Economic evaluation of paliperidone palmitate once monthly for treating chronic schizophrenia patients in the United Arab Emirates

A Systematic Review on Economic Evaluation Studies of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Interventions in the Middle East and North Africa

INTRODUCTION

Due to the increase in healthcare budget constraint, economic evaluation (EE) evidence is increasingly required to inform resource allocation decisions. This study aimed to systematically review quantity, characteristics, and quality of full EE studies on diagnostic and therapeutic interventions conducted in 26 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus databases were comprehensively searched to identify the published EE studies in the MENA region. The quality of reviewed studies was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

The search identified 69 studies. The cost-utility approach was adopted in 49 studies (71 %). More than half (38 studies; 55 %) were conducted in Iran and Turkey. Sixteen countries (62 %) did not have any EE studies. The most frequently analyzed therapeutic areas were infectious diseases (19 studies; 28 %), cardiovascular diseases (11 studies; 16 %), and malignancies (10 studies; 14 %). Ten studies (14 %), 46 (67 %), 12 (17 %), and 1 study (1 %) were classified as excellent, high, moderate, and poor quality, respectively. The mean of items reported was 85.10 % (standard deviation 13.32 %). Characterizing heterogeneity, measurement of effectiveness, time horizon, and discount rate were missed in 21 (60 %), 22 (32 %), 20 (29 %) and 15 (25 %) studies, respectively. Data on effectiveness and utility relied primarily on studies conducted outside the region.

CONCLUSIONS

The quantity of EE studies in the MENA region remains low; however, overall quality is high to excellent. The availability of local data, capacity building, and national guidelines are vital to improve both the quantity and quality of EE studies in the region.

A Systematic Review of Methods and Study Quality of Economic Evaluations for the Treatment of Schizophrenia

Background: Schizophrenia is a severe and complex disease with substantial economic and social burdens. Despite multiple treatment choices, adverse events, and impaired social functions are still challenges in clinical therapy. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations could provide evidence to help decision makers improve the utilization of scarce resources. However, there remains some challenges especially in modeling due to uncertainties in progression of schizophrenia. There are limited summaries about the overall methodologies of schizophrenia economic evaluations.

Objective: The aim of this study is to review the existing economic evaluations of antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia and summarize the evidence and methods applied.

Methods: An electronic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO host, The Cochrane Library and ScienceDirect from January 2014 to December 2020. Search terms included “schizophrenia,” “schizophrenic,” “pharmacoeconomic,” “economic evaluation,” “cost-effectiveness,” and “cost-utility.” The Literature was screened and extracted by two researchers independently and assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) List and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement.

Results: A total of 25 studies were included in the review. The regions included Europe, North America, Asia and Africa. Most of the studies chose second-generation antipsychotics as comparators and integrated treatment sequences. Time horizons varied from 1 year to lifetime. The healthcare sector was the most common perspective, accordingly, most of the evaluations considered only direct medical costs. The Markov model and decision tree model were the most common choices. Adverse events, compliance and persistence were considered important parameters. Quality-adjusted life-years were the major outcomes applied to the economic evaluations. All utilities for health states and adverse events were collected from published literature. All of the studies applied uncertainty analysis to explore the robustness of the results. The quality of the studies was generally satisfactory. However, improvements were needed in the choice of time horizons, the measurements of outcomes and the descriptions of assumptions.

Conclusions: This study highlights the methodology of economic evaluation of schizophrenia. Recommendations for modeling method and future study are provided.

A Systematic Review of Sources of Outcomes and Cost Data Utilized in Economic Evaluation Research Conducted in the Gulf Cooperation Council

Background

Transparency and clarity in reporting of methods used to identify, measure, and value outcomes and resources in published economic evaluations is crucial.

Objective

The aims of this review were to identify and assess the quality of published economic evaluation studies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region, with a specific focus on methods used to identify, measure, and value cost and outcomes data.

Methods

An electronic search of publications from 2009 to October 2019 was performed in three clinical (Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE) and one economic (NHS EED) databases. Full economic evaluations undertaken in GCC countries from any perspective were included. Reference lists of three reviews on the same topic and area were also searched for further eligible articles. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used for methodological quality assessment. Data on type and source of cost and outcomes data were collected.

Results

Out of 1857 studies identified, 14 relevant studies were eligible and included. Eleven studies were based in Saudi Arabia, and the remaining studies were published in the United Arab of Emirates (UAE), Qatar, and Oman. Majority of the evaluations were based on the Markov modelling (n=8). None of the studies fully fulfilled the CHEERS quality criteria. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was the main outcome (n=10). The EQ-5D was valued using the UK value set tariff (n=6). Published literature was the source of outcomes data in seven studies. Hospital-based data were used as a source of healthcare resource use data in four studies, whereas hospital-based costs (n = 7) combined with other sources such as local/national data were the sources of unit cost data in the majority of the studies.

