Cost-effectiveness of clozapine in patients with high and low levels of hospital use. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Clozapine in Refractory Schizophrenia

Cost-Effectiveness of Comprehensive, Integrated Care for First Episode Psychosis in the NIMH RAISE Early Treatment Program

This study compares the cost-effectiveness of Navigate (NAV), a comprehensive, multidisciplinary, team-based treatment approach for first episode psychosis (FEP) and usual Community Care (CC) in a cluster randomization trial. Patients at 34 community treatment clinics were randomly assigned to either NAV (N = 223) or CC (N = 181) for 2 years. Effectiveness was measured as a one standard deviation change on the Quality of Life Scale (QLS-SD). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios were evaluated with bootstrap distributions. The Net Health Benefits Approach was used to evaluate the probability that the value of NAV benefits exceeded its costs relative to CC from the perspective of the health care system. The NAV group improved significantly more on the QLS and had higher outpatient mental health and antipsychotic medication costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $12 081/QLS-SD, with a .94 probability that NAV was more cost-effective than CC at $40 000/QLS-SD. When converted to monetized Quality Adjusted Life Years, NAV benefits exceeded costs, especially at future generic drug prices.

Practitioner attitudes to clozapine initiation

OBJECTIVE

Clozapine is the most effective antipsychotic for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. It is recommended as third-line treatment for schizophrenia in national and local guidelines. Despite this, it is underutilised. This survey aimed to clarify barriers to prescribing and elucidate factors that may improve patient access to clozapine.

METHOD

A questionnaire was made available to all staff members at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.

RESULTS

In total, 144 clinical staff completed the questionnaire. The majority (81%) of respondents were 'fairly' or 'very' familiar with clozapine prescribing guidelines. Barriers to prescribing most commonly stated as being 'very frequently' a problem were patient concerns about tolerability of clozapine or patient refusal to adhere to blood test monitoring. Staff members also felt medical complications frequently prevented clozapine prescription. Dedicated staff or day hospital placements devoted to clozapine initiation were identified as factors most likely to increase prescribing of clozapine.

CONCLUSION

Professionals identified the dominant barriers to prescribing as being patient focussed - refusal of blood test monitoring or concerns about tolerability. Clinician fears about compliance or medical complications were also important. The development of out-patient services specifically tasked with initiating clozapine may help to increase the frequency of prescribing of clozapine earlier in treatment than is currently seen.

Community adherence to schizophrenia treatment and safety monitoring guidelines

The 2003 Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) treatment recommendations and the Mount Sinai Conference Safety Monitoring recommendations generated guidelines for pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia and monitoring of antipsychotic side effects. This study examined rate of recommendation adherence and impact of adherence on outcomes of outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder in community mental health centers. Clinical practice was assessed as conformant, nonconformant, or not applicable. Treatment practices were conformant for antipsychotic dose (83%); use of antiparkinsonian (97%), antidepressant (100%), and antianxiety agents (90%) but not clozapine for residual positive symptoms (31%); and monitoring weight gain (48%), glucose dysregulation (53%), hyperlipidemia (34%), or extrapyramidal symptoms (11%). Community mental health center treatment practices were largely conformant with the 2003 Schizophrenia PORT treatment recommendations. There is less evidence that patients who receive treatment in the community are adequately monitored for antipsychotic side effects per the Mount Sinai recommendations.

The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review approaches and instruments used to derive utility weights in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) within the field of mental disorders and to identify factors that may have influenced the choice of the approach.

METHODS

We searched the databases DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment), and PubMed for CUAs. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations and reported quality-adjusted life-years as the health outcome. Study characteristics and instruments used to estimate utility weights were described and a logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with the choice of either the direct (e.g. standard gamble) or the preference-based measure (PBM) approach (e.g. EQ-5D).

RESULTS

We identified 227 CUAs with a maximum in 2009, 2010, and 2012. Most CUAs were conducted in depression, dementia, or psychosis, and came from the US or the UK, with the EQ-5D being the most frequently used instrument. The application of the direct approach was significantly associated with depression, psychosis, and model-based studies. The PBM approach was more likely to be used in recent studies, dementia, Europe, and empirical studies. Utility weights used in model-based studies were derived from only a small number of studies.

LIMITATIONS

We only searched four databases and did not evaluate the quality of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct instruments and PBMs are used to elicit utility weights in CUAs with different frequencies regarding study type, mental disorder, and country.

