Cost-effectiveness of 3-month paliperidone therapy for chronic schizophrenia in the Netherlands

Cumulative Clinical Experience of the Use of Paliperidone Palmitate 3-Monthly Long-Acting Injection in the Treatment of Schizophrenia: A Critical Appraisal

Paliperidone palmitate 3-monthly (PP3M), an approved maintenance treatment for patients with schizophrenia, was the first long-acting antipsychotic injectable (LAI) to require only four administrations per year. Here, we aimed to review the available evidence about its use in the management of schizophrenia to date and highlight key study findings in order to provide a balanced overview of current experience in clinical practice. For that purpose, an extensive search of available literature from PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted in March 2023. Emerging data from real-world studies appear to signal that the benefits of the use of PP3M may well extent beyond the obvious convenience for patients and resource efficiency for services and may be actually associated with improved effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Large naturalistic studies from Australia, Europe and the US comparing treatment continuation between newer LAIs and/or oral antipsychotics showed that patients treated with PP3M had higher compliance rates and a longer period of continuous use. The risk of relapse, re-hospitalization and number of bed days was also lower with PP3M compared to PP1M and other LAIs as demonstrated by several cohort studies. Furthermore, patients treated with PP3M were using lower doses of benzodiazepines and concomitant oral antipsychotics compared with other LAIs. What is more, PP3M appears to positively impact patients' satisfaction and quality of life, facilitating long-term goals. In fact, recent studies recorded better quality-adjusted life years and decreased stigma, with improved social acceptability and promotion of rehabilitation for patients transitioning to PP3M. The rates of general satisfaction rates with PP3M were also higher among psychiatrists and caregivers who reported overall less concerns. In conclusion, clinical exposure and a growing body of evidence thus far, reinforce the use of PP3M in an effort to enhance patient outcomes alongside individual experience and treatment persistence.

Cost-utility analysis of using paliperidone palmitate in schizophrenia in China

Objective: Long-acting injections (LAIs) of paliperidone palmitate have been shown to improve medication adherence and relieve psychotic symptoms. However, the specific cost-utility analysis of these LAIs in schizophrenia in China remains unclear. Methods: A multi-state Markov model was constructed to simulate the economic outcomes of patients with schizophrenia in China who received paliperidone palmitate 1-month formulation (PP1M), paliperidone palmitate 3-month formulation (PP3M), and paliperidone extended-release (ER). A cost-utility analysis was conducted, mostly derived from published literature and clinical databases. All costs and utilities were discounted at a rate of 5% per annum. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A series of sensitivity analyses were also applied. Results: After 20 years, compared to ER, using PP1M resulted in an increased discounted cost from $36,252.59 to $43,207.28. This increased cost was associated with a gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from 8.60 to 9.45. As a result, the ICER for PP1M was estimated to be $8,247.46/QALY, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $12,756.55/QALY. When using PP3M instead of ER, the incremental cost was $768.81 and the incremental utility was 0.88 QALYs, projecting an ICER of $873.13/QALY, which was also lower than the WTP threshold of $12,756.55/QALY. The univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the costs of PP1M, PP3M, and ER had the greatest impact on ICERs. The probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) revealed that when the WTP thresholds were $12,756.55/QALY, the probability of PP1M and PP3M being cost-effective was 59.2% and 66.0%, respectively. Conclusion: From the Chinese healthcare system perspective, PP3M and PP1M are both more cost-effective compared to ER, and PP3M has notable cost-utility advantages over PP1M.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of monthly, 3-monthly, and 6-monthly long-acting injectable and oral paliperidone in adults with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND: Paliperidone is among the most cost-effective antipsychotics in adults with schizophrenia, and it has different formulations, including oral paliperidone extended-release (ER) and long-acting injectable (LAI) paliperidone formulations administered every month (PP1M), 3 months (PP3M), or 6 months (PP6M). However, cost-effectiveness analyses comparing different paliperidone formulations were limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness across different paliperidone formulations. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate 1,000 adults aged 40 years with stable schizophrenia transitioning among stable disease-medication adherent, stable disease-medication nonadherent, relapse with hospitalization, relapse with ambulatory care, and death states every 3 months for 5 years. Drug costs were estimated using the prices listed in the Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule, and costs for treating complications were estimated from published studies. All costs were estimated from the US health care system perspective and standardized to 2022 US dollars using the Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using relapse rates from randomized clinical trials and health-related quality of life scores from observational studies. The estimated future costs and QALYs were discounted at 3%. We reported incremental net monetary benefits between alternative formulations at the $50,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold with a positive value indicating cost-effectiveness. The impact of parameter uncertainty on study outcomes was assessed using 1-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In adults with schizophrenia stabilized with paliperidone ER, switching to LAI formulations was associated with increased QALY (PP1M = 0.05, PP3M = 0.14, PP6M = 0.15) and increased cost (PP1M = 49,433, PP3M = 26,698, PP6M = 26,147), leading to a negative incremental net monetary benefit (PP1M = -$46,804, PP3M = -$19,508, PP6M = -$18,886) compared with continuing ER. Among LAI formulations, PP6M was cost-saving with the most QALYs gained (cost = $63,277, QALY = 3.731), followed by PP3M (cost = $63,828, QALY = 3.729) and PP1M (cost = $86,563, QALY = 3.638). At the $50,000 WTP threshold, the probabilities for PP1M, PP3M, and PP6M being cost-effective compared with paliperidone ER were 0.4%, 10.2%, and 9.8%, respectively. The probability of PP6M being cost-effective was 92.6% for the PP6M-PP1M pair and 55.2% for the PP6M-PP3M pair, and 91.1% of PP3M use was cost-effective in the PP3M-PP1M pair. The results were generally robust in the sensitivity analyses, even at the $190,000 WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with schizophrenia stabilized with paliperidone ER, switching to LAI formulations was not cost-effective, suggesting the high drug costs for LAI may not justify the improved quality of life within 5 years. Among LAI formulations, PP6M was cost-effective over PP1M and PP3M.

