques developed by Glazer and Ereshefsky have previously been used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of depot haloperidol, LAI risperidone, and, more recently, LAI olanzapine. This study used those same techniques, along with updated comparative published clinical data, to evaluate paliperidone palmitate. Adherence rates were based on strict Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) criteria. The evaluation was conducted from the perspective of US healthcare payers.

Results:

Paliperidone palmitate patients had fewer mean annual days of relapse (8.7 days; 6.0 requiring hospitalization, 2.7 not requiring hospitalization vs 17.8 days; 12.4 requiring hospitalization, 5.4 not requiring hospitalization), and lower annual total cost ($20,995) compared to oral atypicals (mean $22,481). Because paliperidone palmitate was both more effective and less costly, it is considered economically dominant. Paliperidone palmitate saved costs when the rate of adherence of oral atypical anti-psychotics was below 44.9% using strict MEMS criteria. Sensitivity analyses showed results were robust to changes in parameter values. For patients receiving 156?mg paliperidone palmitate, the annual incremental cost was $1216 per patient (ICER?=?$191 per day of relapse averted). Inclusion of generic risperidone (market share 18.6%) also resulted in net incremental cost for paliperidone palmitate ($120; ICER?=?$13). Limitations of this evaluation include use of simplifying assumptions, data from multiple sources, and generalizability of results.

Conclusions:

Although uptake of LAIs in the US has not been as rapid as elsewhere, many thought leaders emphasize their importance in optimizing outcomes in patients with adherence problems. The findings of this analysis support the cost-effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate in these patients.     

Hospitalisation rates in patients switched from oral anti-psychotics to aripiprazole once-monthly for the management of schizophrenia

Abstract

Objective:

To report the design and preliminary results of a mirror-image study comparing total psychiatric hospitalisation rates pre- and post-switch to aripiprazole once-monthly, an extended release injectable solution.

Methods:

A multi-center, open-label mirror-image study of patients (18–65 years) with schizophrenia to compare total psychiatric hospitalisation rates between retrospective treatment with oral standard-of-care (SOC) anti-psychotics and prospective treatment with aripiprazole once-monthly in a naturalistic community setting in North America. Total psychiatric hospitalisation rates were assessed between retrospective (Months ?4 to ?1) and prospective treatment periods (Months 4–6) for patients who completed ≥3 months aripiprazole once-monthly.

Results:

One hundred and eighty-three patients entered the prospective phase. After switching to aripiprazole once-monthly, total psychiatric hospitalisation rates for the 3-month prospective period were significantly lower (p?<?0.0001, Exact McNemar’s test) compared with the retrospective 3-month period when the same patients received SOC anti-psychotics (6.6% [n?=?8/121] vs 28.1% [n?=?34/121], respectively; rate ratio?=?0.24). Similarly, total psychiatric hospitalisation rates for all patients who entered the prospective treatment phase were significantly lower (p?<?0.0001, Exact McNemar’s test) for the prospective 6 months following switch to aripiprazole once-monthly, compared with the retrospective 6-month SOC period (14.2% [n?=?26/183] vs 41.5% [n?=?76/183], respectively; rate ratio?=?0.34). Common treatment-emergent adverse events (occurring in ≥5% of patients) were psychotic disorder (7.7%), akathisia (7.2%), and insomnia (7.2%). Discontinuation (all causes) during the prospective phase was 44.8% (n?=?82/183).

Limitations:

Mirror-image studies do not include a parallel active control; as each patient serves as their own control, it cannot be determined whether other treatments may have similar effects. Treatment and trial effects may be difficult to separate. Independent factors such as admission patterns, insurance coverage, availability of hospital beds, and community support may influence rates of hospitalisation.

Conclusions:

Switching to aripiprazole once-monthly substantially reduced total psychiatric hospitalisation rates compared with retrospective rates in the same patients taking oral SOC.     

Cost effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate versus risperidone long-acting injectable and olanzapine pamoate for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia in Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To model the cost effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate (paliperidone long-acting injectable; PLAI), a new once-monthly long-acting antipsychotic therapy, compared with risperidone long-acting injectable (RLAI) and olanzapine pamoate (OLAI), in multi-episode patients (two or more relapses) with schizophrenia in Sweden.