Predictors of clozapine response in patients with treatment-refractory schizophrenia: results from a Danish Register Study

We aimed to identify factors associated with greater clozapine response to guide targeted clozapine use. The study was based on data from the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register and the National Prescription Database including schizophrenia patients initiating clozapine from 1997 to 2006. Cox regression was used to identify predictors of time to psychiatric hospitalization and all-cause discontinuation from first clozapine prescription. In a 2-year mirror-image design, multiple logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of psychiatric hospitalization. Among 633 schizophrenia patients starting clozapine, shorter time to admission was predicted by increasing number of different antipsychotics (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08/trial; confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.15/trial) and admissions (HR, 1.04/admission; CI, 1.03-1.05/admission) before first clozapine prescription, earlier onset of schizophrenia (HR, 0.98/y; CI, 0.96-0.99/y), and lower clozapine dose (HR, 0.07/100 mg; CI, 0.03-0.13/100 mg). In the 2-year mirror-image model, during clozapine treatment, there was a significant reduction in bed-days (269.9 days [CI, 238.3-287.8 days] to 64.2 days [CI, 53.0-79.3 days], P < 0.001) and admissions (3.4 [CI, 3.1-3.6] to 2.2 [CI, 1.9-2.5], P < 0.011). Being admitted during clozapine treatment was also associated with more antipsychotic trials (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; CI, 1.00-1.22) and admissions before clozapine initiation (OR, 1.08; CI, 1.04-1.11) and female sex (OR, 1.84; CI, 1.31-2.58). Although the study design does not allow any causal inferences, all 3 models suggested a lower number of psychiatric hospitalizations and antipsychotic trials before clozapine initiation to be associated with greater clozapine response.

Clozapine for the treatment of schizophrenia

INTRODUCTION

Despite considerable progress in the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia, about 30% of patients are minimally responsive to antipsychotics and there is still an excessively high rate of mortality in schizophrenia patients. Clozapine , a D(2)-5HT(2) antagonist, was the first antipsychotic to demonstrate efficacy in treatment-resistant patients, and to be associated with the lowest risk of death.

AREAS COVERED

The pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of clozapine are covered in this article, based on a literature review (PubMed) from 1975 to 2012. Pivotal, as well as supporting, randomized controlled trials are reviewed, along with observational and/or naturalistic safety studies. This review of clozapine will allow the reader to determine the place for clozapine in the schizophrenia treatment landscape.

EXPERT OPINION

Studies conducted so far suggest that clozapine is the treatment of choice for schizophrenic patients who are refractory to treatment, display violent behaviors, or who are at high risk of suicide. However, it is also the antipsychotic with the worst side effect profile, the highest risk of complications, and the most difficult to prescribe. Experience with clozapine should therefore be included in the education of future physicians.

Challenges in the design and conduct of controlled clinical effectiveness trials in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The introduction of antipsychotic medication has been a major advance in the treatment of schizophrenia and allows millions of people to live outside of institutions. It is generally believed that long-acting intramuscular antipsychotic medication is the most effective approach to increasing medication adherence and thereby reduce relapse in high-risk patients with schizophrenia, but the data are scant.

PURPOSE

To report the design of a study to assess the effect of long-acting injectable risperidone in unstable patients and under more realistic conditions than previously studied and to evaluate the effect of this medication on psychiatric inpatient hospitalization, schizophrenia symptoms, quality of life, medication adherence, side effects, and health care costs.

METHODS

The trial was an open randomized clinical comparative effectiveness trial in patients with schizophrenia or schizo-affective disorders in which parenteral risperidone was compared to an oral antipsychotic regimen selected by each control patient's psychiatrist. Participants had unstable psychiatric disease defined by recent hospitalization or exhibition of unusual need for psychiatric services. The primary endpoint was hospitalization for psychiatric indications; the secondary endpoint was psychiatric symptoms.

RESULTS

Overall, 382 patients were randomized. Determination of a persons' competency to understand the elements of informed consent was addressed. The use of a closed-circuit TV interview for psychosocial measures provided an economical, high quality, reliable means of collecting data. A unique method for insuring that usual care was optimal was incorporated in the follow-up of all subjects.

LIMITATIONS

Patients with schizophrenia or schizo-affective disorders and with the common co-morbid illnesses seen in the VA are a challenging group of subjects to study in long-term trials. Some techniques unique in the VA and found useful may not be generalizable or applicable in other research or treatment settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial tested a new antipsychotic medication early in its adoption in the Veterans Health Administration. The VA has a unique electronic medical record and database which can be used to identify the endpoint, that is, first hospitalization due to a psychiatric problem, with complete ascertainment. Several methodologic solutions addressed competency to understand elements of consent, the costs and reliability of collecting interview data gathering, and insuring usual care.

UK cost-consequence analysis of aripiprazole in schizophrenia: diabetes and coronary heart disease risk projections (STAR study)

