Search

Introduction: Bipolar disorder is a recurrent mental health disorder with a prevalence rate of 1.4%. On average, there can be a delay of 9.5 years from the initial presentation of symptoms to a confirmed diagnosis. Individuals living with bipolar disorder have a reduced life expectancy. There is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating bipolar disorder. The ASCEnD clinical trial will test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the aripiprazole/sertraline combination in comparison with quetiapine for the treatment of bipolar depression (individuals who suffer from depressive episodes in bipolar disorder) and will include a nested qualitative study., Methods: The qualitative study will use semi-structured interviews to explore pilot trial participants' and clinicians' perspectives on recruitment procedures, the acceptability of the intervention, the management of bipolar disorder and attitudes to medication combinations., Conclusion: Findings will inform recruitment strategies and optimise training for the participating sites in the ASCEnD full trial. They will also help to illuminate the lived experience of people with bipolar disorder and the clinicians who work with people with bipolar disorder. The discussion will explore perspectives on the delay in diagnosis, having a diagnosis, the impact of living with bipolar disorder and attitudes to treatment, including drug combinations., Patient or Public Contribution: A Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) has been convened with the support of the McPin Foundation, which will contribute to the ASCEnD trial and its nested qualitative study to provide input on the design and delivery of the trial and qualitative study, analysis of qualitative data and dissemination of findings., (© 2024 The Author(s). Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) is a long-acting injectable antipsychotic approved for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder (SCA) in adults., Objective: To assess treatment patterns and schizophrenia/SCA-related hospitalization following payer rejection, patient reversal, or payment of an initial PP1M claim., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using the IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer database linked to the Medical Claims, Hospital Charge Detail Master, and Experian consumer databases. Patients with schizophrenia/SCA and ≥1 PP1M pharmacy claim from January 1, 2018, to February 28, 2022, were identified and stratified into 3 cohorts based on the transaction status of the initial PP1M claim (index date): rejected (payer not approved), reversed (payer approved, patient abandoned), and paid (payer approved, patient filled). Patient characteristics during the 12 months before the index date, subsequent treatment patterns, and schizophrenia/SCA-related hospitalization for patients with >6 months of follow-up were assessed by cohort., Results: The rejected, reversed, and paid cohorts included 1,260, 1,046, and 1,686 patients, respectively. Across these cohorts, the mean ages ranged between 39.2 and 44.5 years; more than half were male (50.8%-51.6%) and White (50.6%-58.3%); 19.8%-24.6% of patients had a Quan-Charlson Comorbidity Index score of ≥2. Rates of prior atypical oral and long-acting injectable antipsychotic use ranged between 76.4%-80.3% and 7.8%-12.7%, respectively. Among patients with ≥6 months of follow-up, 52.2% in the rejected and 53.1% in the reversed cohorts had a subsequent paid PP1M claim during the study period; the median (quartile 1-quartile 3) time to the first paid PP1M claim was 22 (5-74) days for rejection and 11 (1-41) days for reversal. In the rejected and reversed cohorts, 10.2% (n = 111) and 9.8% (n = 90) of patients, respectively, did not receive any paid claim for an antipsychotic after the initial PP1M rejection/reversal. The prevalence of schizophrenia/SCA-related hospitalization during follow-up was similar between patients with a paid (7.4%) and rejected PP1M claim (7.0%; P = 0.689) but higher among patients with a reversed claim (10.8%; P = 0.004). After adjusting for confounders, patients in the reversed cohort were 39% more likely to have a schizophrenia/SCA-related hospitalization than those in the paid cohort (odds ratio = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.03-1.87)., Conclusions: Payer rejection and patient reversal of initial PP1M claims is a form of primary nonadherence and may influence patient trajectory. Data from this study suggest that patient reversal of PP1M may lead to an increased risk of schizophrenia/SCA-related hospitalizations, potentially caused by missed or delayed treatment. Policy initiatives that remove barriers to primary adherence or fulfillment may help improve patients' clinical outcomes.

Objectives: Negative symptoms in schizophrenia are associated with significant illness burden. We sought to investigate clinical outcomes for patients with schizophrenia who present with predominant negative symptoms (PNS) vs without PNS., Design: Retrospective analysis of electronic health record (EHR) data., Setting: 25 US providers of mental healthcare., Participants: 4444 adults with schizophrenia receiving care between 1999 and 2020., Exposure: PNS defined as ≥3 negative symptoms and ≤3 positive symptoms recorded in EHR data at the time of the first recorded schizophrenia diagnosis (index date). Symptom data were ascertained using natural language processing applied to semistructured free text records documenting the mental state examination. A matched sample (1:1) of patients without PNS was used to compare outcomes. Follow-up data were obtained up to 12 months following the index date., Primary Outcome Measure: Mean number of psychiatric hospital admissions., Secondary Outcome Measures: Mean number of outpatient visits, estimated treatment costs, Clinical Global Impression - Severity score and antipsychotic treatments (12 months before and after index date)., Results: 360 (8%) patients had PNS and 4084 (92%) did not have PNS. Patients with PNS were younger (36.4 vs 39.7 years, p<0.001) with a greater prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities (schizoaffective disorders: 25.0 vs 18.4%, p=0.003; major depressive disorder: 17.8 vs 9.8%, p<0.001). During follow-up, patients with PNS had fewer days with an antipsychotic prescription (mean=111.8 vs 140.9 days, p<0.001). Compared with matched patients without PNS, patients with PNS were more likely to have a psychiatric inpatient hospitalisation (76.1% vs 59.7%, p<0.001) and had greater estimated inpatient costs ($16 893 vs $13 732, p=0.04)., Conclusions: Patients with PNS were younger and presented with greater illness severity and more psychiatric comorbidities compared with patients without PNS. Our findings highlight an unmet need for novel therapeutic approaches to address negative symptoms to improve clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CD, CZ and AP are employees of Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. AK was an employee of Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. at the time of this research. YW and XH are employees of Holmusk Technologies Inc., which received funding from Sunovion to conduct this analysis. RP has received grant funding from Janssen, and consulting fees from Holmusk, Akrivia Health, Columbia Data Analytics, Clinilabs, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Teva and Otsuka., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Antipsychotic switching is frequent in schizophrenia and is associated with poor clinical outcomes, increased health care resource utilization (HCRU), and increased health care costs. Research describing the reasons for antipsychotic switching in patients with schizophrenia and the associated impacts on HCRU and costs is limited., Objective: To explore the reasons for oral antipsychotic medication (OAM) switching and describe HCRU and costs associated with OAM switching, stratified by reasons for switching, in patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance in the United States., Methods: This retrospective observational study used medical and pharmacy claims from the Optum Research Database linked to patient medical chart data. Adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who initiated OAM monotherapy between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2021, and switched from their initial OAM monotherapy to a second one were included. Reasons for OAM switching were recorded from medical charts abstracted between 4 months preceding and 2 months following the patient's switch date. HCRU and costs incurred up to 3 months before and 3 months after the OAM switch were stratified and compared by reasons for switching among individuals who switched OAM monotherapy., Results: Among 134 patients with valid, abstracted charts, the 2 most common reasons for switching were lack of efficacy (57.5% of switches) and at least 1 tolerability issue (41.8%). Mutually exclusive categories of switching reasons included lack of efficacy and no tolerability issues (56/134; 41.8%), tolerability and no efficacy issues (35/134; 26.1%), lack of efficacy and tolerability issues (21/134; 15.7%), and other or unknown (22/134; 16.4%). All-cause and schizophrenia-related HCRU and costs in any health services category did not appear to differ across the reason-for-switching cohorts, with costs for inpatient stays accounting for greater than half of the total costs, regardless of switching reason., Conclusions: These findings provide insight on patient experiences that contribute to OAM switching, with nearly half of patients switching because of lack of efficacy, more than one-fourth because of tolerability issues, and an additional one-sixth for reasons of both efficacy and tolerability. Health care providers should address patients' expectations regarding OAM effectiveness, symptom resolution, and side effect tolerability at treatment initiation to minimize switching before the medication has reached peak effectiveness. Prescribing access to a broad selection of antipsychotics with different side effect profiles may help physicians better match treatment to individual patients, fostering greater acceptance of therapy, increased medication adherence, and better long-term outcomes.