Cost-Effectiveness of Early Intervention in Psychosis: A Modeling Study

OBJECTIVE

Programs for early intervention in psychosis have shown clinical efficacy. The authors aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programs compared with standard care for the treatment of first-episode psychosis in the United States.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model integrating published data on clinical efficacy, costs, and health utilities was developed to evaluate early intervention versus standard care over the lifetime of patients after their first psychotic episode. Model input data were derived from meta-analyses, clinical trials, and U.S. national data. The main outcomes included hospitalizations, employment rate, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime health care costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

Compared with patients receiving standard care, patients in the early intervention strategy had 3.2 fewer hospitalizations and 2.7 more years of employment over the course of their remaining life expectancy. From a health care perspective, early intervention had an ICER of approximately $51,600 per QALY. From a societal perspective, early intervention saved costs (i.e., yielded greater health benefits and had lower costs compared with standard care). Results were sensitive to the effect of early intervention on suicide, cost of standard care, cost of early intervention, and the effect (relative risk) of early intervention on employment. A scenario analysis that excluded the effect (i.e., hazard ratio) of early intervention on suicide yielded an ICER of approximately $197,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that it is economically beneficial to fund early intervention in psychosis programs in the United States. The findings indicate that early intervention in psychosis saves costs (from the societal perspective) and is cost-effective (health care sector perspective).

Impact of 3-Monthly Long-Acting Injectable Paliperidone Palmitate in Schizophrenia: A Retrospective, Real-World Analysis of Population-Based Health Records in Spain

BACKGROUND

Treatment of schizophrenia requires long-term medication to prevent relapse. Treatment nonadherence may increase the risk of relapse, leading to increased hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits. Long-acting injectables (LAIs) such as paliperidone palmitate have improved treatment adherence and therefore symptoms. However, real-world studies comparing 3-monthly LAI formulations with other LAIs and oral antipsychotics (OAs) are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate and evaluate the clinical effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate LAI monthly (PP1M; Xeplion^®) and 3-monthly (PP3M; Trevicta^®) formulations compared with the monthly LAI aripiprazole (AM; Abilify Maintena^®) and OAs in Spain.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational study including 2275 adult patients with schizophrenia in a Spanish population. Data from hospital, primary care, and pharmacy dispensation electronic medical records were obtained between January 2017 and February 2018. The main outcomes included psychiatric hospitalizations and ER visit rates, days on treatment, and treatment persistence.