Patients with schizophrenia experience elevated rates of morbidity and mortality, largely due to an increased incidence of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. There is increasing concern that some atypical antipsychotic therapies are associated with adverse metabolic symptoms, such as weight gain, dyslipidaemia and glucose dysregulation. These metabolic symptoms may further increase the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and diabetes in this population and, subsequently, the cost of treating these patients' physical health. The STAR study showed that the metabolic side effects of aripiprazole treatment are less than that experienced by those receiving standard-of-care (SOC). In a follow-up study the projected risks for diabetes or CHD, calculated using the Stern and Framingham models, were lower in the aripiprazole treatment group. Assuming the risk of diabetes onset/CHD events remained linear over 10 years, these risks were used to estimate the difference in direct and indirect cost consequences of diabetes and CHD in schizophrenia patients treated with aripiprazole or SOC over a 10-year period. Diabetes costs were estimated from the UKPDS and UK T(2)ARDIS studies, respectively, and CHD costs were estimated using prevalence data from the Health Survey of England and the published literature. All costs were inflated to 2007 costs using the NHS pay and prices index. The number of avoided diabetes cases (23.4 cases per 1,000 treated patients) in patients treated with aripiprazole compared with SOC was associated with estimated total (direct and indirect) cost savings of 37,261,293 pounds over 10 years for the UK population. Similarly, the number of avoided CHD events (3.7 events per 1,000 treated patients) was associated with estimated total cost savings of 7,506,770 pounds over 10 years. Compared with SOC, aripiprazole treatment may provide reductions in the health and economic burden to schizophrenia patients and health care services in the UK as a result of its favourable metabolic profile.

Cardiac-related findings at autopsy in people with severe mental illness treated with clozapine or risperidone

Clozapine is a superior agent for treatment-refractory patients with schizophrenia, but is underutilized in the US, likely due to the risk of side effects. This study examined all available autopsy data on cardiac disease and risk factors in people with schizophrenia in a sample of deceased persons with severe mental illness who had received clozapine (N=62) or risperidone (N=42). The mean body mass index (BMI) at the time of death was 31.4+/-8.8 kg/m2 and 27.1+/-8.2 kg/m2 in the clozapine and risperidone groups respectively (t=1.98, df=60, p=0.052). Cardiac related measures examined included: abdominal wall thickness, heart weight, left ventricle thickness, right ventricle thickness, presence of notable cardiac involvement (atherosclerosis, fibrosis and hypertrophy) and number of cardiac arteries occluded. No significant differences in any of the cardiac findings were noted between patients in the clozapine and risperidone groups. Independent of treatment, cardiomyopathy deaths were associated with a higher abdominal wall thickness (p=0.042) and a tendency towards higher BMI (p=0.051) as compared to the other causes of death. The results of this study suggest that while clozapine is associated with weight gain and metabolic abnormalities, there does not appear to be an increased occurrence of cardiac abnormalities in deceased persons who were treated with clozapine as compared to risperidone.

Clozapine versus typical neuroleptic medication for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Long-term drug treatment of schizophrenia with typical antipsychotics has limitations: 25 to 33% of patients have illnesses that are treatment-resistant. Clozapine is an antipsychotic drug, which is claimed to have superior efficacy and to cause fewer motor adverse effects than typical drugs for people with treatment-resistant illnesses. Clozapine carries a significant risk of serious blood disorders, which necessitates mandatory weekly blood monitoring at least during the first months of treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of clozapine compared with typical antipsychotic drugs in people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the current update of this review (March 2006) we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a fixed-effect model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included 42 trials (3950 participants) in this review. Twenty-eight of the included studies are less than 13 weeks in duration, and, overall, trials were at significant risk of bias. We found no significant difference in the effects of clozapine and typical neuroleptic drugs for broad outcomes such as mortality, ability to work or suitability for discharge at the end of the study. Clinical improvements were seen more frequently in those taking clozapine (n=1119, 14 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.7 to 0.8, NNT 6 CI 5 to 8). Also, participants given clozapine had fewer relapses than those on typical antipsychotic drugs (n=1303, RR 0.62 CI 0.5 to 0.8, NNT 21 CI 15 to 49). BPRS scores showed a greater reduction of symptoms in clozapine-treated patients, (n=1145, 16 RCTs, WMD -4.22 CI -5.4 to -3.1), although the data were heterogeneous (Chi(2) 0.0001, I(2) 66%). Short-term data from the SANS negative symptom scores favoured clozapine (n=196, 5 RCTs, WMD -5.92 CI -7.8 to -4.1). We found clozapine to be more acceptable in long-term treatment than conventional antipsychotic drugs (n=982, 16 RCTs, RR 0.60 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 15 CI 12 to 20). Blood problems occurred more frequently in participants receiving clozapine (3.2%) compared with those given typical antipsychotics (0%) (n=1031, 13 RCTs, RR 7.09 CI 2.0 to 25.6). Clozapine participants experienced more drowsiness, hypersalivation, or temperature increase, than those given conventional neuroleptics. However, clozapine patients experienced fewer motor adverse effects (n=1433, 18 RCTs, RR 0.58 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 5 CI 4 to 6).The clinical effects of clozapine were more pronounced in participants resistant to typical neuroleptics in terms of clinical improvement (n=370, 4 RCTs, RR 0.71 CI 0.6 to 0.8, NNT 4 CI 3 to 6) and symptom reduction. Thirty-four per cent of treatment-resistant participants had a clinical improvement with clozapine treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clozapine may be more effective in reducing symptoms of schizophrenia, producing clinically meaningful improvements and postponing relapse, than typical antipsychotic drugs - but data are weak and prone to bias. Participants were more satisfied with clozapine treatment than with typical neuroleptic treatment. The clinical effect of clozapine, however, is, at least in the short term, not reflected in measures of global functioning such as ability to leave the hospital and maintain an occupation. The short-term benefits of clozapine have to be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. Within the context of trials, the potentially dangerous white blood cell decline seems to be more frequent in children and adolescents and in the elderly than in young adults or people of middle-age.The existing trials have largely neglected to assess the views of participants and their families on clozapine. More community-based long-term randomised trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of clozapine on global and social functioning as trials in special groups such as people with learning disabilities.