Methods:

A Markov decision analytic model was developed to simulate the history of a cohort of multi-episode patients transitioning through different health states on a monthly basis over a 5-year time horizon from the perspective of the Swedish healthcare system. Therapeutic strategies consisted of starting treatment with RLAI (mean dose 37.5?mg every 2 weeks), PLAI (mean dose 75?mg equivalent (eq.) every month) or OLAI (150?mg every 2 weeks or 300?mg every 4 weeks). Probability of relapse, level of adherence, side-effects (extrapyramidal symptoms, tardive dyskinesia, weight gain and diabetes) and treatment discontinuation (switch) were derived from long-term observational data when feasible. Incremental cost-effectiveness outcomes, discounted at 3% annually, included cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and cost per relapse avoided (expressed in 2009 Swedish Krona SEK).

Results:

Relative to RLAI and OLAI, PLAI is economically dominant: more effective (additional QALYs, less relapses) and less costly treatment option over a 5-year time horizon. The results were robust when tested in sensitivity analysis.

Limitations:

The impact of once-monthly treatment on adherence levels is not yet known, and not all variables that could impact on real-world outcomes and costs were included in this model.

Conclusion:

PLAI was cost saving from a Swedish payer perspective compared with RLAI and OLAI in the long-term treatment of multi-episode (two or more relapses) schizophrenia patients.     

Healthcare utilization and costs of veterans health administration patients with schizophrenia treated with paliperidone palmitate long-acting injection or oral atypical antipsychotics

Abstract

Objective:

This study aimed to compare real world healthcare costs and resource utilization between patients with schizophrenia treated with paliperidone palmitate long-acting injection (PP) and oral atypical antipsychotics (OAT).     

Validation of an economic model of paliperidone palmitate for chronic schizophrenia

Abstract

Objective:

Model validation is important, but seldom applied in chronic schizophrenia. Validation consists of verifying the model itself for face validity (i.e., structure and inputs), cross-validation with other models assessing the same issue, and comparison with real-life outcomes. The primary purpose was to cross-validate a recent pharmacoeconomic model comparing long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics for treating chronic schizophrenia in Sweden. The secondary purpose was to provide external validation.

Methods:

The model of interest was a decision tree analysis with a 1-year time horizon with costs in 2011 Swedish kroner. Drugs analyzed included paliperidone palmitate (PP-LAI), olanzapine pamoate (OLZ-LAI), risperidone (RIS-LAI), haloperidol (HAL-LAI), and oral olanzapine (oral-OLZ). Embase and Medline were searched from 1990–2012 for models examining LAIs. Articles were retrieved, with data extracted for all drugs compared including: expected costs, rates of hospitalization, proportion of time not in relapse, and associated QALYs. Outcomes from the model of interest were compared with those from other articles; costs were projected to 2012 using the consumer price index.

Results:

Twenty-six studies were used for validation; 14 of them provided evidence for cross-validation, 13 for external validation, and four for cost. In cross-validation, cost estimates varied ?1.8% (range: ?12.4–20.1%), hospitalizations 5.2% (?12.1–3.1%), stable disease 2.5% (?5.6–1.5%), QALYs 9.0% (4.3% after removing outliers). All estimates of clinical outcomes were within 15%. In external validation, hospitalization rates varied by 6.3% (?0.7–11.3%). The research was limited by data availability and validity of the original results.

Conclusion:

Other models validated the outputs of our model very well.     

Cost-effectiveness of 3-month paliperidone therapy for chronic schizophrenia in the Netherlands

Background: A new depot formulation of paliperidone has been developed that provides effective treatment for schizophrenia for 3 months (PP3M). It has been tested in phase-3 trials, but no data on its cost-effectiveness have been published.

Purpose: To determine the cost-effectiveness of PP3M compared with once-monthly paliperidone (PP1M), haloperidol long-acting therapy (HAL-LAT), risperidone microspheres (RIS-LAT), and oral olanzapine (oral-OLZ) for treating chronic schizophrenia in The Netherlands.

