Cost-effectiveness of second-generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia

Usage and cost-effectiveness of anti-psychotics in psychiatry OPD among various clinical conditions: A prospective observational study in a tertiary care center

Background

Psychotropic medications are prescription drugs that are commonly used to control some symptoms associated with many different types of mental ill health. Although they cannot cure a patient illness, they can assist with the management of some extremely distressing symptoms and this in turn can facilitate individuals in leading a more fulfilled life.

Aims and Objective

This study attempts to collect the demographic details of the outpatient in the psychiatric department and to describe the usage, prescribing trends and cost-effectiveness of antipsychotics in psychiatry OPD among various clinical conditions to older and younger patients with psychiatry disorders.

Material and Methods

This study was a prospective observational study, conducted over a period of 6 months from November 2021 to April 2022 in the Department of Psychiatry, Chidambaram Government Medical College and Hospital, a 1400 bedded multi-specialty tertiary care teaching hospital, Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The recruitment of subjects was carried out with the help the physicians who had the knowledge of patient's history and caregivers consenting to the study protocol and patients with case sheets carrying antipsychotics prescription.

Observation and Results

A total number of 150 cases were enrolled in this study. All psychiatric OPD cases were studied and the results were taken. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 93 were the anti-psychotics prescribed cases and 57 were the non-anti-psychotics prescribed cases. Out of 93 patients, 69.89% (65 patients) were male and 30.10% (28 patients) were female. Out of non-psychotic 57 patients, 27 were male patients and 30 were female patients. Out of the 93 OPD patients, 40% of the patients have psychological based symptoms followed by 17% of patients have behavioral symptoms. 86.02% of patients received atypical antipsychotic medications in comparison with 36.55% of patients received the typical antipsychotic medications.

Conclusion

In this study, we had observed the usage and types of anti-psychotic drugs to control and minimize the different psychotic symptoms among the OPD patients. Maximum antipsychotics studied were cost-effective and cheaper in Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana (PMBJP) as compared to Intas, Torrent, Sun, Linux, Cipla, Abbott, Alkem, and Sanofi.

A Systematic Review of Methods and Study Quality of Economic Evaluations for the Treatment of Schizophrenia

Background: Schizophrenia is a severe and complex disease with substantial economic and social burdens. Despite multiple treatment choices, adverse events, and impaired social functions are still challenges in clinical therapy. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations could provide evidence to help decision makers improve the utilization of scarce resources. However, there remains some challenges especially in modeling due to uncertainties in progression of schizophrenia. There are limited summaries about the overall methodologies of schizophrenia economic evaluations.

Objective: The aim of this study is to review the existing economic evaluations of antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia and summarize the evidence and methods applied.

Methods: An electronic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO host, The Cochrane Library and ScienceDirect from January 2014 to December 2020. Search terms included “schizophrenia,” “schizophrenic,” “pharmacoeconomic,” “economic evaluation,” “cost-effectiveness,” and “cost-utility.” The Literature was screened and extracted by two researchers independently and assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) List and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement.

Results: A total of 25 studies were included in the review. The regions included Europe, North America, Asia and Africa. Most of the studies chose second-generation antipsychotics as comparators and integrated treatment sequences. Time horizons varied from 1 year to lifetime. The healthcare sector was the most common perspective, accordingly, most of the evaluations considered only direct medical costs. The Markov model and decision tree model were the most common choices. Adverse events, compliance and persistence were considered important parameters. Quality-adjusted life-years were the major outcomes applied to the economic evaluations. All utilities for health states and adverse events were collected from published literature. All of the studies applied uncertainty analysis to explore the robustness of the results. The quality of the studies was generally satisfactory. However, improvements were needed in the choice of time horizons, the measurements of outcomes and the descriptions of assumptions.

Conclusions: This study highlights the methodology of economic evaluation of schizophrenia. Recommendations for modeling method and future study are provided.