A randomized controlled trial of the cost-utility of second-generation antipsychotics in people with psychosis and eligible for clozapine

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether clozapine is likely to be more cost-effective than other second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in people with schizophrenia.

METHODS

An integrated clinical and economic multicenter, rater-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared clozapine to the class of other SGAs, using the perspectives of the National Health Service, social support services, and patients. The practice setting was secondary and primary care in the United Kingdom; patients were followed for 1 year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), net benefit statistics, and cost acceptability curves were estimated.

RESULTS

The ICER for clozapine was 33,240 pound per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (range 23,000-70,000 pound for the sensitivity analyses). The proportion of simulations when clozapine was more cost-effective than other SGAs reached 50% if decision-makers are prepared to pay 30,000 pound to 35,000 pound per QALY. This is at the top of the range of acceptable willingness-to-pay values per QALY implied by decisions taken by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds to a limited body of evidence comparing clozapine to other SGAs and is the first economic and clinical RCT to compare clozapine to the class of other SGAs using the lower cost of generic clozapine and a pragmatic trial design. Policy decisions by the NICE suggest that additional reasons would be needed to accept clozapine as effective and efficient if it had a high probability of having ICERs more than 35,000 pound per QALY. The results and limitations of the analysis suggest that there is still a need for further economic evaluation of clozapine.

Clozapine and co-prescribed psychotropics: a short report

Clozapine is the drug of choice in treatment resistant schizophrenia. It reduces hospitalizations. Patients on clozapine are often co-prescribed other psychotropics. This report looks at a sample of twenty patients on clozapine. It finds that almost two thirds were on a psychotropic along with clozapine. Eight individuals were on an antidepressant; seven on an antipsychotic and five were on co-prescribed valproate. The clinical implications are discussed and a need to look at health services involving clozapine is suggested.

A simple and valid tool distinguished efficacy from effectiveness studies

OBJECTIVE

To propose and test a simple instrument based on seven criteria of study design to distinguish effectiveness (pragmatic) from efficacy (explanatory) trials.

STUDY DESIGN

Currently no validated definition of effectiveness studies exists. We asked the directors of 12 Evidence-based Practice Centers to select six studies each: four that they considered to be examples of effectiveness trials and two considered efficacy studies. We then applied our proposed criteria to test the construct validity using the selected studies as if they had been identified by a gold standard.

RESULTS

Based on the rationale to identify effectiveness studies reliably with minimal false positives (i.e., a high specificity), a cutoff of six criteria produced the most desirable balance between sensitivity and specificity. This setting produced a specificity of 0.83 and a sensitivity of 0.72.

CONCLUSION

When applied in a standardized manner, our proposed criteria can provide a valid and simple tool to distinguish effectiveness from efficacy studies. The applicability of systematic reviews can improve when analysts place more emphasis on the generalizability of included studies. In addition, clinicians can also use our criteria to determine the external validity of individual studies, given an appropriate population of interest.

The growth of psychopharmacology in the 1990s: evidence-based practice or irrational exuberance

The rapid growth in sales of psychotropic medications during the late 1980s and 1990s, eventually reaching $20 billion/year, reflected the increased use of seritonin reuptake inhibitors for depression and atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia. Recently, however, some of the therapeutic claims for these medications have been challenged, and under-appreciated risks have turned out to be significant liabilities. Drug manufacturers increasingly dominate clinical trials research and evidence suggests that study designs and data presentations have been slanted to show products in a favorable light while unfavorable data were suppressed. At the same time, during the 1990s, potentially independent voices did not effectively or consistently present countervailing views. The extensive financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and academic researchers, professional associations, and consumer groups may also have discouraged expression of critical views. Additionally, the narrow legal mandate of the FDA to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new drugs only in comparison to placebo (rather than in comparison to other treatments) probably limited its contribution. In the absence of reliable, impartial research on the risk and benefits of psychotropic medications, both before and after they are brought to market, pharmacy benefits management cannot achieve its goal of maximizing health care benefits per dollar spent. Further institutional support is needed for independent research, either conducted or funded by the federal government.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmacological treatments in schizophrenia: critical review of results and methodological issues

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively review and critically appraise the results and the methodological issues in the cost-effectiveness literature on pharmacological treatments in schizophrenia.

