Cost-Effectiveness of Midazolam Versus Haloperidol Versus Olanzapine for the Management of Acute Agitation in the Accident and Emergency Department

ObjectivesA multicenter randomized clinical trial in Hong Kong Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments concluded that intramuscular (IM) olanzapine is noninferior to haloperidol and midazolam, in terms of efficacy and safety, for the management of acutely agitated patients in A&E setting. Determining their comparative cost-effectiveness will further provide an economic perspective to inform the choice of sedative in this setting.MethodsThis analysis used data from a randomized clinical trial conducted in Hong Kong A&E departments between December 2014 and September 2019. A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the 3 sedatives was conducted, from the A&E perspective and a within-trial time horizon, using a decision-analytic model. Sensitivity analyses were also undertaken.ResultsIn the base-case analysis, median total management costs associated with IM midazolam, haloperidol, and olanzapine were Hong Kong dollar (HKD) 1958.9 (US dollar [USD] 251.1), HKD 2504.5 (USD 321.1), and HKD 2467.6 (USD 316.4), respectively. Agitation management labor cost was the main cost driver, whereas drug costs contributed the least. Midazolam dominated over haloperidol and olanzapine. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported that midazolam remains dominant > 95% of the time and revealed no clear difference in the cost-effectiveness of IM olanzapine versus haloperidol (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 667.16; 95% confidence interval ?770.89, 685.90).ConclusionsIM midazolam is the dominant cost-effective treatment for the management of acute agitation in the A&E setting. IM olanzapine could be considered as an alternative to IM haloperidol given that there is no clear difference in cost-effectiveness, and their adverse effect profile should be considered when choosing between them.     

Estimating transitions between symptom severity states over time in schizophrenia: a Bayesian meta-analytic approach

We obtain the posterior predictive distribution of transition probabilities between symptom severity states over time for patients with schizophrenia by (i) employing a Bayesian meta-analysis of published clinical trials and observational studies to estimate the posterior distribution of parameters that guide changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores over time and under the influence of various drugs and (ii) by propagating the variability from the posterior distributions of the parameters through a micro-simulation model that is formulated based on schizophrenia progression. Results show detailed differences among haloperidol, risperidone and olanzapine in controlling various levels of severities of positive, negative and joint symptoms over time. For example, risperidone seems best in controlling severe positive symptoms while olanzapine is the worst in that during the first quarter of drug treatment; however, olanzapine seems to be best in controlling severe negative symptoms across all four quarters of treatment while haloperidol is the worst in this regard. These details may further serve to better estimate quality of life of patients and aid in resource utilization decisions in treating schizophrenic patients. In addition, consistent estimation of uncertainty in the time-profile parameters also has important implications for the practice of cost-effectiveness analysis and for future resource allocation policies in schizophrenia treatment.     

Cost effectiveness of long-acting risperidone in Sweden

Background

In Sweden, risperidone long-acting injectable (RLAI) is generally used in a population of schizophrenia patients who are at a high risk of being non-compliant. However, RLAI might also be suitable for use in the general schizophrenia population.

Objectives

To analyse the clinical and economic effects of RLAI in the Swedish treatment practice using a discrete-event simulation (DES) model. Treatment outcomes and direct costs were analysed for both the high-risk non-compliant patient population and the general schizophrenia population.

Methods

An existing DES model was adapted to simulate the treatment of schizophrenia in Sweden. Model inputs were based on literature research and supplemented with expert opinion. In the high-risk non-compliant schizophrenia population, RLAI was compared with haloperidol LAI. The analysis was built upon differences in symptom reduction, time between relapses, compliance and adverse effect profile between the two drugs. Main outcomes were the predicted incremental (discounted) costs (€) and effects (QALYs). In the general schizophrenia population, RLAI was compared with oral olanzapine. This analysis was built upon differences in compliance and adverse effects between the drugs. Multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were carried out to assess the sensitivity of the results of the two analyses.