RESULTS

Patients receiving PP3M had a significantly lower mean hospitalization rate (0.00046 ± standard deviation [SD] 0.00181; p < 0.0001) than other treatment groups. Kaplan-Meier curves revealed that 92.0 and 88.4% of patients receiving PP3M remained hospitalization free by 12 and 18 months, respectively. All treatment groups had at least a twofold significantly higher risk of psychiatric hospitalizations compared with those receiving PP3M or OAs, and the hospitalization risk among the PP3M group was significantly lower (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.67). The risk of ER visits was significantly lower with both PP3M and PP1M than with OAs, and lowest with PP3M (HR 0.462 [95% CI 0.29-0.62] and HR 0.833 [95% CI 0.59-0.97], respectively). Time until treatment switch with PP3M was high, with more than 86.5% of patients remaining on treatment at 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

PP3M was more effective than OAs and monthly LAIs in improving clinical outcomes for patients with schizophrenia in a real-world setting in Spain.

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.

Long Acting Injectable Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder

Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (BD) are psychiatric disorders with economic and social effects that cause disability. Treatment non-compliance is one of the major problems faced by clinicians in both schizophrenia and BD. Treatment non-compliance is associated with recurrence and impaired functionality. Treatment compliance increases with long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs) and recurrence times are prolonged, hospitalization rates decrease compared to those who use an equivalent oral form of the same drug. The use of LAIAs in the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia has also been associated with a low mortality rate, decrease in caregiver burden, and increase in patient satisfaction. Studies show that LAIAs are cost-effective compared to their oral forms. Data on the use of LAIAs in first-episode schizophrenia and BD are relatively limited. The results of studies on the use of LAIAs in patients with first-episode schizophrenia indicate that LAIAs have advantageous in preventing relapse and re-hospitalization compared to oral antipsychotics. In BD, with the use of LAIAs, the rate of hospitalization due to mood episodes and the frequency of manic episodes have been decreased. LAIAs have not been found to be as effective in preventing depressive episodes in BD as manic episodes. Although there are many studies supporting the use of LAIAs in maintenance treatment of schizophrenia and BD, more studies are needed on this issue. In this article, studies on the use of LAIAs in schizophrenia, first episode schizophrenia and BD are reviewed and the place of LAIAs in treatment was discussed.

Overview and Use of Tools for Selecting Modelling Techniques in Health Economic Studies

The availability and use of tools to guide the choice of modelling technique are not well understood. Our study aims to review existing tools and explore the use of those tools in health economic models. Two reviews and one case study were conducted. Review 1 aimed to identify tools based on expert opinion and citation searching and explore the value of the tools for health economic models. Review 2, based on citation searching, aimed to describe how those tools have been used in health economic models. Both reviews were conducted using Web of Science and Scopus. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion. A case study, focused on economic evaluations of antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia, was conducted to compare the modelling techniques used by existing models with modelling techniques recommended by identified tools. Seven tools were identified, of which the revised Brennan's toolkit, was assessed to be the most appropriate for health economic models. The seven tools were cited 126 times in publications reporting health economic models. Only 17 of these (13.5%) reported that they used the tool(s) to guide the choice of modelling technique. Application of these tools suggested discrete event simulation is most appropriate for modelling antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia, but discrete event simulation was only used by 17% of existing models. There is considerable inconsistency between the modelling techniques used by existing models and modelling techniques recommended by tools. It is recommended that for future modelling studies the choice of modelling technique should be justified, this can be achieved by the application of model selection tools, such as the revised Brennan's toolkit. Future research is required to explore the barriers to using model selection tools in health economic models and to update existing tools and make them easier to use.

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.

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.