METHODS

Relevant literature published in peer-reviewed journals was identified through a computer search in Medline from 1975 to 2002. Further studies were identified using reference lists and published review articles. Articles included in the review were required to evaluate both costs and clinical outcomes in the same study.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles met all inclusion criteria. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in schizophrenia spans three types of studies-randomized trial-based studies (six), retrospective cohort-based studies (six) and decision model-based studies (five). Comparing results from CEA across all types of studies in schizophrenia reveals a large ambiguity in the incremental evaluation of newer atypicals. For treatment-resistant patients, clozapine seems to produce cost saving and better outcomes compared to standard neuroleptics. However, there is tremendous uncertainty in the estimates of cost savings and clinical benefits that may prevent decision makers from making optimal policy decisions about insurance coverage and formulary design based on these results. For chronic schizophrenic patients, the results are even more ambiguous. For example, the studies based on trial settings find risperidone to cost more than haloperidol, while studies based on cohort design and decision models find risperidone to be either equivalent or lower in costs than haloperidol.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies of cost-effectiveness need to be carried out with careful consideration of the limitations of published analyses. There are a variety of theoretical and methodological issues that are important to consider during the development of new decision models in this field.

Direct measurement of health care costs

Cost identification is fundamental to many economic analyses of health care. Health care costs are often derived from administrative databases. Unit costs may also be obtained from published studies. When these sources will not suffice (e.g., in evaluating interventions or programs), data may be gathered directly through observation and surveys. This article describes how to use direct measurement to estimate the cost of an intervention. The authors review the elements of cost determination, including study perspective, the range of elements to measure, and short-run versus long-run costs. They then discuss the advantages and drawbacks of alternative direct measurement methods such as time-and-motion studies, activity logs, and surveys of patients and managers. A parsimonious data collection effort is desirable, although study hypotheses and perspective should guide the endeavor. Special reference is made to data sources within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.

A review of compliance, depot intramuscular antipsychotics and the new long-acting injectable atypical antipsychotic risperidone in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Several oral atypical antipsychotics are available for schizophrenia management. Besides positive and negative symptom control, they may improve cognition. Due to their limited availability as oral agents only, benefits are limited by noncompliance.

METHODS

Using Medline and PsycINFO databases, literature was reviewed to address: (1) factors underlying medication noncompliance; (2) available evidence on efficacy of depot intramuscular (IM) typical antipsychotics; and (3) current knowledge of long-acting atypicals.

RESULTS

Noncompliance remains high due to illness-, treatment-, and clinician-related factors. Compared to oral typicals, atypicals may improve compliance, even though noncompliance remains high. Depot IM typicals are efficacious (reduced relapses and rehospitalizations), but extrapyramidal symptoms are problematic. Available data on long-acting atypical risperidone suggest that it is safe and efficacious.

CONCLUSION

Development of long-acting injectable atypical agents is warranted since noncompliance remains high. Future long-acting IM atypical trials should include outpatient functioning, and preferably be of longer duration to address cost-effectiveness.

Assessing the value of antipsychotics for treating schizophrenia: the importance of evaluating and interpreting the clinical significance of individual service costs

Schizophrenia is a serious and complex disorder, with treatment requiring a large number and wide range of health and social service resources. This paper addresses one challenge for assessing the direct costs of antipsychotic treatments - that of interpreting both cost and effectiveness implications of specific components of service use. Information collected on direct component costs has frequently been analysed and reported only in total. Results of several published studies provide evidence that the total direct medical costs associated with atypical antipsychotics appear to be at least equivalent to, and in some cases lower than, those associated with conventional agents. An important implication of this cost-equivalency finding is that treatment involving higher medication costs have led to offsets in certain medical service costs. Results from several studies demonstrate a shift of cost components, primarily from more expensive inpatient to less expensive outpatient care. Although the common inpatient versus outpatient dichotomy is useful, the complexities of schizophrenia and the heterogeneity of outpatient service provision are likely to warrant greater specificity. Published schizophrenia treatment guidelines can assist researchers to more fully understand and meaningfully interpret the possible relationship of antipsychotic effectiveness to the use of particular outpatient services. Because the disease requires comprehensive and continuous care, outpatient treatment costs may be better conceptualised as baseline or expectable costs necessary in the maintenance phase of treatment. Lack of expectable costs may represent poor patient outcomes and increased intangible costs. In contrast, reductions in acute outpatient service costs may provide important markers of treatment effectiveness. A small number of studies have examined the use of crisis services, but additional work is needed to differentiate treatments vis-à-vis the need for intensive (acute) interventions. The assessment and clinical interpretation of individual cost components may offer an important opportunity to build upon initial results focusing on total costs and tailor analyses to the complexities of the disorder and the treatment process. Research able to incorporate clinical acumen into cost analyses will enhance the ability of healthcare policy makers to make informed decisions regarding the value of different antipsychotic medications for the treatment of schizophrenia.

Clozapine v. conventional antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a re-examination

BACKGROUND

Although there is a consensus that clozapine is more effective than conventional antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, there is great heterogeneity among results of relevant trials.

