|
If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | |||||||||||||
  Value in HealthVolume 9 Issue 2, Pages 77 - 89 Published Online: 19 Dec 2005 © 2010 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Published on behalf of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 155K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking  Cost-Effectiveness of Olanzapine as First-Line Treatment for Schizophrenia: Results from a Randomized, Open-Label, 1-Year Trial Copyright 2006, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) KEYWORDS antipsychotic • cost • cost-effectiveness • effectiveness • formulary • olanzapine • practical clinical trial • risperidone • schizophrenia ABSTRACT
Objectives: This randomized, open-label trial was designed to help inform antipsychotic treatment policies. It compared the 1-year cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with olanzapine (OLZ) (n = 229) versus a "fail-first" algorithm on conventional antipsychotics (then olanzapine if indicated) (CON) (n = 214); and versus initial treatment with risperidone (RIS) (n = 221). Methods: Individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were recruited from May 1998 to September 2001. Clinical, functioning, and resource utilization data were collected at baseline and five postbaseline visits. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores defined "clinical effectiveness;" Lehman Quality of Life Scale social relations scores defined "social effectiveness." Results: Requiring failure on less expensive antipsychotics before use of olanzapine did not result in total cost savings, despite significantly higher antipsychotic costs with OLZ. Total 1-year mean costs were $21,283 for CON; $20,891 for OLZ; and $21,347 for RIS (pair-wise comparisons nonsignificant). Intent-to-treat effectiveness comparisons (nonsignificant) were augmented by analyses that adjusted for duration on initial antipsychotic treatment, and by comparisons of patients remaining on initial antipsychotic treatment versus those who required switching. When accounting for differential switching rates (OLZ 0.14 vs. CON 0.53, P < 0.0001; vs. RIS 0.31, P < 0.0001), OLZ was significantly more effective than CON on clinical (P = 0.025) and social (P = 0.043) measures, and significantly more effective than RIS on the social (P = 0.002) measure. Further, patients initiated on an antipsychotic from which they needed to switch required additional resources for hospitalization (P = 0.036) and crisis services (P = 0.029). Conclusions: Approaches that integrate costs, effectiveness, and treatment patterns are important for providing optimal information regarding the value of first-line antipsychotic options for schizophrenia. | 
|