Results

In the high-risk non-compliant patient population, RLAI was predicted to generate 0.103 QALYs per patient over 3 years while realizing cost savings of €5013 (year 2007 values) compared with haloperidol LAI. The main driver of the cost effectiveness of RLAI was the difference in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) reduction between the two drugs, followed by the difference in adverse effects. The PSA showed that, in this setting, RLAI had a probability of 100% of being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €43 300 per QALY gained, compared with haloperidol LAI. The probability that RLAI combines additional effectiveness with cost savings compared with haloperidol LAI was estimated at 94%. When analysing RLAI in the general schizophrenia population, it was predicted to generate 0.043 QALYs and save €239 per patient over 5 years compared with olanzapine. Compliance was the main driver of the cost effectiveness of RLAI in this scenario. In the PSA it was shown that RLAI had a probability of 78% of being cost effective at a WTP threshold of €43 300 per QALY gained, compared with olanzapine. The estimated probability that RLAI combines additional effectiveness with cost savings was 50% and the probability that RLAI is less effective and more costly than olanzapine was negligible (0.2%).

Conclusions

Treatment with RLAI is suggested to result in improved QALYs combined with cost savings compared with haloperidol LAI among the Swedish, high-risk non-compliant schizophrenia patient population. In the general schizophrenia population, RLAI also resulted in positive incremental QALYs and cost savings, when compared with olanzapine. However, the estimates used in the model for compliance and symptom reduction need further validation through naturalistic-based studies with reasonable follow-up to more definitely establish the real-life differences between RLAI and the comparators in the considered patient populations and to further reduce the uncertainty of these parameters.     

A 1-Year Cost-Effectiveness Model for the Treatment of Chronic Schizophrenia with Acute Exacerbations in Belgium

OBJECTIVE: A 1-year semi-Markov model was constructed to simulate the cost-effectiveness of atypical and typical antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia. METHODS: The core model comprised nine 6-week cycles and includes events such as survival, response, adverse events, and compliance. The nature, duration, intensity, and timing of adverse events were incorporated. Compliance was modeled as a function of health state, time, and adverse events. Three first-line treatments were considered (risperidone, olanzapine, and haloperidol oral) and the transition probabilities of switching between five different therapies (haloperidol oral, haloperidol depot, risperidone, olanzapine and clozapine) were included. Effectiveness was modeled based on a modified method of TWiST (time without symptoms and toxicity). The direct costs of utilization of medical resources are taken into account, including five different patient care settings, consultations, neuroleptic medication, laboratory tests, and treatment of side-effects. RESULTS: This paper reports the methodology used to construct the model and the results obtained when it was applied to the treatment of patients with schizophrenia in the Belgian health care system. CONCLUSIONS: Over the study period, risperidone and olanzapine were more cost-effective than haloperidol and of the two major atypical drugs, risperidone was the more cost-effective.     

Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders: Quality of life and clinical outcomes of a randomized clinical trial

Background: Little information is available on the impact of the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine on quality of life (QOL). A 6-week, double-blind randomized multicenter trial, with a long-term extension, was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy and QOL of olanzapine and haloperidol in treating schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Methods: A total of 828 outpatients provided QOL data. Study patients were aged greater than 18 years with a DSM-III-R diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder and baseline BPRS (items scored on 0–6 scale) total scores, 18 were randomized to 6 weeks of treatment with olanzapine 5 to 20mg/day or haloperidol 5 to 20mg/day. Patients entered a 46-week double-blind extension if they demonstrated minimal clinical response and were tolerant to study medication. The Quality of Life Scale (QLS) and SF-36 Health Survey were used to evaluate QOL. Results: During the 6-week acute phase, olanzapine treatment significantly improved BPRS total (p = 0.004), PANSS total scores (p = 0.043), QLS total (p = 0.005), intrapsychic foundations (p < 0.001) and interpersonal relations scores (p = 0.036), and SF-36 mental component summary scores (p < 0.001) compared with haloperidol. During the extension phase, olanzapine treatment significantly improved PANSS negative scores (p = 0.035) and improved QLS total (p = 0.001), intrapsychic foundations (p < 0.001), and instrumental role category scores (p = 0.015) versus haloperidol treatment. Significantly more haloperidol patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events during the acute and extension phases (p = 0.041 and p = 0.014, respectively). Changes in QLS total and MCS scores were associated with changes in clinical symptoms, depression scores and extrapyramidal symptoms. Conclusions: Olanzapine was more effective than haloperidol in reducing severity of psychopathology and in improving QOL in patients with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. The QOL benefits of olanzapine, although modest, may be important for long-term treatment.     