AIMS

To re-evaluate the evidence comparing clozapine with conventional antipsychotics and to investigate sources of heterogeneity.

METHOD

Individual studies were inspected with assessment of clinical relevance of results. Meta-regression analysis was performed to investigate sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ten trials were examined. Recent large-scale studies have not found a substantial advantage for clozapine, especially in terms of a clinically relevant effect. Meta-regression showed that shorter study duration, financial support from a drug company and higher baseline symptom score consistently predicted greater advantage of clozapine.

CONCLUSIONS

It may be inappropriate to combine studies in meta-analysis, given the degree of heterogeneity between their findings. The benefits of clozapine compared with conventional treatment may not be substantial.

Comparing the sensitivity of generic effectiveness measures with symptom improvement in persons with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity of four generic effectiveness measures with clinically meaningful symptom improvement in persons with schizophrenia.

METHOD

Baseline and 6-month interviews were conducted with 134 subjects diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The design was observational. The four generic effectiveness measures included the Quality of Well-Being scale (QWB), a quality-adjusted index score based on the SF-36 VAS, Veterans SF-36 mental health component summary score (MCS), and the World Health Organization Disablement Assessment Schedule (WHO-DAS). Symptom measures included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and Calgary Depression Scale (CDS). The side effect measure was the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS). Data analysis included correlations between symptom, side effect, and generic effectiveness change scores; and an effect size calculation to detect a clinically significant improvement in the total PANSS.

RESULTS

All four effectiveness measures were correlated with changes in side effects. All but the SG-36 VAS were correlated with changes in depression. Only the QWB was correlated with changes in PANSS scores. The QWB required at least three times fewer subjects (n = 61) to detect a clinically significant improvement in total PANSS compared with the other effectiveness measures (n = 201-324).

CONCLUSIONS

It is recommended that clinicians and researchers use the QWB to demonstrate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of schizophrenia interventions. The QWB allows for direct comparison of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of schizophrenia interventions with other mental and physical health interventions and may contribute to a greater recognition of the value of mental health interventions.

Self-restriction of medications due to cost in seniors without prescription coverage

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about patients who skip doses or otherwise avoid using their medications because of cost. We sought to identify which elderly patients are at highest risk of restricting their medications because of cost, and how prescription coverage modifies this risk.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional study from the 1995-1996 wave of the Survey of Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old, a population-based survey of Americans age 70 years and older.

MEASUREMENTS

Subjects were asked the extent of their prescription coverage, and whether they had taken less medicine than prescribed for them because of cost over the prior 2 years. We used bivariate and multivariate analyses to identify risk factors for medication restriction in subjects who lacked prescription coverage. Among these high-risk groups, we then examined the effect of prescription coverage on rates of medication restriction.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 4,896 seniors who regularly used prescription medications, medication restriction because of cost was reported by 8% of subjects with no prescription coverage, 3% with partial coverage, and 2% with full coverage (P <.01 for trend). Among subjects with no prescription coverage, the strongest independent predictors of medication restriction were minority ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 2.9 compared with white ethnicity; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.0 to 4.2), annual income <$10,000 (OR, 3.8 compared with income > or =$20,000; 95% CI, 2.4 to 6.1), and out-of-pocket prescription drug costs >$100 per month (OR, 3.3 compared to costs < or =$20; 95% CI, 1.5 to 7.2). The prevalence of medication restriction in members of these 3 risk groups was 21%, 16%, and 13%, respectively. Almost half (43%) of subjects with all 3 risk factors and no prescription coverage reported restricting their use of medications. After multivariable adjustment, high-risk subjects with no coverage had 3 to 15 times higher odds of medication restriction than subjects with partial or full coverage (P <.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Medication restriction is common in seniors who lack prescription coverage, particularly among certain vulnerable groups. Seniors in these high-risk groups who have prescription coverage are much less likely to restrict their use of medications.

Management of treatment resistance in schizophrenia

A systematic approach to the evaluation and characterization of treatment resistance in schizophrenia has become increasingly important since the introduction of the second-generation antipsychotics. The need for accurate evaluation will increase further as other new antipsychotic medications are developed. Patients with schizophrenia may manifest poor response to therapy because of intolerance to medication, poor adherence, inappropriate dosing, as well as true resistance of their illness to antipsychotic drug therapy. Criteria for treatment-resistance are presented to help in standardizing treatment and clinical trials. As clinicians face the decision of when to change or augment antipsychotic medications, a clear understanding of the appropriate length of a treatment trial and which target symptoms respond to antipsychotic therapy is critical for maximizing response in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