Sequential Multiple-Assignment Randomized Trials to Compare Antipsychotic Treatments (SMART-CAT) in first-episode schizophrenia patients: Rationale and trial design

Accumulated studies have investigated pharmacological interventions for first-episode schizophrenia (FES) patients. However, studies on subsequent treatment steps, which are essential to guide clinicians, are largely missing. This Sequential Multiple-Assignment Randomized Trials comparing Antipsychotic Treatments (SMART-CAT) program intends to evaluate the effectiveness of commonly used antipsychotic drugs in FES patients. The major goals of this study are to examine: 1) what would be the optimal subsequent sequential treatment if the first antipsychotic drug failed; 2) whether clozapine could be used in those first-trial failed and have superior efficacy compared to other atypical antipsychotics. In this article we will report the detail protocol of SMART-CAT. The SMART-CAT is a randomized controlled clinical multicenter trial in which 9 institutions in China will participate. A total of 720 FES patients will be enrolled and followed up for 12 months in this study. The trial includes three treatment phases (each phase lasting for 8 weeks) and a naturalistic follow-up phase; participants who do well on an assigned treatment will remain on that treatment for the duration of the 12-month treatment period, while non-responders will move to the next phase of the study to receive a new treatment. Phase 1 is a randomized controlled trial; patients will be randomly assigned to one of the treatments with oral olanzapine, risperidone, amisulpride, aripiprazole or perphenazine. Subjects who fail to respond after 8 weeks will enter the phase 2 randomization. Phase 2 is an equipoise-stratified randomization trial, and patients will be randomly assigned to oral olanzapine, amisulpride or clozapine for 8 weeks. Subjects who fail to respond after phase 2 will enter an open label trial (phase 3); patients who receive clozapine in phase 2 and fail to respond will be assigned to an extended clozapine treatment or modified electroconvulsive therapy add-on therapy (Phase 3A). Patients who were not assigned to clozapine in phase 2 will be assigned to treatment with clozapine or another SGAs not previously used in phase 1 and 2 (Phase 3B). The primary outcome for the treatment phase is the treatment efficacy rate, which is defined as at least 40% reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. We hypothesize that clozapine is more therapeutically effective than any other SGAs to patients who failed to meet efficacy criteria in Phase 1, and earlier treatment with clozapine can improve the functional outcomes of schizophrenia patients. As for the naturalistic follow-up phase, time to all-cause treatment failure, marked by its discontinuation is selected as the primary outcome, since it reflects both efficacy and side effects. The all-cause discontinuation is defined as discontinuing for any reasons, including poor efficacy, intolerance of adverse reactions, poor compliance and other reasons. The results of the SMART-CAT trial will provide evidence for the selection of antipsychotics in FES patients who fail to respond to the first trial of an antipsychotic drug. It will also provide evidence for the efficacy and safety of using clozapine in the early phase of schizophrenia treatment by comparing with other SGAs. The study is based on the combination of sequential therapy and dynamic therapy, which can be more suitable to assess the effectiveness of treatment options in the real-world clinical setting. As a result, we hope that this study can provide guidance for an optimal treatment algorithm in first-episode schizophrenia patients. Trial registration: ID NCT03510325 in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Cost-effectiveness of valbenazine compared with deutetrabenazine for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia

AIMS

To evaluate clinical and economic outcomes associated with valbenazine compared with deutetrabenazine in patients with tardive dyskinesia (TD) using a model that accounts for multiple dimensions of patient health status.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A discretely integrated condition event model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with valbenazine and deutetrabenazine in a synthetic cohort of 1,000 patients with TD who were receiving antipsychotic medication to treat an underlying psychiatric disorder. Clinical inputs were derived from relevant clinical trials or from publicly available sources. Patients were assessed over 1 year using ≥50% improvement from baseline in Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) total score as the primary definition of response. Response at 1 year using Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) score ≤2 was also assessed. Health outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), life years, proportion responding to treatment at 1 year, and number of psychiatric relapses.

RESULTS

Regardless of the definition used for response, patients treated with valbenazine were more likely to have responded to treatment at 1 year, lived longer, and accrued more QALYs than patients who received deutetrabenazine. Using the AIMS response criterion, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $9,951/QALY for valbenazine compared with deutetrabenazine. By comparison, using the CGIC response criterion valbenazine dominated deutetrabenazine with valbenazine-treated patients accumulating more QALYs (3.4 vs 3.3 years) and incurring lower lifetime costs ($252,311 vs $283,208) than deutetrabenazine-treated patients.

LIMITATIONS

There are no head-to-head trials of valbenazine and deutetrabenazine, so probabilities of response used in the model were calculated based on an indirect treatment comparison of results from individual trials with one drug or the other, using only those metrics reported across trials.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with TD, treatment with valbenazine is highly cost-effective compared with deutetrabenazine.

Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Numerous economic models have assessed the cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic medications in schizophrenia. It is important to understand what key impacts of antipsychotic medications were considered in the existing models and limitations of existing models in order to inform the development of future models.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to identify which clinical benefits, clinical harms, costs and cost savings of antipsychotic medication have been considered by existing models, to assess quality of existing models and to suggest good practice recommendations for future economic models of antipsychotic medications.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed on multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, The NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database) to identify economic models of schizophrenia published between 2005-2020. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) checklist and the Cooper hierarchy. Key impacts of antipsychotic medications considered by exiting models were descriptively summarised.

RESULTS

Sixty models were included. Existing models varied greatly in key impacts of antipsychotic medication included in the model, especially in clinical outcomes used for assessing reduction in psychotic symptoms and types of adverse events considered in the model. Quality of existing models was generally low due to failure to capture the health and cost impact of adverse events of antipsychotic medications and input data not obtained from best available source. Good practices for modelling antipsychotic medications are suggested.

DISCUSSIONS

This review highlights inconsistency in key impacts considered by different models, and limitations of the existing models. Recommendations on future research are provided.

A Systematic Review of Economic Models Across the Entire Schizophrenia Pathway

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is associated with a high economic burden. Economic models can help to inform resource allocation decisions to maximise benefits to patients.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to assess the availability, quality and consistency of conclusions of health economic models evaluating the cost effectiveness of interventions for schizophrenia.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed on multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database) to identify economic models of interventions for schizophrenia published between 2005 and 2020. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) checklist and the Cooper hierarchy. Model characteristics and conclusions were descriptively summarised.

RESULTS

Seventy-three models met inclusion criteria. Seventy-eight percent of existing models assessed antipsychotics; however, due to inconsistent conclusions reported by different studies, no antipsychotic can be considered clearly cost effective compared with the others. A very limited number of models suggest that the following non-pharmacological interventions might be cost effective: psychosocial interventions, stratified tests, employment intervention and intensive intervention to improve liaison between primary and secondary care. The quality of included models is generally low due to use of a short time horizon, omission of adverse events of interventions, poor data quality and potential conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights a lack of models for non-pharmacological interventions, and limitations of the existing models, including low quality and inconsistency in conclusions. Recommendations on future modelling approaches for schizophrenia are provided.

Personalizing Medical Treatment Decisions: Integrating Meta-analytic Treatment Comparisons with Patient-Specific Risks and Preferences

Background. Network meta-analyses (NMAs) that compare treatments for a given condition allow physicians to identify which treatments have higher or lower probabilities of reducing the risks of disease complications or increasing the risks of treatment side effects. Translating these data into personalized treatment plans requires integration of NMA data with patient-specific pretreatment risk estimates and preferences regarding treatment objectives and acceptable risks. Methods. We introduce a modeling framework to integrate data probabilistically from NMAs with data on individualized patient risk estimates for disease outcomes, treatment preferences (such as willingness to incur greater side effects for increased life expectancy), and risk preferences. We illustrate the modeling framework by creating personalized plans for antipsychotic drug treatment and evaluating their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Results. Compared with treating all patients with the drug that yields the greatest quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) on average (amisulpride), personalizing the selection of antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia patients over the next 5 years would be expected to yield 0.33 QALYs (95% credible interval [crI]: 0.30-0.37) per patient at an incremental cost of $4849/QALY gained (95% crI: dominant-$12,357), versus 0.29 and 0.04 QALYs per patient when accounting for only risks or preferences, respectively, but not both. Limitations. The analysis uses a linear, additive utility function to reflect patient treatment preferences and does not consider potential variations in patient time discounting. Conclusions. Our modeling framework rigorously computes what physicians normally have to do mentally. By integrating 3 key components of personalized medicine-evidence on efficacy, patient risks, and patient preferences-the modeling framework can provide personalized treatment decisions to improve patient health outcomes.

Systematic review of utility values used in the pharmacoeconomic evaluations for schizophrenia: implications on cost-effectiveness results

Background and Objectives: Utility elicitation studies for schizophrenia generate different utility values for the same health states. We reviewed utility values used in schizophrenia pharmacoeconomic evaluations and evaluated the impact of their selection on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Methods: A systematic search was performed in Medline and Embase. Health state definitions, associated utility values, elicitation studies, and value selection processes were extracted. Sets of utility values for all schizophrenia health states were used in a cost-effectiveness model to evaluate the ICER. Results: Thirty-five cost-utility analyses (CUAs) referring to 11 utility elicitation studies were included. The most frequent health states were 'stable' (28 CUAs, 7 utility elicitation studies, 10 values, value range 0.650-0.919), 'relapse requiring hospitalisation' (18, 5, 7, 0.270-0.604), 'relapse not requiring hospitalisation' (18, 5, 10, 0.460-0.762), and 'relapse only' (10, 5, 6, 0.498-0.700). Seventeen sets of utility values were identified with difference in utility values between relapse and stable ranging from -0.358 to -0.050, resulting in ICERs ranging from -56.2% to +222.6% from average. Conclusion: The use of utility values for schizophrenia health states differs among CUAs and impacts on the ICER. More rigorous and transparent use of utility values and sensitivity analysis with different sets of utility values are suggested for future CUAs.

Relapse prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis of brexpiprazole treatment in adult patients with schizophrenia in the USA

OBJECTIVE

This study used a decision-analytic framework to assess the cost-effectiveness of brexpiprazole vs comparator branded therapies for reducing relapses and hospitalizations among adults with schizophrenia from a US payer perspective.

METHODS

An economic model was developed to assess patients with stable schizophrenia initiating treatment with brexpiprazole (1-4 mg), cariprazine (1-6 mg), or lurasidone (40-80 mg) over a 1-year period. After 6 months, patients remained on treatment or discontinued due to relapse, adverse events, or other reasons. Patients who discontinued due to relapse or adverse events were assumed to have switched to other therapy, and those who discontinued due to other reasons were assumed to have received no therapy. Primary outcomes were incremental cost per relapse avoided and hospitalization avoided, and the secondary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also conducted.

RESULTS

Brexpiprazole was associated with the highest per-patient clinical effectiveness (avoided relapses 0.637, avoided hospitalizations 0.719, QALYs 0.707) among comparators, followed by cariprazine (avoided relapses 0.590, avoided hospitalizations 0.683, QALYs 0.683) and lurasidone (avoided relapses 0.400, avoided hospitalizations 0.536, QALYs 0.623). Annual per-patient health-care costs were lowest for brexpiprazole ($20,510), followed by cariprazine ($22,282) and lurasidone ($25,510). Brexpiprazole was the least costly and most effective treatment strategy for all outcomes. Results were sensitive to relapse rates and daily cost of brexpiprazole. Limitations include data principally obtained from drug-specific randomized withdrawal studies and lack of direct-comparison trials.

CONCLUSION

This analysis evaluated brexpiprazole treatment for the reduction of schizophrenia relapses and hospitalizations over a 1-year period compared to other recently available branded antipsychotics, and excluded generic antipsychotic treatments. Brexpiprazole treatment may lead to clinical benefits and medical cost savings, and provides a cost-effective treatment option for patients relatively to other branded second-generation antipsychotics.

Systematic review of pharmacoeconomic models for schizophrenia

Background: Economic models are broadly used in the economic evaluation of antipsychotics in schizophrenia. Our objective was to summarize the structure of these models. Methods: Model-based economic evaluations of antipsychotics in schizophrenia were identified through Medline and Embase. General information was extracted including analysis type, model type, perspective, population, comparator, outcome, and timeframe. Model-specific structures for decision tree (DT), cohort- and patient-level Markov model (CLMM, PLMM), and discrete-event simulation (DES) models were extracted. Results: A screen of 1870 records identified 79 studies. These were mostly cost-utility analyses (n = 48) with CLMM (n = 32) or DT models (n = 29). They mostly applied payer perspective (n = 68), focused on general schizophrenia for relapse prevention (n = 73), compared pharmacotherapies as first-line (n = 71), and evaluated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (n = 40) with a 1-year (n = 32) or 5-year (n = 26) projection. DT models progressed with the branching points of response, relapse, discontinuation, and adherence. CLMM models transitioned between disease states, whereas PLMM models transitioned between adverse event states with/without disease state. DES models moved forward with times to remission, relapse, psychiatrist visit, and death. Conclusions: A pattern of pharmacoeconomic models for schizophrenia was identified. More subtle structures and patient-level models are suggested for a future modelling exercise.

A systematic review of health economic models and utility estimation methods in schizophrenia

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing need for economic evaluations describing the disease course, as well as the costs and clinical outcomes related to the treatment of schizophrenia.

AREAS COVERED

A systematic review on studies describing health economic models in schizophrenia and a targeted literature review on utility mapping algorithms in schizophrenia were carried out. Models found in the review were collated and assessed in detail according to their type and various other attributes. Fifty-nine studies were included in the review. Modeling techniques varied from simple decision trees to complex simulation models. The models used various clinical endpoints as value drivers, 47% of the models used quality-adjusted life years, and eight percent used disability-adjusted life years to measure benefits, while others applied various clinical outcomes. Most models considered patients switching between therapies, and therapeutic adherence, compliance or persistence. The targeted literature review identified four main approaches to map PANSS scores to utility values.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Health economic models developed for schizophrenia showed great variability, with simulation models becoming more frequently used in the last decade. Using PANSS scores as the basis of utility estimations is justifiable.