奥氮平与氟哌啶醇对难治性精神分裂症病人生活质量影响的对照研究

目的对难治性精神分裂患者采用奥氮平与氟哌啶醇进行治疗,并对患者的生活质量进行研究。方法选取该院2012年1—11月收治的64例精神分裂病症患者,随机将其分成治疗组与对照组两组,每组32例。其中治疗组患者使用奥氮平进行治疗,对照组使用氟哌啶醇进行治疗,并对两组患者的治疗效果进行观察。结果治疗组32例患者中4例痊愈,8例有效,9例进步,11例无效,有效率65.6%;对照组32例患者中2例痊愈,5例有效,6例进步,19例无效,有效率40.6%。可以看出两组患者的治疗效果,比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。同时对两组患者治疗前后的PANSS评分进行比较,可以看出对照组患者治疗后,其PANSS评分没有明显变化(P>0.05);而治疗组患者治疗后,其PANSS总分、阴性量表分、一般病理分与治疗前有着显著差异(P<0.01),而阳性量表分没有明显差异(P>0.05)。结论对精神分裂病症患者使用奥氮平进行治疗,不仅可以取得较好疗效,同时患者出现不良反应的机率小,有利于患者的病症恢复。     

Frequency of sexual dysfunction and other reproductive side-effects in patients with schizophrenia treated with risperidone,olanzapine, quetiapine,or haloperidol: the results of the EIRE study

Atypical antipsychotics seem to differ mainly in their tolerability profile. The aim of this cross-sectional study, the Estudio de Investigaci n de Resultados en Esquizofrenia (Outcomes Research Study in Schizophrenia; EIRE study), was to assess in a clinical setting the frequency of several side-effects related to haloperidol, risperidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine. This article addresses sexual dysfunction and other reproductive side-effects (gynecomastia, menorrhage, amenorrhea, and galactorrhea). We recruited outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria and who had received a single antipsychotic (risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, or haloperidol) for at least 4 weeks. During a single visit, we collected data, including demographic and clinical characteristics, current antipsychotic and concomitant treatment, and adverse effects listed in a modified version of the UKU Scale. We used a Chi-squared test to determine pairs comparisons of the frequency of adverse reactions between treatments. To estimate risk of a given adverse reaction with a given treatment, we used a logistic regression method. We assessed 636 evaluable patients out of 669 recruited. Frequency of sexual dysfunction was high with haloperidol (38.1%) and also with olanzapine (35.3%), quetiapine (18.2%), and risperidone (43.2%). We found the frequency of other reproductive side-effects to be relatively low with all four drugs: haloperidol (6.9%), olanzapine (6.4%), quetiapine (2.7%), and risperidone (11.7%). Sexual dysfunction appeared to be dose-related with haloperidol, risperidone, and olanzapine. Risperidone and olanzapine showed a higher risk of sexual dysfunction and other reproductive sideeffects than haloperidol. Quetiapine showed a lower risk of sexual dysfunction during short-term treatment (< 12 weeks). However, data on longer-term treatment (> 12 weeks) are lacking. Our results suggest that none of the atypical antipsychotics that we studied significantly improved sexual dysfunction and other reproductive side-effects of the conventional antipsychotic, haloperidol, in stabilized patients during long-term treatment. Quetiapine appears to improve this profile during short-term treatment; however, longterm data, with larger samples, are required with this latter drug.     