Role of paliperidone palmitate 3-monthly in the management of schizophrenia: insights from clinical practice

Schizophrenia is a complex, chronic psychiatric disorder associated with reduced quality of life and shortened life span. The majority of patients with schizophrenia will relapse within 1 year following an acute episode. The ultimate goals of treatment are to improve functional capabilities, minimize residual symptoms during periods of remission, and decrease relapse frequency and duration, as each relapse brings with it the possibility of a worsening prognosis. Maintaining therapeutic continuity is essential for long-term, positive patient outcomes in schizophrenia. Medication nonadherence and symptomatic relapses magnify the disease burden associated with this disorder. Medication adherence in chronic disease states generally improves with a decrease in dosing frequency. Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics were developed to improve patient outcomes secondarily to improving medication adherence. Paliperidone palmitate 3-monthly injection (PP3M) is the only LAI available with a quarterly dosing interval. PP3M has been US Food and Drug Administration-approved for use in the long-term maintenance treatment of schizophrenia in patients already controlled on once-monthly PP LAI (paliperidone palmitate once-monthly injection [PP1M]) for a minimum of 4 months. As current evidence supports the efficacy and tolerability of PP3M compared to PP1M and placebo, PP3M appears to be a viable treatment option for patients previously maintained on PP1M. However, to truly establish the place of PP3M in therapy relative to other oral antipsychotics and LAIs, more research is needed. This narrative review aims briefly to describe the pharmacotherapeutic characteristics of PP3M and summarize current literature pertaining to the use of PP3M in the management of schizophrenia.

The current data on the 3-month paliperidone palmitate formulation for the treatment of schizophrenia

INTRODUCTION

A three-month injection of paliperidone palmitate (PP3M) has been gradually introduced in the market since 2015. Recently, and due to different reasons, there is an increase in the LAIAs prescription rates, including patients in early phases of psychotic disorders. Areas covered: The following article provides an overview of the antipsychotic market before providing the reader with an overview of the efficacy and tolerability data of the 3-month paliperidone palmitate formulation for the treatment of schizophrenia. The authors take into account the current state of knowledge, as well as the needs not covered by other therapeutic tools at our disposal at this time. Expert opinion: PP3M offers a substantially longer dosing interval than other options, which may be a potential advancement to reduce nonadherence in some patients. Future research, both from randomized controlled trials and large pragmatic studies in real-world settings, will identify which subpopulation and disease stages may obtain greater benefit from this new formulation.

Role of 3-monthly long-acting injectable paliperidone in the maintenance of schizophrenia

AIMS

Paliperidone palmitate 3-month (PP3M) represents a new long-acting injectable antipsychotic therapeutic option. This review aims: 1) to summarize available data relating to efficacy, safety, tolerability and costs of PP3M; 2) to describe hospitalization rate, occupational status, treatment preference, satisfaction, adherence and caregiver burden of patients with schizophrenia who participate in PP3M clinical trials; 3) to examine ethical implications, pros and cons of PP3M use and 4) to propose study designs to further assess PP3M.

METHODS

On August 21, 2017, a search on PubMed about PPM3, without any filter restriction, was conducted and all available records were analyzed. Records written in a language other than English were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-two records were included in this review: 6 reviews, 1 report, 4 pharmacokinetic studies, 2 cost-effectiveness analyses, 1 open-label clinical trial, 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 5 studies based on these 2 RCTs and 1 observational study.

DISCUSSION

According to these last 9 studies, when compared with placebo, PP3M showed a longer time to relapse and good safety and tolerability profiles. Furthermore, when compared with paliperidone palmitate 1 month (PP1M), PP3M treatment showed: 1) non-inferiority in terms of efficacy, safety, tolerability, rate of hospitalization, symptomatic and functional remission, treatment preference and variations of the occupational status; 2) a longer time to relapse after treatment discontinuation and 3) a similar reduction of the caregiver burden.

CONCLUSION

PP3M is the only 3-monthly long-acting injectable antipsychotic available on the market. This makes it a unique option of treatment, which could be chosen both in early and advanced phases of illness. Nonetheless, longer naturalistic follow-up studies, two-arm head-to-head superiority trials and mirror studies, based on real-world samples of patients, are needed to further assess long-term safety and advantages of this new option of treatment and to define patients' sub-populations that would most beneficiate from it.