Economic evaluations are increasingly being used by policy makers to evaluate the relative costs and benefits of healthcare interventions. These analyses provide economic and clinical evidence to decision makers seeking to make recommendations on treatment alternatives for patients. This article describes the economic evidence on the atypical antipsychotics currently approved for the treatment of bipolar disorder. This area remains under-researched. A literature search identified only six relevant studies of atypical antipsychotics in bipolar disorder: two retrospective database analyses, three economic analyses alongside clinical trials and one cost-effectiveness analysis. Based on the limited available studies, there appears to be no significant difference in healthcare resource use between olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and valproate semisodium (divalproex sodium; an antiepileptic drug and a standard treatment for mania associated with bipolar disorder). While a cost-effectiveness study for the UK found haloperidol (a conventional antipsychotic) to be more cost effective than atypical antipsychotics, these results must be considered with caution because of the non-inclusion of adverse effects in the model. No economic data are available for aripiprazole, clozapine or ziprasidone in bipolar disorder. Until more economic evidence becomes available, the economic implications of atypical antipsychotic treatment in patients with bipolar disorder are unlikely to significantly impact on prescribing and treatment patterns. Future economic studies evaluating atypical antipsychotics in bipolar disorder should address the issue of long-term costs and effectiveness to reflect the chronic nature of the disease, the variety of health states that patients may experience and the range of treatments they may receive. A better understanding of the complex interplay between effectiveness, safety, quality of life, adherence and resource use should ultimately contribute to improving the treatment of bipolar disorder.
"Recently, growing bodies of evidences have established that atypical antipsychotics (AAs) such as risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, and ziprasidone are efficacious in the treatment of mania. These AAs appear to have mood-stabilizing properties in bipolar disorder (BD) patients regardless of the presence of psychotic symptoms (Fleurence et al., 2006; Sachs et al., 2002; Yatham, 2005). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, efficacy, and compliance of a risperidone long-acting injection (RLAI) formulation for the maintenance treatment of stabilized bipolar patients. A prospective, open-label trial of RLAI was conducted for 12 months. Stable bipolar patients (n=11) were switched from their existing oral antipsychotic agents to RLAI, and injections were given every 2 weeks. The assessments were performed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months of treatment by using the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) scale, 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), and Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS). The satisfaction levels of subjects were evaluated at the end of the study period using a 10-point visual analog scale. Ten patients (90.9%) completed the trial, and no significant changes were seen in the YMRS, HAM-D, and BPRS scores throughout the study. CGI-S and ESRS scores were significantly decreased from the baseline to the post-12-month treatment score. Relapses were not reported by any of the participants. This result indicates that RLAI may be beneficial in the maintenance therapy of stable bipolar patients; however, an adequately powered, randomized, placebo-controlled trial is necessary to draw a definite conclusion about the role of RLAI in the maintenance treatment of bipolar patients.
Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry 09/2007; 31(6):1219-23. DOI:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2007.04.017 · 3.69 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Ziprasidone, a benzisothiazolyl piperazine-type atypical antipsychotic agent, has a unique receptor-binding profile. A potent antagonist of serotonin 5-HT(2A) and dopamine D(2) receptors, ziprasidone has an affinity for 5-HT(2A) receptors >10-fold higher than its affinity for D(2) receptors. Ziprasidone has been shown to be effective in the treatment of bipolar disorder in patients experiencing manic or mixed episodes. It was significantly more effective than placebo in improving manic symptoms as early as day 2 of treatment in two 3-week placebo-controlled trials as monotherapy. In a 12-week, placebo-controlled trial of patients with acute mania, ziprasidone as monotherapy showed comparable efficacy with, and fewer movement-related adverse events than, haloperidol. It has demonstrated efficacy in two 1-year open-label extension trials, both as monotherapy and in combination with lithium. Ziprasidone has a generally favourable adverse effect profile. In short-term placebo-controlled trials, there were similar discontinuation rates in active treatment and placebo recipients. While twice as many patients treated with ziprasidone compared with placebo discontinued therapy because of adverse events, the number of events was small and adverse effects were generally mild or moderate. The favourable tolerability of ziprasidone has been confirmed in long-term extension studies and its use was not associated with weight gain or dyslipidaemia. Ziprasidone-related movement disorders occurred infrequently.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective: Bipolar disorder is a serious condition that is costly to the health care system. Atypical antipsychotics are more expensive than conventional treatments. From a policy-making perspective, the additional cost must be justified by improved outcomes. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review to determine the relative costs and cost-effectiveness associated with atypical antipsychotics in bipolar disorder.Data Sources: We conducted a systematic review of the literature in PubMed and EMBASE from January 1985 through October 2005, including published studies and conference proceedings. Databases were searched using predefined terms.Study Selection: Studies were included if they were claims data analyses, trial-based economic evaluations, or cost-effectiveness analyses using models. Data were extracted using predefined tables.Data Synthesis: Fourteen studies were identified. Seven were medical claims database analyses, 4 were trial-based economic evaluations, and 3 were cost-effectiveness models. Eight of these studies were conference proceedings. The studies did not provide sufficient information to determine any ranking of interventions in terms of least to most costly in overall resource consumption or in terms of their relative cost-effectiveness. Where comparable, results tended to be inconsistent.Conclusion: There is a scarcity of economic studies in this field. A reference case outlining how to address the complex interplay between effectiveness, safety, adherence, and quality of life and their impact on resource use and costs is needed to contribute to improving the treatment of patients with bipolar disorder while making the best use of scarce health resources.
The Primary Care Companion to The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 02/2007; 9(6):419-28.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.