Methods: A previous 1-year decision tree was adapted, based on local inputs supplemented with data from published literature. The primary analysis used DRG costs in 2016 euros from the insurer perspective, as derived from official lists. A micro-costing analysis was also conducted. For the costing scenario, official list prices were used. Clinical outcomes included relapses (treated as outpatients, requiring hospitalization, total), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Rates and utility scores were derived from the literature. Economic outcomes were the incremental cost/QALY-gained or relapse-avoided. Model robustness was examined in scenario, 1-way, and probability sensitivity analyses.

Results: The expected cost was lowest with PP3M (8,781€), followed by PP1M (10,325€), HAL-LAT (11,278€), RIS-LAT (11,307€), and oral-OLZ (13,556€). PP3M had the fewest total relapses/patient (0.36, 0.94, 1.39, 1.21, and 1.70, respectively), hospitalizations (0.11, 0.46, 0.40, 0.56, and 0.57, respectively), emergency room visits (0.25, 0.48. 0.99, 0.65, and 1.14, respectively) and the most QALYs (0.847, 0.735, 0.709, 0.719, and 0.656, respectively). In both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, PP3M dominated all other drugs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed base case findings. In the costing analysis, total costs were, on average, 31.9% higher than DRGs.

Conclusions: PP3M dominated all commonly used drugs. It is cost-effective for treating chronic schizophrenia in the Netherlands. Results were robust over a wide range of sensitivity analyses. For patients requiring a depot medication, such as those with adherence problems, PP3M appears to be a good alternative anti-psychotic treatment.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atypical long-acting antipsychotics for treating chronic schizophrenia in Finland

Abstract

Objective:

In Finland, regional rates of schizophrenia exceed those in most countries, impacting the healthcare burden. This study determined the cost-effectiveness of long-acting antipsychotic (LAI) drugs paliperidone palmitate (PP-LAI), olanzapine pamoate (OLZ-LAI), and risperidone (RIS-LAI) for chronic schizophrenia.

Method:

This study adapted a decision tree analysis from Norway for the Finnish National Health Service. Country-specific data were sought from the literature and public documents, guided by clinical experts. Costs of health services and products were retrieved from literature sources and current price lists. This simulation study estimated average 1-year costs for treating patients with each LAI, average remission days, rates of hospitalization and emergency room visits and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY).

Results:

PP-LAI was dominant. Its estimated annual average cost was €10,380/patient and was associated with 0.817 QALY; OLZ-LAI cost €12,145 with 0.810 QALY; RIS-LAI cost €12,074 with 0.809 QALY. PP-LAI had the lowest rates of hospitalization, emergency room visits, and relapse days. This analysis was robust against most variations in input values except adherence rates. PP-LAI was dominant over OLZ-LAI and RIS-LAI in 77.8% and 85.9% of simulations, respectively. Limitations include the 1-year time horizon (as opposed to lifetime costs), omission of the costs of adverse events, and the assumption of universal accessibility.

Conclusion:

In Finland, PP-LAI dominated the other LAIs as it was associated with a lower cost and better clinical outcomes.     

Real-world evidence of improved healthcare utilization in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder after early treatment of paliperidone palmitate once-monthly treatment in Hong Kong

Background: Very few data are available to demonstrate the economic benefit of early paliperidone palmitate once-monthly long-acting injectable (PP1M) treatment in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

Methods and materials: This study has retrospectively compared the healthcare utilization and associated costs of pre- and post-PPIM treatment in 413 patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder recruited from three major public hospitals providing psychiatric services in Hong Kong. Patients were categorized into early treatment (≤3 years since diagnosis) and chronic (>3 years) groups, and also whether they were receiving polypharmacy (POP).

Results: It was found that patients who were started on early therapy with no POP had the most favourable outcomes. Overall results of the entire cohort, including both early and late treatments, indicate that there was a slight increase in annual in-patient days (IP) per patient and outpatient visit (OP) by 3.18 and 1.87, respectively, and a decrease in emergency room visit (ER) of 0.9 (p?p?p?p?Conclusions: From the 413 patients studied, potential annual savings is higher by early administration of PPIM in patients with NP. Analysis using multivariate linear regression based on generalized estimating equations and sensitivity analysis using a linear mixed model supported the findings.     