Impact of clozapine prescription on inpatient resource utilization

Although clozapine has been demonstrated to be clinically superior to typical neuroleptics in refractory schizophrenia, it is also more expensive. It had been hoped that the increased costs associated with its use would be offset by decreases in the utilization of other expensive resources, especially inpatient care. All patients who had clozapine initiated during an inpatient hospitalization within the VA for schizophrenia over a 4-year period (N = 1415) were matched with a comparison group (N = 2,830) on key service utilization variables and other possible confounding demographic and clinical variables using propensity scoring-an accepted statistical method, although still relatively little used in psychiatry. By using centralized VA databases, subsequent inpatient resource utilization for the 3 years after index discharge was examined. Veterans exposed to clozapine while inpatients recorded 33 (36%) more inpatient days in the subsequent 3 years after discharge than the comparison group (124 +/- 190 days vs. 91 +/- 181 days, p = .0002). When all patients exposed to clozapine were divided according to whether they had received 1 year of clozapine treatment after discharge, those that received less than 1 year's treatment recorded significantly more inpatient days than either those maintained on clozapine or controls. These results suggest that in actual practice clozapine treatment may cost substantially more than treatment with conventional neuroleptics.

Buprenorphine for opiate addiction: potential economic impact

This study evaluated the potential economic impact of the buprenorphine/naloxone combination in the context of practice in the United States of America. In comparison to treatment provided through methadone clinics, buprenorphine/naloxone therapy in office practice may be associated with increased medication, physician, and nursing costs, but reduced costs for dispensing, toxicology screens, counseling and administration. It may also result in markedly reduced costs for patients, especially travel costs, resulting in net savings for society as a whole. A review of controlled studies suggest that buprenorphine/naloxone is not likely to be any more or less effective than methadone, but since it will be less expensive in the long run, it may be more cost-effective than methadone when provided to comparable groups of patients. Because of the convenience of office-based treatment, buprenorphine/naloxone may increase access to opiate substitution for some addicts. To the extent that treatment is provided to additional high-cost patients who are involved in extensive criminal activity or who undergo multiple detoxifications each year, net cost savings could be substantial. To the extent that treatment is extended to better adjusted addicts who are employed, married and experience fewer adverse effects from their addiction, costs could increase. The total cost impact will depend on which addict sub-populations make greatest use of the treatment opportunity presented by buprenorphine/naloxone.

From clinical trials to real-world practice: use of atypical antipsychotic medication nationally in the Department of Veterans Affairs

BACKGROUND

Although clinical trials evaluate pharmacotherapeutic interventions under highly controlled conditions, there remains a need to evaluate medication use in actual practice.

METHODS

Patients prescribed atypical antipsychotic medications in the VA system during a 4-month period in 1999 (n = 73,981) were classified into 32 groups on the basis of clinical diagnosis and recent level of inpatient use. Variation was examined across groups in drug costs, agents, dosages, and duration of use. The potential impact of these medications on VA costs was estimated by calculating medication costs and subtracting estimated inpatient savings.

RESULTS

A majority of patients were diagnosed with schizophrenia (57.2%), but substantial off-label use of these medications to treat other psychiatric illnesses was also evident (42.8%). Compared with published trials reporting average annual costs from $3,000 to $7,000, average annualized pharmacy costs were only $1,395 per patient because of a 58.5% VA price discount; relatively low dosing, especially for people with diagnoses other than schizophrenia; and medication prescription coverage for only 75% of the days in the study period. The sample averaged only 6.96 inpatient days; as a result, potential inpatient savings were limited. Assuming 0% to 18% inpatient savings, annual net drug costs are estimated to range from $500 to $1,152 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication costs in actual practice can be substantially lower than in clinical trials. Atypical antipsychotic medications in actual VA practice incur net costs estimated at $500 to $1,152 per patient per year with substantial variation across clinical subgroups.

Health care utilization in patients with schizophrenia maintained on atypical versus conventional antipsychotics

1. Patients with schizophrenia who had been stabilized on their antipsychotic medication and subsequently maintained on it for a period of at least 18 months were identified: clozapine (N=15); risperidone (N=15); depot conventional (N=18); oral conventional (N=18). 2. Groups were compared on a clinical measure as well as the use of various health care services: hospitalizations; days in hospital, emergency room visits; physician and non-physician visits. 3. No differences between groups were found for hospitalizations, days in hospital, or emergency room visits, while physician and non-physician visits were highest in the clozapine group, in keeping with the need for routine hematologic monitoring in this population. The clozapine group had the highest baseline clinical scores and greatest number of previous hospitalizations. These treatment groups may reflect different clinical populations. However, the findings suggest that in drawing conclusions regarding long-term benefits of different agents, clinical or economic, it would prove useful to include in the evaluation a comparison of patients who have been stabilized on each of the treatments.

The role of economic evaluation in mental health care

OBJECTIVE

A consequence of the integration of psychiatry into acute and public health medicine is that psychiatrists are being asked to evaluate their services. There is pressure on mental health-care systems because it is recognized that funds should be directed where they can provide the best health outcomes, and also because there are resource constraints which limit our capacity to meet all demands for health care. This pressure can be responded to by evaluation which demonstrates the effectiveness and efficiency of psychiatric treatment. This paper seeks to remind psychiatrists of the fundamental principles of economic evaluation in the hope that these will enable psychiatrists to understand the methods used in evaluation and to work comfortably with evaluators.