Quality-adjusted life year difference in patients with predominant negative symptoms of schizophrenia treated with cariprazine and risperidone

AIM

Our study aimed at estimating differences in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain for patients with predominant negative symptoms of schizophrenia treated with cariprazine compared with risperidone.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A Markov model was built, based on the Mohr-Lenert approach and data derived from clinical trials, to estimate potential QALY gains of patients.

RESULTS

Patients had higher probability of reaching better health states treated with cariprazine compared with risperidone. In the model, this resulted in an estimated QALY gain of 0.029 per patient, after 1 year of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Cariprazine, which showed clinically meaningful improvement in the symptoms, and personal and social performance, can also provide significant QALY gain in the treatment of patients with predominant negative symptoms of schizophrenia compared with risperidone.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of 11 oral antipsychotics for relapse prevention in schizophrenia within Singapore using effectiveness estimates from a network meta-analysis

This study modelled the cost-effectiveness of 11 oral antipsychotics for relapse prevention among patients with remitted schizophrenia in Singapore. A network meta-analysis determined the relative efficacy and tolerability of 11 oral antipsychotics (amisulpride, aripiprazole, chlorpromazine, haloperidol, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, sulpiride, trifluoperazine and ziprasidone). The clinical estimates were applied in a Markov model to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years gained. Quality-of-life data were obtained from published literature. Resource utilization and cost data were retrieved from local hospital databases. The annual direct cost of healthcare services for a patient experiencing a relapse episode was three-fold that of a patient not in relapse of schizophrenia. The most favourable pharmacological treatment for relapse prevention was olanzapine with an annual probability of relapse of 0.24 (0.13-0.38) with placebo as a reference of 0.75 (0.73-0.78). Olanzapine emerged as the dominant treatment with the highest quality-adjusted life-years gained and lowest lifetime costs. Ziprasidone, aripiprazole and paliperidone incurred higher lifetime costs compared with no treatment. Probability and cost of relapse were key drivers of cost-effectiveness in sensitivity analyses. The data can help prescribers in choosing appropriate treatment and payers in allocating resources for the clinical management of this serious psychiatric disorder.

Pharmacoeconomics of long-acting atypical antipsychotics for acutely relapsed chronic schizophrenia in Finland

BACKGROUND

Atypical long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics are increasingly available for treating chronic schizophrenia in patients chronically non-adherent to prescribed regimens. Few economic studies have compared these products.

PURPOSE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole (ARI-LAI), paliperidone (PP-LAI), olanzapine (OLZ-LAI), and risperidone (RIS-LAI) in patients with chronic schizophrenia in Finland.

METHODS

A 1-year decision tree model was adapted with guidance from an expert panel. Patients started hospitalized in relapse; those who responded continued treatment, others were switched to secondary drugs, then clozapine in the event of 2nd line failure. Rates of adherence, stable disease, relapse, and hospitalization were taken from pivotal trials, and utilities from published research. Included were direct costs paid by the Finnish Ministry of Health, in 2015 euros. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), hospitalization rates, and rates of relapse not requiring hospitalization. Model robustness was assessed using a series of 1-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Expected costs were lowest for PP-LAI at 41,148€, followed by 41,543€ for ARI-LAI, 42,067€ for RIS-LAI and 45,406€ for OLZ-LAI. Respective QALYs were 0.683, 0.671, 0.666, and 0.672. Re-hospitalization rates and non-admitted relapses were 23.6% and 3.9% for PP-LAI, 28.5% and 4.1% for ARI-LAI, 28.8% and 5.0% for RIS-LAI, 28.3% and 5.2% for OLZ-LAI. PP-LAI treatment was associated with the most days with stable disease (132.0), followed by OLZ-LAI (125.5), ARI-LAI (122.6), and RIS-LAI (114.4). Sensitive inputs between PP-LAI and ARI-LAI included rates of adherence, dropouts, and relapses plus drug prices; dropout and relapse rates for RIS-LAI; OLZ-LAI results were insensitive. In probability sensitivity analyses, PP-LAI dominated ARI-LAI in 75.8% of the 10,000 iterations, RIS-LAI in 83.1% and OLZ-LAI in 95.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

PP-LAI dominated the other atypicals. It appears to be the preferred option for treating chronic relapsing schizophrenia.