Cost effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate versus oral antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia and a history of criminal justice involvement

Abstract

Objective:

Conduct a cost effectiveness analysis for the Paliperidone palmitate Research In Demonstrating Effectiveness (PRIDE) trial.     

Cost-effectiveness of several atypical antipsychotics in orally disintegrating tablets compared with standard oral tablets in the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Although the use of innovative drug delivery systems, like orally disintegrating antipsychotic tablets (ODT), may facilitate medication adherence and help reduce the risk of relapse and hospitalization, no information is available about the comparative cost-effectiveness of standard oral tablets (SOT) vs ODT formulations in the treatment of schizophrenia. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine ODT and olanzapine SOT in the usual treatment of outpatients with schizophrenia from a US healthcare perspective. The study also compared olanzapine ODT with risperidone and aripiprazole, two other atypical antipsychotics available in both ODT and SOT formulations.

Methods:

Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to populate a 1-year Monte Carlo Micro-simulation model. The model captures clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, treatment discontinuation by reason, relapse with and without inpatient hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment-emergent adverse events, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs. Key outcomes were total annual direct cost per treatment, QALY, and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) per 1 QALY gained.

Results:

Based on model projections, olanzapine ODT therapy was more costly ($9808 vs $9533), but more effective in terms of a lower hospitalization rate (15% vs 16%) and better QALYs (0.747 vs 0.733) than olanzapine SOT therapy. Olanzapine ODT was more cost-effective than olanzapine SOT (ICER: $19,643), more cost-effective than risperidone SOT therapy (ICER: $39,966), and dominant (meaning less costly and more effective) than risperidone ODT and aripiprazole in ODT or SOT formulations.

Limitations:

Lack of head-to-head randomized studies comparing the three studied atypical antipsychotics required making input assumptions that need further study.

Conclusions:

This micro-simulation found that the utilization of olanzapine ODT for the treatment of schizophrenia is predicted to be more cost-effective than any other ODT or SOT formulations of the studied atypical antipsychotic medications.     

A comparison of treatment patterns,healthcare resource utilization,and costs among young adult Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia treated with paliperidone palmitate or oral atypical antipsychotics in the US

Abstract

Background: Much of the burden associated with schizophrenia is attributed to its early onset and chronic nature. Treatment with once monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) is associated with lower healthcare utilization and better adherence as compared to oral atypical antipsychotics (OAAs). This study aimed to evaluate real-world effectiveness of PP1M and OAA therapies among US-based adult Medicaid patients with schizophrenia, overall and among young adults aged 18–35 years.

Methods: Adult patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and at least two claims for PP1M or OAA between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014 were selected from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan Medicaid Database. Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared between PP1M and OAA treatment groups following inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighting to adjust for potential differences. Utilization and cost outcomes were estimated using OLS and weighted Poisson regression models.

Results: After IPT weighting, the young adult PP1M and OAA cohorts were comprised of 3,095 and 3,155 patients, respectively. PP1M patients had a higher duration of continuous treatment exposure (168.2 vs 132.5 days, p?=?.004) and better adherence on the index medication (proportion of days covered ≥80%: 19.0% vs 17.1%, p?<?.049). Young adults treated with PP1M were 37% less likely to have an all-cause inpatient admission (odds ratio [OR]?=?0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?0.53–0.74) and 33% less likely to have an ER visit (OR?=?0.67, 95% CI?=?0.55–0.81) compared to OAA young adult patients, but 27% more likely to have an all-cause outpatient office visit (OR?=?1.27, 95% CI?=?1.02–1.56). PP1M patients incurred significantly lower medical costs as compared to OAA patients.

Conclusions: Medicaid patients with schizophrenia treated with PP1M have higher medication adherence and have fewer hospitalizations as compared to patients treated with OAAs. PP1M may lead to reduced healthcare utilization and improved clinical outcomes.     

