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 analysis of a disease management programme for adult Medicaid clients with schizophrenia

Summary

This investigation assessed changes in direct medical costs, from the perspective of a public payer, associated with a comprehensive, field-based disease management programme for adult Medicaid clients with schizophrenia in the US State of Colorado.

A propensity score-matching algorithm was employed in this retrospective analysis owing to the inherent non-randomisation of enrollees. Of the 126 clients initially enrolled, 73 (58%) remained within the programme continuously for 6–12 months.

These participants were associated with 30% lower overall per member per month medical costs (p<0.001), although no differences were noted for overall pharmacy costs. Provision of the disease management programme was through an external vendor and cost $31,250 per month regardless of the number enrolled.

Future research should seek to assess long-term clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes in this population and to develop methods that increase programme participation.     

Risperidone: An assessment of its economic benefits in the treatment of schizophrenia

Summary

A variety of economic studies have been carried out in Europe, North America and Australia. Risperidone is dominant over haloperidol, providing both an improvement in patient benefit and decreasing direct medical costs. These effects are most marked in patients who continue risperidone treatment. Treatment failures need more study, but the costs of therapeutic trial are low enough to recommend risperidone in preference to conventional antipsychotics for patients requiring new or alternative treatment for schizophrenia.

Much of the evidence for the economic benefits of risperidone comes from studies with historical controls in treatment resistant or treatment intolerant patients. The biggest contributor to the economic impact of risperidone is the reduction in hospital stay resulting from treatment with the drug. More long-term work is required with parallel control groups and also with less severely ill patients.     

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of the treatment of schizophrenia with quetiapine,olanzapine, risperidone or haloperidol in Spain

Summary

The study objective was to compare the costs of the treatment of schizophrenia with quetiapine (QUE), olanzapine (OLA), risperidone (RIS) or haloperidol (HAL) and those of the secondary effects (SE) associated. A cost-effectiveness analysis, using a Markov process, was used.The time horizon was 12 months.The study population comprised Spanish adult schizophrenic patients.The NHS perspective was taken (direct costs).The costs of several SE of medication were analysed. Use of resources and costs were calculated following the recommendations of the Spanish Psychiatric Society and other sources.

The monthly rates of the onset of SE with each medicine were calculated using a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature.

A simple univariate sensitivity analysis was performed. QUE is as efficacious as OLA and RIS, but apparently leading to fewer cases of extrapyramidal syndrome and sexual dysfunction, with lower costs. QUE is better tolerated than HAL, but with higher costs.     

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.     

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.