The current study uses utility analysis to assess economic and quality-of-life benefits of risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia. A retrospective analysis was performed on Positive and Negative Syndrome Symptoms (PANSS) data obtained from the published Canadian multicenter risperidone trial (part of the North American trial). Cluster analysis applied to endpoint PANSS scores, including all patients (N = 135), identified three clusters representing 130 patients with mild, moderate, and severe symptomatology. A narrative health state profile was written for each cluster, and 100 psychiatric nurses from Washington, DC, were asked to assign preference ratings to each one using linear analog and standard gamble (SG) methods. Mean utility values (confidence interval 95%) obtained from the SG ratings for the three health state profiles were 0.61 +/- 0.069 (mild); 0.36 +/- 0.073 (moderate); and 0.29 +/- 0.071 (severe). The mild health state (including the majority of risperidone 6 mg-treated patients) was rated by nurses to have a 0.25 +/- 0.0501 greater utility than the moderate health state (composed of the majority of haloperidol-treated patients). The results of these utility evaluations (SG) by the nurses were related to the clinical outcome for three of the six drug treatment groups (N = 65) by multiplying the percentage of patients in each of the three clusters, both at baseline and end-point, who were receiving risperidone 6 mg/day, haloperidol, or placebo, by the utility value for the health state assigned to that cluster. The gain in utility for risperidone-treated patients was 2.6 times higher (0.125) compared with haloperidol-treated patients (0.049), and 7 times higher compared with placebo (-0.021). After multiplying the gain in utility of each treatment by the remaining expected life span for men and women, it was found that risperidone-treated patients obtained more than twice as many quality-adjusted years as haloperidol patients. The incremental drug treatment cost divided by the incremental benefit of risperidone versus haloperidol was found to yield a favorable, generally accepted cost-utility ratio.
[Fewer side effects and lower mortality from modern antipsychotic drugs. But they are more expensive than older antipsychotics, based on a study from Västra Götaland].
To determine how the use of the newer, so called atypical antipsychotic medications, effects the pharmacoeconomic treatment burden of schizophrenia and related conditions and to provide a clear comparison of the costs and risks associated with these atypical drugs.
In this 2-year, open-label, prospective study, resource utilization (RU) data were collected on 160 patients with these conditions. A comparison between risks and costs was performed by combining the generalized CNOMSS data on both economic factors and risk assessments.
The main findings of the study were that the total adjusted 1- and 2-year costs were lowest for quetiapine. Drug acquisition costs were lowest for risperidone for both the 1- and 2-year cohorts. Clozapine use was predictably associated with the highest overall and medication costs at both 1 and 2 years.
Treatment with risperidone or quetiapine was associated with the lowest overall costs when compared with olanzapine or clozapine.
