Objective: Nonadherence is a major challenge in schizophrenia treatment. While long-acting (depot) antipsychotic medications are often recommended to address adherence problems, evidence on the comparative effectiveness of depot versus oral antipsychotics is inconsistent. We hypothesize that this inconsistency could be due to systematic differences in study design. This review evaluates the effect of study design on the comparative effectiveness of antipsychotic formulations. The optimal use of different antipsychotic formulations in a general clinical setting depends on better understanding of the underlying reasons for differences in effectiveness across research designs.Data Sources: A PubMed literature review targeted English-language studies (2000-2011) with information on relapse, hospitalization, or allcause discontinuation for depot and oral antipsychotic treatment arms in schizophrenia. The time frame was chosen to reflect research focused on the newer generation of antipsychotic agents. The search required at least 1 term from each of the following categories: (1) schizophrenia; (2) inject, injection, injectable, injectables, injected, depot, long-acting; and (3) iloperidone, fluphenazine, haloperidol, paliperidone, risperidone, olanzapine, asenapine, flupentixol, flupenthixol, lurasidone, clopenthixol, fluspirilene, zuclopentixol, zuclopenthixol. Study Selection: Thirteen relevant studies were identified by 2 independent reviewers; these studies included information on 19 depot-oral comparisons.Data Extraction: Age-and gender-adjusted risk ratios (RRs) (depot/ oral) were calculated for the identified endpoints and pooled by study design (randomized controlled trial [RCT], prospective observational, and retrospective observational). Meta-analysis with random effects was used to estimate the pooled RRs, by study design. Average conversion factors between study designs were calculated as the ratios of pooled RRs.Results: Meta-analysis of adjusted endpoints showed no apparent benefit of depot over oral formulations in RCTs, with an RR of 0.89 (P = .416). In contrast, there was a significant advantage for depot formulations in other study designs (prospective RR = 0.62 [P < .001]; retrospective RR = 0.56 [P < .001]). These imply conversion factors of 1.43 and 1.59 between RCTs and prospective and retrospective designs, respectively. Conclusions:The comparative effectiveness of antipsychotic formulations is sensitive to research design. Depot formulations displayed significant advantages in nonrandomized observational studies, whereas in RCTs no difference was observed. The estimated conversion factors may facilitate comparison across studies.

Increasing DMT adherence was found to significantly decrease urgent-care HRU, days of work loss, and direct and indirect costs among patients with MS.

Prophylaxis with rFVIIIFc may be associated with improved bleeding rates and lower weekly factor consumption than more frequently injected rFVIII products. Relative to rFVIII products with similar bleeding rates, results indicate that rFVIIIFc is associated with reduced weekly factor consumption while requiring fewer prescribed injections.

Comparisons of clinical study results suggest weekly injections with rFIXFc result in similar bleeding rates and significantly lower weekly factor consumption compared with more-frequently-injected conventional rFIX products. The real-world effectiveness of rFIXFc may be higher based on results from a model of the impact of simulated differences in adherence.

Malignant melanoma patients frequently relapse with metastases in the brain, making it the third most common cancer-causing brain metastases in the USA. Management of brain metastases remains challenging because of the rapid progression of disease and ineffectiveness of conventional therapies. This retrospective study, with a 'pre/post' design, quantifies the economic burden of brain metastases among melanoma patients in the USA. A large managed-care insurance claims database (2000 Q1-2011 Q3) was used to identify patients with melanoma and brain metastases. The preperiod was defined as the 6 months before the index date (diagnosis of first observed brain metastases) and postperiod as the period following the index date up to 12 months. All-cause and brain metastasis-related healthcare resource utilization and healthcare costs were compared on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis between preperiods and postperiods. The study included 6076 patients (mean age 63.4 years); 57.6% were men. Significant differences (P<0.0001) were observed between the postperiods and preperiods in the mean all-cause and brain metastasis-related PPPM hospitalizations and emergency department and outpatient visits. Significant postperiod versus preperiod differences were also observed in the PPPM mean (standard error) all-cause healthcare costs [total: $14 489 ($231) vs. $7277 ($116); inpatient: $6330 ($195) vs. $1900 ($69); outpatient: $6609 ($102) vs. $4449 ($79); P<0.0001 for all] and brain metastasis-related costs [total: $6542 ($145) vs. $1933 ($62); inpatient: $2976 ($118) vs. $472 ($39); outpatient: $3451 ($76) vs. $1413 ($47); P<0.0001 for all]. Radiotherapy was the most common treatment. The economic burden associated with brain metastases in melanoma is significant and underscores the need for newer therapies to improve outcomes in these patients.