Conclusion

Rigorous economic evaluations are lacking in the region leading to inaccurate information being given to decision-makers.

Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Numerous economic models have assessed the cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic medications in schizophrenia. It is important to understand what key impacts of antipsychotic medications were considered in the existing models and limitations of existing models in order to inform the development of future models.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to identify which clinical benefits, clinical harms, costs and cost savings of antipsychotic medication have been considered by existing models, to assess quality of existing models and to suggest good practice recommendations for future economic models of antipsychotic medications.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed on multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, The NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database) to identify economic models of schizophrenia published between 2005-2020. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) checklist and the Cooper hierarchy. Key impacts of antipsychotic medications considered by exiting models were descriptively summarised.

RESULTS

Sixty models were included. Existing models varied greatly in key impacts of antipsychotic medication included in the model, especially in clinical outcomes used for assessing reduction in psychotic symptoms and types of adverse events considered in the model. Quality of existing models was generally low due to failure to capture the health and cost impact of adverse events of antipsychotic medications and input data not obtained from best available source. Good practices for modelling antipsychotic medications are suggested.

DISCUSSIONS

This review highlights inconsistency in key impacts considered by different models, and limitations of the existing models. Recommendations on future research are provided.

A Systematic Review of Economic Models Across the Entire Schizophrenia Pathway

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is associated with a high economic burden. Economic models can help to inform resource allocation decisions to maximise benefits to patients.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to assess the availability, quality and consistency of conclusions of health economic models evaluating the cost effectiveness of interventions for schizophrenia.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed on multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database) to identify economic models of interventions for schizophrenia published between 2005 and 2020. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) checklist and the Cooper hierarchy. Model characteristics and conclusions were descriptively summarised.

RESULTS

Seventy-three models met inclusion criteria. Seventy-eight percent of existing models assessed antipsychotics; however, due to inconsistent conclusions reported by different studies, no antipsychotic can be considered clearly cost effective compared with the others. A very limited number of models suggest that the following non-pharmacological interventions might be cost effective: psychosocial interventions, stratified tests, employment intervention and intensive intervention to improve liaison between primary and secondary care. The quality of included models is generally low due to use of a short time horizon, omission of adverse events of interventions, poor data quality and potential conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights a lack of models for non-pharmacological interventions, and limitations of the existing models, including low quality and inconsistency in conclusions. Recommendations on future modelling approaches for schizophrenia are provided.

Projecting the Long-Term Economic Impact of Once-Monthly Paliperidone Palmitate Versus Oral Atypical Antipsychotics in Medicaid Patients with Schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence has demonstrated that, over 12 months, pharmacy costs associated with switching nonadherent recently relapsed patients from oral atypical antipsychotics (OAAs) to once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) were offset by reduced relapse rates and schizophrenia-related health care costs. In addition, earlier use of PP1M may generate greater cost savings.

OBJECTIVE

To project the long-term economic impact when a proportion of nonadherent patients with a recent relapse switch from OAAs to PP1M.

METHODS

A 36-month decision-tree model with twelve 3-month cycles was developed from a Medicaid payer's perspective. The target population was nonadherent, recently relapsed OAA patients. At equal adherence, probability of relapse was equal between PP1M and OAAs, and OAA patients were nonadherent until treatment switch. Event rates (adherence, relapse, and switch) and cost inputs (pharmacy and relapse) were based on the literature, and rates remained constant. Outcomes included number of relapses, pharmacy costs, and relapse costs (2017 U.S. dollars) at years 1, 2, and 3. One-way sensitivity (OSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) evaluated the effect of varying model inputs on health plan and per-patient level costs.