METHOD

The paper reviews the basic principles behind economic evaluation, illustrating these with reference to case studies. It describes: (i) the cost of the burden of illness and treatment, and how these costs are measured; (ii) the measurement of treatment outcomes, both as changes in health status and as resources saved; and (iii) the various types of economic evaluation, including cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit analysis.

RESULTS

The advice in the paper provides psychiatrists with the necessary background to work closely with evaluators. A checklist of the critical questions to be addressed is provided as a guide for those undertaking economic evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

If psychiatrists are willing to learn the basic principles of economic evaluation and to apply these, they can respond to the challenges of evaluation.

The new atypical antipsychotics: a review of pharmacoeconomic studies

The pharmacoeconomic evaluation of atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia involves documentation of clinical effectiveness, quality of life and medical cost outcomes. The findings of pharmacoeconomic studies assist psychiatrists and mental healthcare decision-makers in identifying therapies that provide the greatest benefit to patients at the most acceptable cost. The cost-effectiveness of the newer atypical antipsychotics has been examined using non-controlled cohort studies (either retrospective or prospective), modelling studies or randomised clinical trials. The evidence, from a variety of studies, indicates that clozapine is a cost-effective treatment for neuroleptic refractory schizophrenia. Risperidone and olanzapine may be cost neutral, or at best slightly cost saving, compared with conventional antipsychotics, although they do improve patient clinical effectiveness and quality of life outcomes. There is too little data on pharmacoeconomic outcomes for sertindole and quetiapine to make any conclusions about their cost-effectiveness in treating schizophrenia.

Clozapine versus typical neuroleptic medication for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Long-term drug treatment of schizophrenia with conventional antipsychotics has limitations: 25-33% of patients have illnesses that are treatment-resistant. Clozapine is an atypical antipsychotic drug, which is claimed to have superior efficacy and to cause fewer motor adverse effects than typical drugs for people with treatment-resistant illnesses. Clozapine carries a significant risk of serious blood disorders, which necessitates mandatory weekly blood monitoring at least during the first months of treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of clozapine for schizophrenia in comparison to typical antipsychotic drugs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Publications in all languages were searched from the following databases: Biological Abstracts (1982-1999), The Cochrane Library CENTRAL (Issue 2, 1999), Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Specialised Register (1999), EMbase (1980-1999), ISI Citation Index, LILACS (1982-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), and PsycLIT (1974-1999). Reference list screening of included papers was performed. Authors of recent trials and the manufacturer of clozapine contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing clozapine with typical antipsychotic drugs were included by independent assessment by at least two reviewers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by at least two reviewers. Authors of trials published since 1980 were contacted for additional and missing data. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of homogeneous dichotomous data were calculated with the Peto method. A random effects model was used for heterogeneous dichotomous data. Where possible the numbers needed to treat (NNT) or needed to harm (NNH) were also calculated. Weighted or standardised means were calculated for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Currently the review includes 31 studies, 26 of which are less than 13 weeks in duration. These studies include 2589 participants, most of whom were men (74%). The average age was 38 years. There was no difference in the effects of clozapine and typical neuroleptic drugs for broad outcomes such as mortality, ability to work or suitability for discharge at end of the study. Clinical improvement was seen more frequently in those taking clozapine (random effects OR 0.4 CI 0.2-0.6, NNT 6) both in the short and the long term. Also, in the short term, participants on clozapine had fewer relapses than those on typical antipsychotic drugs (OR 0.6 CI 0.4-0.8, NNT 20 CI 17-38), and this may be true for long-term treatment as well. Symptom assessment scales showed a greater reduction of symptoms in clozapine-treated patients. Clozapine treatment was more acceptable than low-potency antipsychotics such as chlorpromazine (OR 0.6 CI 0.4-0.9) but did not differ from acceptability of high-potency neuroleptics such as haloperidol (random effects OR 0.8 CI 0.4-1.5). Clozapine was more acceptable in long-term treatment than conventional antipsychotic drugs (random effects OR 0.4 CI 0.2-0.7, NNT 6 CI 3-111). Patients were more satisfied with clozapine treatment (OR 0.5 CI 0.3-0.8, NNT 12 CI 7-37), but they experienced more hypersalivation, temperature increase, and drowsiness than those given conventional neuroleptics. However, clozapine patients experience fewer motor side effects and less dry mouth. The clinical efficacy of clozapine was more pronounced in participants resistant to typical neuroleptics in terms of clinical improvement (random effects OR 0.2 CI 0.1-0.5, NNT 5 CI 4-7) and symptom reduction. Thirty-two percent of treatment resistant people had a clinical improvement with clozapine treatment.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review confirms that clozapine is convincingly more effective than typical antipsychotic drugs in reducing symptoms of schizophrenia, producing clinically meaningful improvements and postponing relapse. Patients were more satisfied with clozapine treatment than with typical neuroleptic treatment. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED