Cost-effectiveness of amisulpride compared with risperidone in patients with schizophrenia

SUMMARY

Amisulpride is an atypical antipsychotic, which has demonstrated efficacy across the range of symptoms of schizophrenia. This study compares the treatment costs of amisulpride (including drug costs, hospital costs, and costs of clinician and nurse visits) with those of risperidone over a 6-month treatment period, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Resource utilisation data were collected alongside an international, multicentre clinical trial comparing amisulpride (400-1000 mg/day) with risperidone (4-10 mg/day) in 198 patients with schizophrenia. As this trial demonstrated that amisulpride had at least equivalent efficacy to risperidone, the present study was a cost-minimisation analysis. Unit cost data for the UK were obtained from published sources and applied to the clinical data to calculate direct treatment costs. Amisulpride was associated with lower drug acquisition costs and lower resource utilisation costs than risperidone, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. Overall, the average total cost per patient for 6 months of treatment with amisulpride (£12,673; 95% CI: 10,628,14,717) was £2,145 less than for risperidone (£14,818; 95% CI: 12,323,17,312). These findings are similar to those of a previous study that compared the treatment costs of amisulpride with those of haloperidol, and found that

amisulpride was associated with significantly lower direct treatment costs than haloperidol. Amisulpride is a valuable treatment option in patients with schizophrenia.     

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.     

Adherence,persistence, and inpatient utilization among adult schizophrenia patients using once-monthly versus twice-monthly long-acting atypical antipsychotics

Aims: This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU), healthcare costs, adherence, and persistence among adult patients with schizophrenia using once-monthly (OM) vs twice-monthly (TM) atypical long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic (AP) therapy.

Materials and methods: A longitudinal retrospective cohort study was conducted using Medicaid claims data from six states. Patients initiated on aripiprazole or paliperidone palmitate were assigned to the OM cohort; risperidone-treated patients were assigned to the TM cohort. HRU and healthcare costs were assessed during the first 12 months following stabilization on the medication. Adherence was measured using the proportion of days covered (PDC) during the first year of follow-up. Persistence to the index medication was measured during the first 2 years following the index date. Comparison between the cohorts was achieved using multivariable generalized linear models, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics.

Results: Patients in the OM LAI cohort had lower inpatient HRU and medical costs when compared with patients in the TM cohort. Higher medical costs in the TM LAI cohort offset the higher pharmacy costs in the OM LAI cohort. Mean PDC during the first 12 months of follow-up was higher in the OM cohort than in the TM cohort (0.56 vs 0.50, p?<?.01). Median persistence was longer in the OM cohort than in the TM cohort (7.5 months vs 5.5 months), as was the hazard of discontinuing the index medication (hazard ratio?=?0.83, p?=?.01). Kaplan-Meier rates of persistence at 1 year were higher for OM patients than for TM patients (37.6% vs 29.6%, p?<?.01).

Limitations: This was a Medicaid sample with few aripiprazole LAI patients (5.4% of OM cohort). Medication use was inferred from pharmacy claims.

Conclusions: Among Medicaid patients in these six states, OM AP treatment was associated with lower HRU, better adherence and persistence, and similar total costs compared to patients on TM treatment.     

用工灵活化策略的背后:中国上市快递企业非典型雇佣配置效率研究

快递业的蓬勃发展与非典型雇佣之间存在着极为密切的关系。本文运用数理统计方法研究了非典型雇佣对快递业产出的作用机制,指出非典型雇佣规模的增加促进快递市场拓展;运用数据包络分析等方法 ,对上市快递企业非典型雇佣的配置效率进行了探查,检讨了各上市快递企业非典型雇佣配置非效率的特征,并计算得出配置效率改进的目标;通过构建非典型雇佣灵活性测量模型,对非典型雇佣灵活化机制进行了解构,指出非典型雇佣需在收入灵活性、规模灵活性以及结构灵活性三个方面综合统筹,才能组合、创新出有利于快递企业、快递员工以及快递客户的非典型雇佣策略。     

Aircraft atypical approach detection using functional principal component analysis

In this paper, a post-operational detection method based on functional principal component analysis and clustering is presented and compared with regard to designed operational criteria. The methodology computes an atypical scoring on a sliding window. It enables not only to detect but also to localize where trajectories deviate statistically from the others. The algorithm is applied to the total energy management, estimated from ground-based data, during approach and landing. The detected atypical flights show non-nominal energy behaviors such as glide interceptions from above or high speed approaches. This promising methodology could help to enhance flight data analysis and safety, highlighting non-monitored behaviors.     

