Asenapine is the first tetracyclic antipsychotic approved in Canada for the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ). Asenapine has shown a comparable efficacy profile to other atypical antipsychotics and it is associated with a favourable metabolic profile and less weight gain. This study aimed to assess the economic impact of asenapine compared to other atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of SCZ in Canada.
Methods:
A decision tree combined with a Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-utility of asenapine compared with other atypical antipsychotics. The decision tree takes into account the occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms, the probability of switching to a different antipsychotic, and the probability of gaining weight. The Markov model takes into account long-term metabolic complications including diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart diseases, and stroke. In the base-case analysis, asenapine was compared to olanzapine. Asenapine was also compared with other atypical antipsychotics commonly used in Canada in alternative scenarios. Analyses were conducted from both Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives over a 5-year time horizon.
Results:
In the treatment of SCZ, asenapine is a dominant strategy over olanzapine from both MoH and societal perspectives. Compared to quetiapine, asenapine is also a dominant strategy. Furthermore, asenapine has a favorable economic impact compared to ziprasidone and aripiprazole, as these antipsychotics are not cost-effective compared to asenapine from both MoH and societal perspectives.
Conclusion:
Despite the short time horizon, the lack of compliance data and the assumptions made, this economic evaluation demonstrates that asenapine is a cost-effective strategy compared to olanzapine and to most of the atypical antipsychotics frequently used in Canada. 相似文献
Methods: A microsimulation model was adapted from a healthcare payers’ perspective. The model ran over a 1-year time horizon, using quarterly cycles. The costs of adverse events were acquired through a clinical expert panel. The average bidding prices in China of olanzapine-ODT, olanzapine-SOT, aripiprazole-SOT, and other switch alternatives were used. Inpatient and outpatient medical costs were sourced from the Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance database in Tianjin. Additionally, adherence, efficacy, safety, and utility data were taken from the literature. Uncertainty of parameters were assessed through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
Results: The total annual costs per patient in aripiprazole-SOT arm, olanzapine-SOT arm, and olanzapine-ODT arm are USD 2,296.05, USD 1,940.05, and USD 2,292.81, respectively. The average number of relapses per patient in 1 year in the aripiprazole-SOT arm, olanzapine-SOT arm, and olanzapine-ODT arm, are 0.734, 0.325, and 0.198, respectively. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient in 1 year in the aripiprazole-SOT arm, olanzapine-SOT arm, and olanzapine-ODT arm are 0.714, 0.737, and 0.758, respectively. Consequently, (1) the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of administrating olanzapine-ODT over olanzapine-SOT are USD 2,791.96 per relapse avoided and USD 16,798.39 per QALY gained; and (2) the ICERs of using olanzapine-SOT over aripiprazole-SOT are USD –870.39 per relapse avoided and USD –15,477.93 per QALY gained. All ICERs are under the willingness-to-pay threshold in China of USD 25,772.67. The sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.
Conclusion: As the first-line treatment for schizophrenia in China, olanzapine-ODT is cost-effective compared to olanzapine-SOT and olanzapine-SOT is cost-effective compared to aripiprazole-SOT. 相似文献