Medication adherence levels and differential use of mental-health services in the treatment of schizophrenia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Adherence to antipsychotics for schizophrenia is associated with favorable clinical outcomes. This study compared annual mental-health service utilization by recent medication adherence levels for patients treated for schizophrenia, and assessed whether adherence levels change from pre- to post-psychiatric hospitalization.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We analyzed data from a large prospective, non-interventional study of patients treated for schizophrenia in the United States, conducted between 7/1997 and 9/2003. Detailed mental-health resource utilization was systematically abstracted from medical records and augmented with patients' self report. Medication possession ratio (MPR) with any antipsychotic in the 6 months prior to enrollment was used to categorize patients as: adherent (MPR ≥ 80%, N = 1758), partially adherent (MPR ≥ 60% < 80%, N = 36), or non-adherent (MPR < 60%, N = 216). Group comparisons employed propensity score-adjusted bootstrap re-sampling methods with 1000 iterations, adjusting for baseline patient demographic and clinical characteristics identified a priori.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Adherent patients had a lower rate of psychiatric hospitalization compared with partially adherent and non-adherent patients (p < 0.001) and were more likely than non-adherent to engage in group therapy, individual therapy, and medication management. Most patients (92.0%) who were adherent in the 6 months prior to hospital admission continued to be adherent 6 months following hospitalization. However, 75.0% of previously partially adherent became adherent, and 38.7% of previously non-adherent became adherent following hospitalization.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Adherence is associated with lower utilization of acute care services and greater engagement in outpatient mental-health treatment. Adherence is a potentially dynamic phenomenon, which may improve, at least temporarily, following patients' psychiatric hospitalizations.</p

Modeling screening, prevention, and delaying of Alzheimer's disease: an early-stage decision analytic model

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Alzheimer's Disease (AD) affects a growing proportion of the population each year. Novel therapies on the horizon may slow the progress of AD symptoms and avoid cases altogether. Initiating treatment for the underlying pathology of AD would ideally be based on biomarker screening tools identifying pre-symptomatic individuals. Early-stage modeling provides estimates of potential outcomes and informs policy development.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A time-to-event (TTE) simulation provided estimates of screening asymptomatic patients in the general population age ≥55 and treatment impact on the number of patients reaching AD. Patients were followed from AD screen until all-cause death. Baseline sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 and 0.78, with treatment on positive screen. Treatment slowed progression by 50%. Events were scheduled using literature-based age-dependent incidences of AD and death.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The base case results indicated increased AD free years (AD-FYs) through delays in onset and a reduction of 20 AD cases per 1000 screened individuals. Patients completely avoiding AD accounted for 61% of the incremental AD-FYs gained. Total years of treatment per 1000 screened patients was 2,611. The number-needed-to-screen was 51 and the number-needed-to-treat was 12 to avoid one case of AD. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that duration of screening sensitivity and rescreen interval impact AD-FYs the most. A two-way sensitivity analysis found that for a test with an extended duration of sensitivity (15 years) the number of AD cases avoided was 6,000-7,000 cases for a test with higher sensitivity and specificity (0.90,0.90).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study yielded valuable parameter range estimates at an early stage in the study of screening for AD. Analysis identified duration of screening sensitivity as a key variable that may be unavailable from clinical trials.</p

Estimated economic benefits from low-frequency administration of atypical antipsychotics in treatment of schizophrenia: a decision model

<p>Abstract</p> <p>The objective of this study was to quantify the direct medical resources used and the corresponding burden of disease in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Because low-frequency administration (LFA) of risperidone guarantees adherence during treatment intervals and offers fewer opportunities to discontinue, adherence and persistence were assumed to improve, thereby reducing relapses of major symptoms.</p> <p>A decision tree model including Markov processes with monthly cycles and a five-year maximum timeframe was constructed. Costs were adapted from the literature and discounted at a 3% annual rate. The population is a demographically homogeneous cohort of patients with schizophrenia, differentiated by initial disease severity (mildly ill, moderately ill, and severely ill). Treatment parameters are estimated using published information for once-daily risperidone standard oral therapy (RIS-SOT) and once-monthly risperidone long-acting injection (RIS-LAI) with LFA therapy characteristics derived from observed study trends. One-year and five-year results are expressed as discounted direct medical costs and mean number of relapses per patient (inpatient, outpatient, total) and are estimated for LFA therapies given at three, six, and nine month intervals.</p> <p>The one-year results show that LFA therapy every 3 months (LFA-3) ($6,088) is less costly than either RIS-SOT ($10,721) or RIS-LAI ($9,450) with similar trends in the 5-year results. Moreover, the model predicts that LFA-3 vs. RIS-SOT vs. RIS LAI therapy will reduce costly inpatient relapses (0.16 vs. 0.51 vs. 0.41). Extending the interval to six (LFA-6) and nine (LFA-9) months resulted in further reductions in relapse and costs.</p> <p>Limitations include the fact that LFA therapeutic options are hypothetical and do not yet exist and limited applicability to compare one antipsychotic agent versus another as only risperidone therapy is evaluated. However, study results have quantified the potential health state improvements and potential direct medical cost savings achievable with the development and use of LFA medication delivery technologies.</p

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

Abstract Background Schizophrenia is often a persistent and costly illness that requires continued treatment with antipsychotics. Differences among antipsychotics on efficacy, safety, tolerability, adherence, and cost have cost-effectiveness implications for treating schizophrenia. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of oral olanzapine, oral risperidone (at generic cost, primary comparator), quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia from the perspective of third-party payers in the U.S. health care system. Methods A 1-year microsimulation economic decision model, with quarterly cycles, was developed to simulate the dynamic nature of usual care of schizophrenia patients who switch, continue, discontinue, and restart their medications. The model captures clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, relapse with and without hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment discontinuation by reason, treatment-emergent adverse events, suicide, health care resource utilization, and direct medical care costs. Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to develop baseline model assumptions. Key model outcomes included mean annual total direct cost per treatment, cost per stable patient, and incremental cost-effectiveness values per QALY gained. Results The results of the microsimulation model indicated that olanzapine had the lowest mean annual direct health care cost ($8,544) followed by generic risperidone ($9,080). In addition, olanzapine resulted in more QALYs than risperidone (0.733 vs. 0.719). The base case and multiple sensitivity analyses found olanzapine to be the dominant choice in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness per QALY gained. Conclusion The utilization of olanzapine is predicted in this model to result in better clinical outcomes and lower total direct health care costs compared to generic risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole. Olanzapine may, therefore, be a cost-effective therapeutic option for patients with schizophrenia.</p

United States

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