Conceptualizing Un employment in a Period of Atypical Em ployment: A Critical Realist Perspective

An adequate conceptualization and measurement of unemployment should express the reality of employment. Designing theoretical concepts that adequately express reality requires appropriate methodological foundations. This paper uses critical realism to demonstrate that the deductive method encourages the construction of theoretical concepts in such a way as to reduce the multidimensional, qualitative reality of employment and unemployment to the quantitative, single dimension of variables, whereupon they cease to be adequate expressions of the reality they are designed to investigate. Part-time employment is used to exemplify atypical employment and to illustrate how the latter differs from typical employment in a number of dimensions, most of which are qualitative in nature.     

Reduction in costs of inpatient stay associated with clozapine treatment: A retrospective study

Summary

Clozapine is an atypical antipsychotic drug used to treat the 10-25% of patients who suffer from schizophrenia who are treatment resistant or intolerant to standard antipsychotic drug treatment. A major issue associated with treatment is the high cost of the drug compared to standard antipsychotic drug treatment. Research carried out to date has suggested that despite the high cost of clozapine, it is overall a cost-effective treatment. This contention is based on the findings described elsewhere that clozapine treatment is associated with a dramatic decrease in psychiatric inpatient stay.

There are many ethical difficulties associated with a prospective double-blind controlled trial of clozapine treatment. We have therefore reported on a retrospective audit. A retrospective analysis was carried out by the examination of computerised patient records to determine if clozapine treatment had been associated with a reduction in psychiatric inpatient stay. Also examined was whether clozapine treatment had been associated with an overall shift from intensive therapeutic ward usage.

For example, patients are moved from intensive care and acute wards to wards with less intensive therapeutic input such as continuing care and rehabilitation wards. The inpatient stay details for 76 patients prescribed clozapine since early 1991 were examined before and after clozapine treatment commenced. The main problem with this retrospective analysis is that without any control group observed over the same time period, it is very difficult to assess how much of the decrease in bed usage is related to either the natural history of the disease and/or to changes in bed use over time associated with changes in mental health service provision and the development of community facilities.

Psychiatric inpatient stay decreased by a statistically non-significant average of 13.2 days (6%) in the first year of treatment (p=0.7692), a non-significant average of 34 days (15%) in the second year of treatment (p=0.0669), a significant average of 38.4 days (17%) in the third year of treatment (p=0.0007) and again by a significant average of 51.2 days (22%) in the fourth year of treatment (p=0.0011).

The average cost per inpatient bed-day for the main psychiatric hospital in the Health Board's area is £90.86 (based on 100% occupancy rate, 1994/95 prices). The reduction in bed days identified was equivalent to a saving of £1,200 per patient in the first year of treatment, £3,090 per patient in the second year, £3,490 per patient in the third year and £4,652 per patient in the fourth year. The average annual cost of clozapine per patient is approximately £2,500.

Clozapine treatment was also associated with a shift from intensive care and acute ward inpatient usage to continuing care and rehabilitative ward usage. In the year prior to clozapine treatment intensive care and acute ward stay accounted for 72.7% of total inpatient stay. In the first year of treatment this proportion decreased to 63.7%, in the second year to 39.5%, in the third year to 31.8% and in the fourth year to 24.6%. This represented potential savings of £500,000 per annum.

Overall, the data generated from this study indicated that clozapine treatment is associated with both a reduction in psychiatric bed usage and a shift to less therapeutically intensive care wards. However, the decrease identified is not as dramatic as the reduction quoted elsewhere in the literature. These findings provide useful costing information to support the view that clozapine is a cost-saving or cost-neutral treatment in terms of the provision of psychiatric services in the UK. However, the costs associated with the increased use of community services by the study group were not identified in this review. In order to establish whether or not clozapine is cost saving overall compared to standard antipsychotic treatment it would have been necessary to identify all costs, including the whole range of community costs, before and after treatment commenced.