Outcomes and Costs of Risperidone versus Olanzapine in Patients with Chronic Schizophrenia or Schizoaffective Disorders: A Markov Model

OBJECTIVE: To compare expected outcomes and costs of care in patients with chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders who are treated with risperidone versus olanzapine. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to examine outcomes and costs of care in patients with chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders receiving risperidone or olanzapine. The time frame of interest was 1 year. The model focused particular attention on the likelihood of therapy switching and discontinuation as a result of treatment-emergent side effects, as the efficacy of these two agents is similar. Measures of interest included the incidence of relapse and selected side effects including extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), prolactin-related disorders and diabetes, expected change in body weight, and the percentage of patients remaining on initial therapy at the end of 1 year. Costs of antipsychotic therapy and psychiatric and nonpsychiatric services also were examined. RESULTS: At 1 year, the rate of EPS was estimated to be slightly higher for risperidone, as was the incidence of symptomatic prolactin-related disorders. The expected incidence of diabetes mellitus, while low, was slightly higher for olanzapine. Approximately 25% and 4% of olanzapine and risperidone patients, respectively, were projected to experience an increase in body weight > or = 7%. The estimated percentage of patients remaining on initial therapy at the end of 1 year was higher for risperidone than olanzapine (76.9% vs. 45.6%, respectively). Expected mean total costs of care per month of therapy were $2163 for risperidone and $2316 for olanzapine. Results from sensitivity analyses suggest that the probability of therapy discontinuation following weight gain >5 kg would have to be lower than 0.1 for the number of patients remaining on therapy at the end of 1 year to be the same for risperidone and olanzapine. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with risperidone, treatment with olanzapine may result in greater increases in body weight, higher rates of therapy discontinuation, and higher costs of medical-care services.     

Resource Utilization and Costs of Schizophrenia Patients Treated with Olanzapine versus Quetiapine in a Medicaid Population

ObjectiveCompare annual health-care costs and resource utilization associated with olanzapine versus quetiapine for treating schizophrenia in a Medicaid population.MethodsAdult schizophrenia patients were selected from deidentified Pennsylvania Medicaid claims database (1999–2003). Included patients were continuously enrolled and initiated with olanzapine or quetiapine monotherapy after a 90-day washout period. Treatment costs were calculated for 1-year post-therapy initiation and inflation adjusted to year 2003. To control for selection bias, olanzapine and quetiapine patients were 1:1 matched using an optimal matching algorithm on propensity score, which was generated using logistic regression controlling for demographics, prior drug therapy, utilization, and costs. Treatment costs for the matched cohorts were compared directly, as well as using a difference-in-difference analysis.ResultsA total of 6929 patients treated with olanzapine and 2321 with quetiapine met inclusion criteria. Quetiapine patients appeared more severe at baseline. After propensity score matching, 2321 patient pairs had similar baseline characteristics, including total costs. Compared with matched quetiapine patients, for the 1-year postindex period, olanzapine patients had similar drug costs ($6131 vs. $6014, P = 0.326), lower medical costs ($9897 vs. $11,218, P = 0.0128), and lower total health-care costs ($16,028 vs. $17,232, P = 0.0279). Lower psychiatric hospitalization costs account for most of the total cost difference. Difference-in-difference regression analysis confirmed olanzapine's economic advantage. Further adjusting for baseline variations, the total cost advantage of olanzapine patients was $962 (P = 0.032), and was mostly because of reduced psychiatric hospitalization costs of $992 (P = 0.004).ConclusionSchizophrenia patients treated with olanzapine had lower total costs than quetiapine patients, mostly attributable to reductions in psychiatric hospitalization costs.     

Constructing an Index for the Subjective Well-being Under Neuroleptics Scale (SWN), short form: Applying structural equation modeling for testing reliability and validity of the index

Structural equation modeling (SEM) has been widely used in psychology and sociology for testing validity of measurement instruments. However, this statistical technique has so far played minor role in quality-of-life research. The main objective of this paper is to demonstrate the potential of SEM for constructing and testing the validity of a Subjective Well-being under Neuroleptics (SWN) index for patients with schizophrenia. For these purposes, data from the GEO study (Gesundheitsökonomische Evaluation von Olanzapin in Deutschland; Health economics study of olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia in Germany) were used. The GEO is a prospective, comparative, noninterventional, observational study. A total of 646 participants treated with either olanzapine (n = 416) or haloperidol (n = 230) were enrolled in the study; 360 patients were available for factor analyses. The short (20-item) form of the SWN scale was administered to assess patients’ perspectives on their quality of life. The structural equation models (SEMs) were then applied to construct 5- and 10-item indexes based on SWN. The data indicate that the 5-item index is the most time-saving approach for evaluating perceptions of well-being (and thus, quality of life) among patients with schizophrenia. The application of SEM showed no appreciable loss of validity of this index.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Long-Acting Risperidone Injection versus Alternative Atypical Antipsychotic Agents in Patients with Schizophrenia in China

Objectives:  To determine the most cost-effective strategy involving first-line treatment with long-acting risperidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system.
Methods:  A decision analytical model was applied. The model used a time horizon of 2 years. The probabilities of treatment response of different agents and the relapse and hospitalization rates were estimated by a Delphi panel of 17 senior psychiatrists in China. The unit cost for each medical service was calculated from the price system database built by China National Development and Reform Commission and the medical resource utilization was estimated by the Delphi panel. The principal efficacy measure was the proportion of patients successfully treated. Various sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the robustness of the model.
Results:  The proportion of patients successfully treated over the 2-year period was 46.71% for long-acting risperidone, 39.93% for olanzapine, and 31.28% for quetiapine. The mean cost-effectiveness ratios were RMB189,427, RMB202,432, and RMB233,015 per successfully treated patient for long-acting risperidone, quetiapine and olanzapine, respectively. Results of the sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust.
Conclusions:  The results showed that long-acting risperidone is more cost-effective than olanzapine and quetiapine for patients with schizophrenia in long-term maintenance treatment.     

A decision model to compare health care costs of olanzapine and risperidone treatment for schizophrenia in Germany

Second-generation atypical antipsychotics such as clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, amisulpride and ariprazole offer the potential to reduce the significant health care resource demands in the treatment of schizophrenia through improved levels of initial clinical response and reduced levels of long-term acute relapse. However, the optimal sequencing of these drugs remains unclear. To consider this issue from a health economic viewpoint a decision model approach was used comparing healthcare costs and clinical outcomes when treating patients with alternative sequences of atypical antipsychotic treatment. Treated patients were assumed to be in a current acute episode with at least a 10-year history of disease and to be naive to previous atypical treatments. Treatment strategies were based on either first-line olanzapine or risperidone with switching to the alternative drug as second-line treatment following an inadequate clinical response to first-line drug therapy. Clinical response data were derived from a pivotal published comparative study of both olanzapine and risperidone. Published data on the long-term use of antipsychotic drugs where used wherever possible to populate the model for relapse rates during the maintenance phase. Health care resource data were defined for Germany based on expert clinical opinion. A treatment strategy of first-line olanzapine was shown to be cost saving over a 1-year period, with additional clinical benefits in the form of avoided relapses. The model suggests that over the first year of treatment a strategy of first-line olanzapine is associated with lower risk of additional relapse (0.33 fewer acute relapses per 100 patients per year) and with cost savings (euro 35,306 per 100 patients per year). There is a need for longer term direct in-trial comparisons of atypical antipsychotics to confirm these indicative results.     

Impact of Patient Selection Criteria and Treatment History on Comparisons of Alternative Therapies: A Case Study of Atypical Antipsychotics

Background:  Comparative effectiveness analyses using retrospective databases may be highly sensitive to common design decisions employed by researchers.
Objective:  To test the sensitivity of statistical results to common research methods in retrospective database analyses. Comparisons of time to all-cause discontinuation (TTAD) across antipsychotic drug therapies are used to illustrate these effects.
Methods:  Data from the California Medicaid Program were used to identify 231,635 episodes of antipsychotic drug therapy. Four sequential analyses of TTAD were performed on all patients, patients with 1 year of post-treatment data, and patients with schizophrenia and using models that included variables documenting drug treatment history.
Results:  Patients using atypical antipsychotics consistently achieve longer TTAD than patients treated with conventional antipsychotics. Nevertheless, estimated differences narrowed when analyses included only patients with schizophrenia. Risperidone performed better than olanzapine when diagnosis was not limited to schizophrenia, and quetiapine outperformed olanzapine and risperidone when the analysis did not control for treatment history. This latter result reflects the disproportionate use of quetiapine in long-duration augmentation episodes. There were no statistical differences across alternative atypical antipsychotics once the analysis excluded patients without a diagnosis of schizophrenia and included patient treatment history in the analysis.
Conclusions:  Comparative effectiveness analyses of alternative drug therapies are sensitive to diagnosis and patient drug treatment history. Data on these factors can be derived from paid claims data and should be used to provide more accurate comparisons of effectiveness across drugs and to provide results that cover the full range of clinical scenarios that clinicians face.     

A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of zuclopenthixol compared with haloperidol and risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia

Zuclopenthixol and haloperidol are antipsychotic medications displaying different galenic forms, while risperidone is available on the market only in tablet form. The depot form presents advantages; the duration of action allows 3–4 weeks between administrations. A meta-analysis showed that zuclopenthixol patients had a higher response rate than haloperidol. A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the three antipsychotics in schizophrenia over a 5-year period. Model parameter estimates were based on a meta-analysis and literature. The viewpoint was that of the French National Health Insurance. When compared to haloperidol and risperidone, zuclopenthixol patients had additional 4 and 7 months without relapse correspondingly over a 5-year period. The estimated 5-year medical cost associated with zuclopenthixol was 800 and 1100 euros less than haloperidol and risperidone, respectively, per patient. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust to changes in key variables. The model indicates that the zuclopenthixol treatment strategy dominates haloperidol and risperidone.     

Cost Effectiveness of Paliperidone Palmitate for the Treatment of Schizophrenia in Germany

Background

Treatment with antipsychotic medication is an important element of relapse prevention in the management of schizophrenia, and can reduce inpatient stays. Recently, the long-acting atypical antipsychotic paliperidone long-acting injectable (PLAI), a once-monthly LAI antipsychotic, was approved for treatment of schizophrenia in Germany.

Objective

To estimate, based on a previously published model, the cost effectiveness of PLAI compared with other common antipsychotic treatment strategies in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia in Germany.

Methods

A Markov decision analytic model was adapted to the German healthcare system. The model considers the cost effectiveness for PLAI as a maintenance treatment for patients with schizophrenia from the payer perspective. The patients transition between eight health states on a monthly basis over a 5-year time horizon. As therapeutic strategies, PLAI, quetiapine, risperidone long-acting injections (RLAI), oral olanzapine, oral risperidone, zuclopenthixol decanoate, olanzapine long-acting injections (OLAI), oral typical and oral atypical were compared. Probability of relapse, level of adherence, side effects and treatment discontinuation were derived from the Swedish original model. Input factors regarding resource use and costs were estimated and adjusted for the German healthcare system. A probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) using cost-effectiveness scatter plots was performed to visualize the robustness of the results.

Results

In base-case scenario, PLAI is superior to RLAI in gained quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and avoided relapses. Relative to all other treatment strategies, PLAI is more effective with regard to gained QALYs and avoided relapses but results in higher treatment costs over a 5-year horizon in base-case scenario. The results were tested in PSA. If a cost-effectiveness threshold of €30,000 is assumed, for example, PLAI can be considered to be cost effective compared with RLAI in about 92.5 % of cases regarding gained QALYs, and in 78.6 % of cases regarding avoided relapse. Compared with OLAI, in about 94.4 % of cases regarding gained QALYs and in 99.9 % of cases regarding avoided relapse, cost effectiveness can be considered. Comparing PLAI and zuclopenthixol decanoate, cost effectiveness can be assumed in about 90.4 % of cases regarding gained QALYs, and in all cases regarding avoided relapse.

Conclusions

PLAI dominates RLAI and compared with the other treatment strategies PLAI has shown to be more effective but results in higher costs in base-case scenario.     

二甲双胍对奥氮平治疗精神分裂症患者体质量及糖脂代谢的作用

目的研究二甲双胍对奥氮平治疗精神分裂症患者体质量增加及糖脂代谢紊乱的应用疗效。方法选取2017年3月-2019年6月我院收治的精神分裂症患者80例,按1:1比例随机分组,A组单用奥氮平治疗,B组在A组用药基础上予以二甲双胍治疗,比较两组体质量及糖脂代谢等指标。结果治疗前,两组体质量指数以及各项糖脂代谢指标比较差异无统计学意义,P> 0.05;治疗后,B组的体质量指数及各项糖脂代谢指标较A组均更占优势,P <0.05,差异有统计学意义。结论二甲双胍配合奥氮平能够有效避免精神分裂症患者体质量增加,减轻机体的糖脂代谢紊乱。     

Cost-effectiveness model comparing olanzapine and other oral atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States

Background

Schizophrenia is often a persistent and costly illness that requires continued treatment with antipsychotics. Differences among antipsychotics on efficacy, safety, tolerability, adherence, and cost have cost-effectiveness implications for treating schizophrenia. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of oral olanzapine, oral risperidone (at generic cost, primary comparator), quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia from the perspective of third-party payers in the U.S. health care system.

Methods

A 1-year microsimulation economic decision model, with quarterly cycles, was developed to simulate the dynamic nature of usual care of schizophrenia patients who switch, continue, discontinue, and restart their medications. The model captures clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, relapse with and without hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment discontinuation by reason, treatment-emergent adverse events, suicide, health care resource utilization, and direct medical care costs. Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to develop baseline model assumptions. Key model outcomes included mean annual total direct cost per treatment, cost per stable patient, and incremental cost-effectiveness values per QALY gained.

Results

The results of the microsimulation model indicated that olanzapine had the lowest mean annual direct health care cost ($8,544) followed by generic risperidone ($9,080). In addition, olanzapine resulted in more QALYs than risperidone (0.733 vs. 0.719). The base case and multiple sensitivity analyses found olanzapine to be the dominant choice in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness per QALY gained.

Conclusion

The utilization of olanzapine is predicted in this model to result in better clinical outcomes and lower total direct health care costs compared to generic risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole. Olanzapine may, therefore, be a cost-effective therapeutic option for patients with schizophrenia.     

心理护理干预对老年期精神分裂症患者的康复效果评价

目的探讨心理护理对老年期精神分裂患者康复的临床效果。方法将我院120例老年期精神分裂患者随机分为对照组(60例)和观察组(60例),对照组仅采取常规抗精神病药物和常规护理干预,而干预组在此基础上还进行了综合的心理护理干预。结果与对照组相比,观察组患者的住院时间大大缩短,治疗效果更好,出院后复发率也降低,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论心理护理干预对于老年期精神分裂症患者的疗效显著,可明显降低患者住院治疗时间,减少医疗消耗,值得临床推广。     

首发精神分裂症药物的选择及疗效比较

目的比较临床常用首发精神分裂症药物的药效、副反应。方法选取我院及成都市第四人民医院2011年8月至2012年10月门诊及住院的首次发病精神病患者91例,随机分为奥氮平组（30例）、利培酮组（31例）和帕利哌酮组（30例）,治疗8W后对疗效、不良反应情况进行统计分析。结果3组药物均能有效治疗首发精神分裂症,治疗前后相关指标比较差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．01）,3组之间疗效差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;奥氮平组锥体外系反应较少;帕利哌酮组对肝脏的损伤较少;利培酮组不易导致体重增加。结论临床应针对不同患者情况选择首发精神分裂症药物。