S Almond1, O O'Donnell. 1. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent at Canterbury, England.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of 2 atypical drug therapies (olanzapine and risperidone) with one another and with a conventional antipsychotic (haloperidol) in the treatment of schizophrenia. DESIGN AND SETTING: The analysis is based on a simulation model with parameter values taken mainly from clinical trial data in patients with schizophrenia, and was conducted within a UK context. RESULTS: The 3 therapies are approximately cost neutral over a 5-year period (olanzapine 35,701 Pounds, risperidone 36,590 Pounds and haloperidol 36,653 Pounds). There is evidence of greater efficacy with the atypical drugs [average percentage of 5 years with Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores < 18: olanzapine 63.6%, risperidone 63.0% and haloperidol 52.2%]. The cost and efficacy differences between the 2 atypical drugs are too small to rank them in terms of cost effectiveness. Extensive sensitivity analysis does not change any of the main conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Given evidence of efficacy gains to the atypical drugs, these represent cost-effective treatment options. Prospective data from nontrial treatment settings would help substantiate the model findings.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of 2 atypical drug therapies (olanzapine and risperidone) with one another and with a conventional antipsychotic (haloperidol) in the treatment of schizophrenia. DESIGN AND SETTING: The analysis is based on a simulation model with parameter values taken mainly from clinical trial data in patients with schizophrenia, and was conducted within a UK context. RESULTS: The 3 therapies are approximately cost neutral over a 5-year period (olanzapine 35,701 Pounds, risperidone 36,590 Pounds and haloperidol 36,653 Pounds). There is evidence of greater efficacy with the atypical drugs [average percentage of 5 years with Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores < 18: olanzapine 63.6%, risperidone 63.0% and haloperidol 52.2%]. The cost and efficacy differences between the 2 atypical drugs are too small to rank them in terms of cost effectiveness. Extensive sensitivity analysis does not change any of the main conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Given evidence of efficacy gains to the atypical drugs, these represent cost-effective treatment options. Prospective data from nontrial treatment settings would help substantiate the model findings.
Authors: P V Tran; S H Hamilton; A J Kuntz; J H Potvin; S W Andersen; C Beasley; G D Tollefson Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 3.153
Authors: Valentinas Maciulis; Istvan Bitter; Raimundas Milasiunas; Algirdas Dembinskas; Liaudminas Radavicius; Algirdas Kaunas; Martin Dossenbach; Daniel Walker Journal: Curr Ther Res Clin Exp Date: 2004-01
Authors: William G Honer; Allen E Thornton; Megan Sherwood; G William MacEwan; Tom S Ehmann; Richard Williams; Lili C Kopala; Ric Procyshyn; Alasdair M Barr Journal: CNS Drugs Date: 2007 Impact factor: 5.749
Authors: Antonio J García-Ruiz; Lucía Pérez-Costillas; Ana C Montesinos; Javier Alcalde; Itziar Oyagüez; Miguel A Casado Journal: Health Econ Rev Date: 2012-04-10