RESULTS

Based on a hypothetical health plan of 1 million members, 3,037 OAA patients were recently relapsed and nonadherent. Compared with continuing OAAs, switching 5% of patients (n = 152) to PP1M resulted in net cost savings of $674,975, $723,298, and $562,310 at the plan level; $4,445, $4,764, and $3,703 per patient switched per year; and $0.0562, $0.0603, and $0.0469 per member per month in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively, resulting in total plan-level savings of > $1.9 million over 3 years. A total of 221 relapses were avoided (year 1: 92; year 2: 72; and year 3: 57). In years 1, 2, and 3, respectively, total annual plan-level schizophrenia-related costs were $114.1 million, $107.2 million, and $105.8 million when all patients switched to PP1M before any subsequent relapse (n = 3,037); $123.4 million, $109.6 million, and $106.7 million when patients switched to PP1M after a first subsequent relapse (n = 2,631); and $127.6 million, $121.6 million, and $117.0 million when all patients remained on OAAs. The cost per patient switched to PP1M was lower when all patients received PP1M before a subsequent relapse versus after their first subsequent relapse at all years (year 1: $37,559 vs. $45,089; year 2: $35,288 vs. $36,321; and year 3: $34,826 vs. $35,155). OSA demonstrated consistent net cost savings per patient switched, ranging from $640 to $10,484 (year 1); $1,774 to $9,245 (year 2); and $1,354 to $7,026 (year 3). PSA demonstrated 96.3%, 99.7%, and 99.7% of iterations were cost saving in years 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacy costs associated with switching nonadherent OAA patients with a recent relapse to PP1M were offset by reduced relapse rates and health care costs at years 1, 2, and 3, with earlier use of PP1M resulting in increased cost savings at all years.

DISCLOSURES

This research was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Pilon, Morrison, Lefebvre, and Shak are employees of Analysis Group, a consulting company that received research grants from Janssen Scientific Affairs to conduct this study. El Khoury and Kim are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs. At the time this study was conducted, Llaneza was an employee of HireGenics, which provided services to Janssen Scientific Affairs for the study. Part of the material in this manuscript was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 2019 Annual Meeting; March 25-29, 2019; San Diego, CA.

Systematic review of utility values used in the pharmacoeconomic evaluations for schizophrenia: implications on cost-effectiveness results

Background and Objectives: Utility elicitation studies for schizophrenia generate different utility values for the same health states. We reviewed utility values used in schizophrenia pharmacoeconomic evaluations and evaluated the impact of their selection on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Methods: A systematic search was performed in Medline and Embase. Health state definitions, associated utility values, elicitation studies, and value selection processes were extracted. Sets of utility values for all schizophrenia health states were used in a cost-effectiveness model to evaluate the ICER. Results: Thirty-five cost-utility analyses (CUAs) referring to 11 utility elicitation studies were included. The most frequent health states were 'stable' (28 CUAs, 7 utility elicitation studies, 10 values, value range 0.650-0.919), 'relapse requiring hospitalisation' (18, 5, 7, 0.270-0.604), 'relapse not requiring hospitalisation' (18, 5, 10, 0.460-0.762), and 'relapse only' (10, 5, 6, 0.498-0.700). Seventeen sets of utility values were identified with difference in utility values between relapse and stable ranging from -0.358 to -0.050, resulting in ICERs ranging from -56.2% to +222.6% from average. Conclusion: The use of utility values for schizophrenia health states differs among CUAs and impacts on the ICER. More rigorous and transparent use of utility values and sensitivity analysis with different sets of utility values are suggested for future CUAs.

The prospective economic impact of once monthly paliperidone palmitate versus oral atypical antipsychotics in Medicaid patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVES

Multiple real-world studies have reported potential cost savings associated with second-generation antipsychotic long-acting injectable therapies (SGA-LAIs), including once monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M). Yet, only about 12% of Medicaid patients with schizophrenia initiate SGA-LAIs, with poor adherence contributing to frequent relapse among patients on oral atypical antipsychotics (OAAs). The objective of this study was to project the economic impact when an incremental proportion of non-adherent patients with a recent relapse switched from OAAs to PP1M.

METHODS

A 12 month decision-tree model was developed from a Medicaid payers' perspective. The target population was non-adherent OAA patients with a recent relapse. At equal adherence, risk of relapse was equal between PP1M and OAAs, and OAA patients remained non-adherent until treatment switch. Outcomes included number of relapses, relapse costs and pharmacy costs.

RESULTS

Based on a hypothetical health plan of 1 million members, 3037 schizophrenia patients were non-adherent on OAAs with a recent relapse. Compared to continuing OAAs, switching 5% of patients (n = 152) to PP1M resulted in net schizophrenia-related cost savings of $674,975 at a plan level, $4445 per patient switched per year and $0.0562 per member per month, with a total of 92 avoided relapses over 12 months. Total annual plan level schizophrenia-related costs were $114.1 M when all patients switched to PP1M before any subsequent relapse (n = 3037), $123.4 M when patients switched to PP1M after a first subsequent relapse (n = 2631), and $127.6 M when all patients continued OAAs. Switching all patients to PP1M before any subsequent relapse averted 917 relapses, at a lower cost per patient switched ($37,559) compared to switching after a first subsequent relapse ($45,089) or continuing OAAs ($42,005).

CONCLUSION

Over 12 months, pharmacy costs associated with switching patients from OAAs to PP1M were offset by reduced relapse rates and schizophrenia-related healthcare expenditures, with earlier use of PP1M projected to generate greater cost savings.