Obradovic M, Mrhar A, Kos M
Chair of Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Int J Clin Pract. 2007 Dec;61(12):1979-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01431.x.
The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments for outpatients with chronic schizophrenia from the healthcare payer's perspective.
Decision analysis was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the following antipsychotic drugs: amisulpride, aripiprazole, haloperidol (oral formulation), haloperidol (depot formulation), olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone (oral formulation), risperidone (depot formulation) and ziprazidone. Clinical and economic outcomes were modelled over 1-year time horizon. Effectiveness was measured as a percentage of patients in remission. Clinical parameters used in the model included compliance rates, rehospitalisation rates for compliant and non-compliant patients, duration and frequency of hospitalisation, and adverse event rates. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the model.
The most effective treatment was treatment with olanzapine where 64.1% of patients remained in remission. The least effective treatment was treatment with quetiapine where 32.7% of patients remained in remission. Overall costs ranged from 3,726.78 Euro for haloperidol to 8,157.03 Euro for risperidone in depot formulation. Inpatient costs represented the major part of costs for most of antipsychotic drugs. Typical antipsychotic drugs had substantially smaller outpatient costs (6.5%) compared with atypical antipsychotics (37.9%). In the base case scenario the non-dominated treatment strategies were haloperidol, haloperidol decanoate and olanzapine. Additionally, risperidone can also be considered to be part of the efficient frontier based on the sensitivity analysis results.
Among second-generation antipsychotics, which have a better safety profile than first-generation antipsychotics, olanzapine and risperidone showed to be the most cost-effective treatment strategies for outpatient treatment of chronic schizophrenia.
本分析旨在从医疗保健支付方的角度评估慢性精神分裂症门诊患者替代治疗的成本效益。
采用决策分析来评估以下抗精神病药物的成本效益:氨磺必利、阿立哌唑、氟哌啶醇(口服制剂)、氟哌啶醇(长效制剂)、奥氮平、喹硫平、利培酮(口服制剂)、利培酮(长效制剂)和齐拉西酮。临床和经济结果在1年的时间范围内进行建模。有效性以缓解患者的百分比来衡量。模型中使用的临床参数包括依从率、依从和不依从患者的再住院率、住院时间和频率以及不良事件发生率。进行单向敏感性分析以检验模型的稳健性。
最有效的治疗方法是使用奥氮平治疗,64.1%的患者保持缓解。最无效的治疗方法是使用喹硫平治疗,32.7%的患者保持缓解。总成本从氟哌啶醇的3726.78欧元到长效制剂利培酮的8157.03欧元不等。住院成本占大多数抗精神病药物成本的主要部分。与非典型抗精神病药物(37.9%)相比,典型抗精神病药物的门诊成本要小得多(6.5%)。在基础病例情景中,非劣势治疗策略是氟哌啶醇、癸酸氟哌啶醇和奥氮平。此外,根据敏感性分析结果,利培酮也可被视为有效前沿的一部分。
在安全性比第一代抗精神病药物更好的第二代抗精神病药物中,奥氮平和利培酮被证明是慢性精神分裂症门诊治疗最具成本效益的治疗策略。