Estimated medical cost reductions for paliperidone palmitate vs placebo in a randomized,double-blind relapse-prevention trial of patients with schizoaffective disorder

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this economic model was to estimate the difference in medical costs among patients treated with paliperidone palmitate once-monthly injectable antipsychotic (PP1M) vs placebo, based on clinical event rates reported in the 15-month randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of paliperidone palmitate evaluating time to relapse in subjects with schizoaffective disorder.     

Cost-effectiveness of lurasidone vs aripiprazole among patients with schizophrenia who have previously failed on an atypical antipsychotic: an indirect comparison of outcomes from clinical trial data

Abstract

Objective:

Compare long-term costs and outcomes of lurasidone to aripiprazole among adults with schizophrenia in the US who previously failed ≥1 atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, or ziprasidone) based on an indirect comparison of outcomes data from clinical trials.

Methods:

A 5-year Markov cohort model was developed to compare long-term effectiveness of lurasidone to aripiprazole, including total discontinuations, relapse rates, and hospitalization rates. Cost inputs included pharmacy, mental health, and medical costs associated with cardiometabolic risks (diabetes and cardiovascular [CV] events). Effectiveness inputs were derived from an indirect comparison of aripiprazole and lurasidone using common comparators from CATIE. Cardiometabolic risks were derived from claims data analysis for diabetes, weight change and CV events, and Framingham body mass index (BMI) risk equation. Cost inputs were derived from published sources and Red Book. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% and tested with sensitivity analyses.

Results:

Over 5 years, total discounted costs for lurasidone and aripiprazole patients were $86,480 and $90,500, respectively. During this period, the number of relapses per patient, hospitalizations per patient, diabetes rates, and CV events per 1000 patients, respectively, were estimated to be lower for lurasidone (0.442, 0.245, 7.29%, and 37.3) than aripiprazole (0.478, 0.369, 7.36%, and 37.8). Results were sensitive to lurasidone and aripiprazole hospitalization rates. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per hospitalization avoided, lurasidone had a 100% probability of being more cost-effective than aripiprazole.

Limitations:

The model was based on results from various comparative clinical trials. Differences in patient population and study methods may change estimates from the model. The model does not account for patient heterogeneity.

Conclusions:

Based on this model, when switching from another atypical antipsychotic, lurasidone had fewer relapses and hospitalizations with a lower incidence of diabetes and CV events than aripiprazole. Additionally, lurasidone may be less costly than aripiprazole among adults with schizophrenia.     

Cost-effectiveness of combination daclatasvir-sofosbuvir for treatment of genotype 3 chronic hepatitis C infection in the United States

Background: A phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of Daklinza (daclatasvir or DCV) in combination with sofosbuvir (SOF) for treatment of genotype (GT) 3 hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients.

Aim: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of DCV?+?SOF vs SOF in combination with ribavirin (RBV) over a 20-year time horizon from the perspective of a United States (US) payer.

Methods: A published Markov model was adapted to reflect US demographic characteristics, treatment patterns, costs of drug acquisition, monitoring, disease and adverse event management, and mortality risks. Clinical inputs came from the ALLY-3 and VALENCE trials. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-utility ratio. Life-years, incidence of complications, number of patients achieving sustained virological response (SVR), and the total cost per SVR were secondary outcomes. Costs (2014 USD) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% per year. Deterministic, probabilistic, and scenario sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: DCV?+?SOF was associated with lower costs and better effectiveness than SOF?+?RBV in the base case and in almost all scenarios (i.e. treatment-experienced, non-cirrhotic, time horizons of 5, 10, and 80 years). DCV?+?SOF was less costly, but also slightly less effective than SOF?+?RBV in the cirrhotic and treatment-naïve population scenarios. Results were sensitive to variations in the probability of achieving SVR for both treatment arms. DCV?+?SOF costs less than $50,000 per QALY gained in 79% of all probabilistic iterations compared with SOF?+?RBV.

Conclusion: DCV?+?SOF is a dominant option compared with SOF?+?RBV in the US for the overall GT 3 HCV patient population.