Search

Background: Culture and ethnicity have been suggested to influence the presentation of patients with schizophrenia. These factors are thought to affect the diagnoses, courses of treatment, and medical utilization patterns of patients with schizophrenia. Specifically, the differences between whites, African Americans, and Mexican Americans are of particular importance, as these groups comprise the majority of the population in the United States today. The traditional course of treatment for many patients with schizophrenia is the drug haloperidol. However, research has shown that some ethnic groups (African Americans and Mexican Americans) may respond better to atypical drugs, such as olanzapine, but may be less likely to receive these drugs. A better response to the course of treatment results in improved medical utilization patterns. The purpose of this study was to examine if ethnicity helped predict whether Texas Medicaid patients were prescribed haloperidol versus olanzapine when other factors were controlled for., Method: The study population consisted of 726 patients whose index drug was haloperidol and 1875 patients whose index drug was olanzapine. Patients had an ICD-9-CM diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Texas medical and prescription claims data were used in a logistic regression analysis to determine significant predictors of the type of antipsychotic (haloperidol vs. olanzapine) patients were prescribed. Variables included in the analysis were ethnicity, gender, age, region, other mental illness comorbidities, and previous utilization of medications and resources. Data were collected from Jan. 1, 1996, to Aug. 31, 1998., Results: The results show that when other demographic and utilization factors were controlled for, African Americans were less likely than whites to receive olanzapine rather than haloperidol., Conclusion: Ethnicity is a significant predictor of the type of antipsychotic that is prescribed.

Background: Clinicians treating schizophrenia face increasingly diverse ethnic populations. Ethnic groups may have different approaches to the management of schizophrenia, which could impact antipsychotic medication adherence., Objective: To examine the association between adherence and ethnicity or the specific medication used after controlling for other factors., Methods: Texas Medicaid claims were retrieved for persons aged 21-65 years, diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, after initiating treatment with olanzapine (n = 1875), risperidone (n = 982), or haloperidol (n = 726) between January 1997 and August 1998. The association between ethnicity (African American, Mexican American, white) or medication and days' use of the medication in the year following initiation was assessed using multivariate linear regression. Covariates included other patient demographics, region, comorbid mental health conditions, and prior medication and healthcare resource use., Results: African American and Mexican American patients were significantly less adherent than white patients (19 d less, p < 0.001 for African Americans; 18 d less, p = 0.003 for Mexican Americans). For patients of all ethnicities, olanzapine was associated with 23 more adherent days than risperidone and 55 more adherent days than haloperidol (p < 0.001 for each comparison)., Conclusions: When other factors were controlled for, ethnicity was a significant predictor of medication adherence following initiation on an antipsychotic medication, and patients of all ethnicities were most adherent when taking olanzapine, less adherent when taking risperidone, and least adherent when taking haloperidol.

Background: Olanzapine has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of acute mania in 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. We describe the results of the open-label extension from one of these trials., Method: In a 3-week, double-blind study of patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, olanzapine was superior to placebo for the treatment of acute manic symptoms. Of the 139 patients who entered the double-blind phase of the 3-week study, 113 patients continued into the 49-week open-label extension. Efficacy measurements including the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-21), the Clinical Global Impressions scale-Bipolar Version, and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and safety measurements including the Simpson-Angus scale, the Barnes Akathisia Scale, and the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale were completed throughout. The analysis considered all treatment results, starting with the first olanzapine dose. Adjunctive lithium and fluoxetine were allowed during the open-label extension., Results: The mean length of olanzapine treatment was 6.6 months, with a mean modal dose of 13.9 mg/day. A significant mean improvement in the YMRS total score, baseline to endpoint (-18.01, p < .001), was observed. During treatment, 88.3% of patients experienced a remission of manic symptoms (YMRS total score < or =12), and only 25.5% subsequently relapsed (YMRS total score > or = 15). Significant improvement in HAM-D-21 scores was observed (p < .001). Forty-one percent of patients were maintained on olanzapine monotherapy. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events reported were somnolence (46.0%), depression (38.9%), and weight gain (36.3%)., Conclusion: During up to 1 year of olanzapine therapy, either as monotherapy or in combination with lithium and/or fluoxetine, patients with bipolar disorder demonstrated significant improvement in mania and depression symptoms with a favorable safety profile. Further double-blind, controlled studies are needed to confirm these results.

We utilize data from a large, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of treatment for schizophrenia to compare the effect of therapy with the second generation antipsychotic olanzapine versus therapy with the conventional agent haloperidol on the perceived functioning and well-being of patients over 1 year as measured by the Medical Outcome Study Short Form (SF-36). We also compare the total cost of care between the treatment groups over 1 year and combine cost and functional outcomes information to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of both therapies in this sample. Over 1 year of therapy, patients receiving olanzapine experienced a mean of 5.75 units greater improvement than did haloperidol-treated patients on the physical health and functioning factor of the SF-36 and 1.66 units greater improvement on the mental health and functioning factor. The mean annual total cost of care, including the cost of medication therapies, was $9386.87 less for olanzapine-treated patients than for haloperidol-treated patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for olanzapine versus haloperidol treatment indicated a savings of $1632.50 per unit of improvement in the SF-36 physical health and functioning score and a savings of $5654.74 per unit of improvement in the mental health and functioning composite. Improvements in perceived health and functioning were also associated with reduction in hospital costs in the full sample. These findings suggest that patient-centered measures of functioning such as the SF-36 are an important component of the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of novel treatments for schizophrenia.