Economics of the Treatment of Schizophrenia

Essock, Susan M.; Frisman, Linda K.; Covell, Nancy H.

doi:10.1002/9780470987353.ch36

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a first step, two Cochrane systematic reviews have clearly shown the superiority but limited acceptability of older anti-psychotic drugs such as chlorpromazine or haloperidol over placebo (Thornley et al, 2001;Joy et al, 2001), while the arrival of so-called atypical antipsychotics has made available to patients and clinicians a set of pharmacological treatment options that are no less efficacious and somewhat more tolerable. There is also now an accumulation of evidence that clearly demonstrates cost-effectiveness in randomised trials (e.g, see Essock et al, 2000;Hamilton et al, 1999;Rosenheck et al, 1999). The economic evidence for psychosocial interventions is less prevalent -mainly because few studies have yet been completed -but there are positive findings that point to the cost-effectiveness of family interventions to reduce the impact of family stress and conflict often seen in households with high expres-sed emotion (Xiong et al, 1994) and of a short psychoeducational programme to improve patient adherence with medication recommendations (Healey et al, 1998).…”

Section: The Effectiveness and Cost-effective-ness Of Schizophrenia Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

The economics of schizophrenia care in Europe: the Epsilon study

Chisholm

Knapp

2002

Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Effectiveness and Cost-effective-ness Of Schizophrenia Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

The economics of schizophrenia care in Europe: the Epsilon study

Chisholm

Knapp

2002

Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, patients who had taken lurasidone for 6 months had a significant reduction in the number of all-cause and mental health-related hospitalisations when compared with the 6 months prior to starting treatment with lurasidone [ 61 ]. It is difficult to determine the extent to which the results of our study are generalisable to other jurisdictions given the high degree of heterogeneity in the costs of schizophrenia management [ 62 ]. Notwithstanding these limitations, we are reasonably confident that the findings may be largely generalisable to other settings, given that relapse and hospitalisations are the driver of the economic model and that absence of relapse and hospitalisations are considered to be a measure of long-term effect in these chronically ill patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Utility Analysis of Lurasidone Versus Aripiprazole in Adults with Schizophrenia

Rajagopalan

Trueman²,

Crowe³

et al. 2016

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn 2014, lurasidone, an atypical antipsychotic, was approved for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. It is an alternative treatment option to aripiprazole, and when compared with aripiprazole, lurasidone was associated with improved symptom reduction and reduced risk of weight gain and relapse. We conducted a cost-utility analysis of lurasidone versus aripiprazole from the perspective of healthcare services, using Scotland and Wales as specific case studies.MethodsA 10-year Markov model, incorporating a 6-week acute phase and a maintenance phase across three health states (discontinuation, relapse, death) was constructed. Six-week probabilities of discontinuation and adverse events were based on a published independent mixed-treatment comparison; long-term risks of relapse and discontinuation were from an indirect comparison. Costs included drug therapy, relapse, and outpatient, primary and residential care. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5 %. Utility estimates were taken from published literature, and cost effectiveness was expressed as total 10-year incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).ResultsLurasidone yielded a cost saving of £3383 and an improvement of 0.005 QALYs versus aripiprazole, in Scotland. Deterministic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that results were sensitive to relapse rates, while probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that lurasidone had the highest expected net benefit at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20,000–30,000 per QALY. The probability that lurasidone was a cost-effective treatment strategy was approximately 75 % at all willingness-to-pay thresholds, with similar results being obtained for the Welsh analysis.ConclusionsOur analysis suggests that lurasidone would provide an effective, cost-saving alternative for the healthcare service in the treatment of adult patients with schizophrenia.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0405-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Economics of the Treatment of Schizophrenia

Cited by 2 publications

References 56 publications

The economics of schizophrenia care in Europe: the Epsilon study

The economics of schizophrenia care in Europe: the Epsilon study

Cost-Utility Analysis of Lurasidone Versus Aripiprazole in Adults with Schizophrenia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About