Article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of switching antipsychotic medication to long-acting injectable risperidone in patients with schizophrenia : a 12- and 24-month follow-up from the e-STAR database in Spain.

Department of Psychiatry, Hospital Meixoeiro, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain.
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 02/2008; 6(1):41-53. DOI: 10.2165/00148365-200806010-00004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The availability of long-acting injectable risperidone may increase adherence to antipsychotic treatment and lead to improved clinical and economic outcomes for patients with schizophrenia.
To investigate the cost effectiveness of treatment with long-acting injectable risperidone compared with previous antipsychotic regimens in patients with schizophrenia enrolled in the electronic Schizophrenia Treatment Adherence Registry (e-STAR) in Spain.
e-STAR is an international, long-term, ongoing, observational study of schizophrenia patients who, during their routine course of clinical practice, are started on a new antipsychotic treatment. In e-STAR, data are collected at baseline, retrospectively over a minimum period of 12 months and up to a maximum of 24 months, and prospectively at 3-month intervals for 24 months after the start of a new antipsychotic drug. For the purpose of this study, patients who started treatment with long-acting injectable risperidone during their routine clinical management and were enrolled in the e-STAR study in Spain were eligible. The effectiveness of long-acting injectable risperidone compared with previous antipsychotic treatment, defined as the absence of hospitalizations or relapses, was assessed at 12 and 24 months of treatment. Acquisition costs of antipsychotic drug therapy were based on the official registered price. Drug prices from source were in euro, year 2005 values; hospital costs from source were in euro, year 2001 values, and were inflated to reflect 2005 costs. Complete follow-up data were available for 788 patients at 12 months after starting long-acting injectable risperidone and for 757 patients at 24 months.
In terms of effectiveness, at 12 months after switching to long-acting injectable risperidone, there was a higher percentage of patients who did not require hospitalization (89.1%), did not relapse (85.4%) or neither required hospitalization nor relapsed (82.4%) as compared retrospectively with the same period for the previous treatment (67%, 47.8% and 59.8%, respectively). The corresponding figures at 24 months also favoured treatment with long-acting injectable risperidone (85.2% vs 60%, 88.5% vs 47.4% and 77% vs 53.6%, respectively). Treatment with long-acting injectable risperidone was associated with higher medication costs per month compared with previous antipsychotic medication after 12 (euro 405.80 vs euro 128.16) and 24 months (euro 407.33 vs euro 142.77) of follow-up. Cost effectiveness per month per patient was lower for risperidone than previous antipsychotic medication in the three patient scenarios: without hospitalization (euro 539.82 vs euro 982.13), without relapse (euro 519.67 vs euro 1242.03) and without hospitalization and without relapse (euro 597.22 vs euro 1059.39).
Treatment with long-acting injectable risperidone compared with previous antipsychotic medications resulted in a higher number of patients not requiring hospitalization, not relapsing, and not requiring hospitalization and not showing relapse, resulting in risperidone being more cost effective per month per patient.It is important to note that real-world variations in adherence would automatically be controlled from within a randomized control trial, and hence, any evaluation of variations in adherence inevitably requires a real-world focus. On the basis of these findings, which were obtained in real-world clinical practice, long-acting injectable risperidone is predicted to be the dominant strategy because it results in effective symptom control and direct medical cost savings. However, because of limitations in methodology, any conclusions should, at this stage, be treated as tentative, and confirmation in more detailed follow-up studies is required. Cost-effectiveness comparisons based on experimental evaluations of relapse minimization strategies are also required. In order to avoid estimation biases in the future, a prospectively designed study is needed.

3 Followers
 · 
105 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Comparative data on rehospitalization patterns and associated institutional costs after inpatient treatment with paliperidone palmitate or oral antipsychotic therapy are reported. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using discharge and billing records from a large hospital database. Selected clinical and cost outcomes were compared in a cohort of adult patients who received the long-acting antipsychotic paliperidone palmitate during a schizophrenia-related index hospital stay and a cohort of patients who received oral antipsychotic therapy during their index admission. Inverse probability-of-treatment weights based on propensity scores were used to reduce confounding. Rates of all-cause and schizophrenia-related rehospitalization and emergency room (ER) use in the two cohorts over periods of up to 12 months were analyzed using a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. Institutional costs for the evaluated postdischarge events were compared via multivariate linear regression analysis. In the first 12 months after index hospital discharge, the risk of all-cause rehospitalization and ER use was significantly lower in the paliperidone palmitate cohort than in the oral antipsychotic cohort (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.63; p < 0.0001); institutional costs during the first 6 months after discharge were significantly lower in the paliperidone palmitate cohort than in the comparator group (adjusted mean monthly cost difference -$404; 95% CI, -$781 to -$148; p < 0.0001). The use of paliperidone palmitate therapy during patients' index hospital admission for schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of hospital readmission or ER use and lower postdischarge institutional costs. Copyright © 2015 by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Brain disorders represent a high burden in Europe and worldwide. The objective of this study was to provide specific estimates of the economic costs of brain disorders in Spain, based on published epidemiological and economic evidence. Methods: A cost-of-illness study with a societal perspective of 19 brain disorders was carried out. Cost data published between 2004 and 2012 was obtained from a systematic literature review. Direct healthcare, direct non-medical and indirect costs were considered, prioritizing bottom-up information. All costs were converted to Euro and to year 2010. The missing values were imputed with European estimates. Sensitivity analyses based on qualitative assessment of the literature and on a Monte Carlo simulation were performed. Results: The review identified 33 articles with information on costs for 11 disorders (8 neurological, 3 mental). The average per-patient cost ranged from 36,946 (sic) for multiple sclerosis to 402 (sic) for headache. The societal cost of the 19 brain disorders in Spain in 2010 was estimated in 84 (sic) billion. Societal costs ranged from 15 (sic) billion for dementia to 65 (sic) million for eating disorders. Mental disorders societal cost were 46 (sic)billions (55% of the total), while neurological disorder added up to 38 (sic) billion. Healthcare costs represented 37% of the societal costs of brain disorders, whereas direct non-medical constituted 29% and indirect costs 33%. Conclusion: Brain disorders have a substantial economic impact in Spain (equivalent to almost 8% of the country's GDP). Economic data on several important brain disorders, specially mental disorders, is still sparse.
    PLoS ONE 08/2014; 9(8):e105471. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0105471 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess outcomes over 24 months in Canadian patients with schizophrenia initiated on risperidone long-acting injection (RLAI) and participating in the electronic Schizophrenia Treatment Adherence Registry (e-STAR). Patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were enrolled from 24 sites after an independent decision to initiate RLAI. Subsequent patient management was based on usual clinical practice at each site and was not protocol-driven. Relevant data were collected retrospectively by chart review for 12 months prior to RLAI and prospectively for 24 months following RLAI initiation. Patients (n=188) had a mean age of 39.2 years, were 66.3% male, and 27.7% were inpatients at baseline. Twenty-four months after initiating therapy (initial dose =28.7 mg), 34.1% (95% confidence interval 27.2%-42.2%) of patients had discontinued RLAI with a mean time to discontinuation of 273.4±196 days. Over the treatment period, there were significant (P<0.001) changes from baseline in Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S; 3.48 versus [vs] 4.31 at baseline), Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF; 56.1 vs 48.1), and Personal and Social Performance (PSP; 59.1 vs 46.9) scale scores. In addition, after 12 months, there were significant (P<0.001) decreases in the percentage of patients hospitalized (23.9% vs 58.5% pre-RLAI), mean length of stay (11.4 vs 30.4 days), and number of hospitalizations (0.32 vs 0.87) compared to the 12-month pre-RLAI period. Reductions in hospitalization continued into the second 12 months of therapy, when only 9% of patients were hospitalized and mean length of stay was 2.0 days. In a routine clinical practice setting, patients switched to RLAI showed significant improvements in clinical outcomes and in global and social functioning, and hospitalization was significantly reduced. The data confirm that RLAI provides effective long-term management of schizophrenia in Canada.
    Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 01/2014; 10:417-25. DOI:10.2147/NDT.S54740 · 2.15 Impact Factor