BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness (including hospitalizations and cardiometabolic consequences) of atypical antipsychotics among adults with schizophrenia.MethodsA 5-year Markov cohort cost-effectiveness model, from a US payer perspective, was developed to compare lurasidone, generic risperidone, generic olanzapine, generic ziprasidone, aripiprazole, and quetiapine extended-release. Health states included in the model were patients: on an initial atypical antipsychotic; switched to a second atypical antipsychotic; and on clozapine after failing a second atypical antipsychotic. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) assessed incremental cost/hospitalization avoided. Effectiveness inputs included discontinuations, hospitalizations, weight change, and cholesterol change from comparative clinical trials for lurasidone and for aripiprazole, and the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness for other comparators. Atypical antipsychotic-specific relative risk of diabetes obtained from a retrospective analysis was used to predict cardiometabolic events per Framingham body mass index risk equation. Mental health costs (relapsing versus nonrelapsing patients) and medical costs associated with cardiometabolic consequences (cardiovascular events and diabetes management) were obtained from published sources. Atypical antipsychotic costs were estimated from Red Book® prices at dose(s) reported in clinical data sources used in the model (weighted average dose of lurasidone and average dose for all other comparators). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%, and model robustness was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsZiprasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine extended-release, and aripiprazole were dominated by other comparators and removed from the comparative analysis. ICER for lurasidone versus risperidone was $25,884/relapse-related hospitalization avoided. At a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, lurasidone has an 86.5% probability of being cost-effective, followed by a 7.2% probability for olanzapine, and 6.3% for risperidone. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the model is sensitive to lurasidone and generic risperidone hospitalization rates.ConclusionGeneric risperidone is the least costly atypical antipsychotic. Lurasidone is more costly and more effective than risperidone and is cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of greater than $25,844 per hospitalization avoided. The favorable cost-effectiveness of lurasidone is driven by its clinical benefits (eg, efficacy in preventing hospitalizations in patients with schizophrenia) and its minimal cardiometabolic adverse effect profile.

Natalizumab was the most cost-effective therapy as measured by total cost per relapse avoided, not withstanding a higher drug acquisition cost versus other DMTs. Entry of natalizumab to the market is likely to result in a minimal increase in health-plan costs on a PMPM basis. Limitations of the study include the use of a surrogate measure, relapse avoided, as an outcome measure; also, adverse events were not included in the model.

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.

Natalizumab dominates fingolimod in terms of incremental cost per relapse avoided, as it is less costly and more effective.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, disabling, and costly disease with several treatment options available; however, there is variability in evidence-based clinical guidelines. Therefore, payers are at a disadvantage when making management decisions without the benefit of definitive guidance from treatment guidelines.OBJECTIVE: To outline approaches for the management of agents used to treat MS, as determined from a group of U.S. managed care pharmacists and physicians.METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used to develop consensus statements regarding MS management approaches. The panel was composed of experts in managed care and included 8 pharmacy directors and 6 medical directors presently or previously involved in formulary decision making from 12 health plans, 1 specialty pharmacy, and 1 consulting company. These decision makers, who have experience designing health care benefits that include MS treatments, provided anonymous feedback through 2 rounds of web-based surveys and participated in 1 live panel meeting held in December 2010. Consensus was defined as a mean response of at least 3.3 or 100% of responses either "agree" or "strongly agree" (i.e., no panelist answered "disagree" or "strongly disagree") on a 4-item Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree). RESULTS: After 3 phases, these managed care representatives reached consensus on 25 statements for management of patients with MS. Consistent with managed care principles, this group of managed care experts found that health plans should consider efficacy, effectiveness, and safety, as well as patient preference, when evaluating MS therapies for formulary placement. Cost and contracting should be considered if efficacy and safety are judged to be comparable between agents.CONCLUSION: The consensus statements developed by a panel of managed care representatives provide some insight into decision making in formulary and utilization management of MS therapies. • Consensus, defined as a mean score of at least 3.3 on a 4-point Likert scale or no panelist answering "disagree" or "strongly disagree" on the same 4-item Likert scale, was attained for 25 statements presented to a panel of managed care pharmacists and physicians over 2 anonymous web-based surveys followed by a live meeting.