Background: To analyze the economic benefits of paliperidone palmitate in the treatment of schizophrenia., Methods: We collected 546 patients who met the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia according to the 《International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems,10th》(ICD-10). We gathered general population data such as gender, age, marital status, and education level, then initiated treatment with paliperidone palmitate. Then Follow-up evaluations were conducted at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the start of treatment to assess clinical efficacy, adverse reactions, and injection doses. We also collected information on the economic burden before and after 12 months of treatment, as well as the number of outpatient visits and hospitalizations in the past year to analyze economic benefits., Results: The baseline patients totaled 546, with 239 still receiving treatment with paliperidone palmitate 12 months later. After 12 months of treatment, the number of outpatient visits per year increased compared to before (4 (2,10) vs. 12 (4,12), Z=-5.949, P < 0.001), while the number of hospitalizations decreased (1 (1,3) vs. 1 (1,2), Z = 5.625, P < 0.001). The inpatient costs in the direct medical expenses of patients after 12 months of treatment decreased compared to before (5000(2000,12000) vs. 3000 (1000,8050), P < 0.05), while there was no significant change in outpatient expenses and direct non-medical expenses (transportation, accommodation, meal, and family accompanying expenses, etc.) (P > 0.05); the indirect costs of patients after 12 months of treatment (lost productivity costs for patients and families, economic costs due to destructive behavior, costs of seeking non-medical assistance) decreased compared to before (300(150,600) vs. 150(100,200), P < 0.05)., Conclusion: Palmatine palmitate reduces the number of hospitalizations for patients, as well as their direct and indirect economic burdens, and has good economic benefits., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder require long-term antipsychotic treatment with antipsychotic medications, but poor medication adherence can lead to increased health care utilization and costs. Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) offer potential therapeutic advantages in that they require less frequent dosing and improved medication adherence. South Carolina has the highest adoption of LAIs among US states, making it an ideal population for comparing the effectiveness of LAIs vs oral antipsychotics (OAPs) in treating schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder., Objective: To evaluate the effect of LAIs compared with OAPs on medication adherence, health care resource utilization, and costs among South Carolina Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder., Methods: South Carolina Medicaid beneficiaries with at least 1 claim for an LAI or OAP between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018, aged 18 to 65, with at least 2 claims with diagnoses of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were included. Propensity scores (PSs) were calculated using logistic regression adjusting for confounders and predictors of the outcome. We estimated the "average treatment effect on the treated" by employing PS-weighted t-tests and chi-square tests., Results: A total of 3,531 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 1,537 (44.5%) treated with LAIs and 1,994 (56.5%) treated with OAPs. In PS-weighted analyses, the LAI cohort had a greater proportion of days covered than the OAP cohort with a 365-day fixed denominator (69% vs 64%; P < 0.0001), higher medication possession ratio with a variable denominator while on therapy (85% vs 80%; P < 0.0001), and higher persistence (82% vs 64%; P < 0.0001). The average number of inpatient visits and emergency department visits did not significantly differ between cohorts (0.28 hospitalizations, P = 0.90; 3.68 vs 2.96 emergency department visits, P = 0.19). The number of outpatient visits, including visits for medication administration, were greater in the LAI cohort (23.1 [SD 24.2]) vs OAP (16.9 [SD 21.2]; P < 0.0001); however, including the costs for medication administration visits, outpatient costs (per member) were approximately $2,500 lower in the LAI cohort ( P < 0.0001). The number of pharmacy visits was greater in the OAP cohort (LAI 21.0 [SD 17.0] vs OAP 23.0 [SD 15.0]; P = 0.006). All-cause total costs were greater in the LAI cohort ($26,025 [SD $29,909]) vs the OAP cohort ($17,291 [SD $25,261]; P < 0.0001) and were driven by the difference in pharmaceutical costs (LAI $15,273 [SD $16,183] vs OAP $4,696 [SD $10,371]; P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Among South Carolina Medicaid beneficiaries, treatment with LAIs for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder was associated with greater medication adherence rates. Patients using LAIs had higher drug costs and total costs, but lower outpatient and total nondrug costs compared with those using OAPs.

Background: Antipsychotic medications are the mainstay of schizophrenia therapy but may need to be changed over the course of a patient's illness to achieve the desired therapeutic goals or minimize medication side effects. Investigations of real-world treatment patterns and economic consequences associated with antipsychotic changes, including switching, are limited., Objective: To describe treatment patterns among patients with schizophrenia who initiated oral antipsychotic medication (OAM) monotherapy and assess switching-related health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in US Medicare Advantage and commercially insured patients., Methods: Adults with at least 2 claims with a schizophrenia diagnosis who initiated (or reinitiated after ≥6 months) OAM monotherapy between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2021, were identified in the Optum Research Database. A claims-based algorithm using timing of therapies and treatment gaps identified medication changes, specifically OAM monotherapy switches, among OAM initiators over a period of up to 7 years. Patients who switched from their initial OAM monotherapy to a second OAM monotherapy (initial OAM switchers) were matched based on clinical and demographic characteristics to OAM initiators who had not switched OAMs; switch-related HCRU and costs (incurred up to 3 months before and 3 months after the initial OAM switch) were compared between matched initial OAM switchers and nonswitchers., Results: Among 6,425 OAM monotherapy initiators, 1,505 (23.4%) had at least 1 OAM monotherapy switch at any time during follow-up, with a mean (SD) time to first switch of 209 (333) days (median, 67 days), a rate of 0.65 switches per person-year of follow-up, and 56% of first switches occurring within 3 months of OAM initiation. Of all OAM initiators, 947 (14.7%) were initial OAM switchers. Compared with 865 matched nonswitchers, 865 initial OAM switchers had greater mean counts of all-cause medical visits and greater mean counts of schizophrenia-related emergency and inpatient visits and longer inpatient stays per patient per month. Mean (SD) total schizophrenia-related costs per patient per month were $1,252 ($2,602) for switchers compared with $402 ($2,027) for nonswitchers ( P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Changes to antipsychotic therapy in our sample of patients with schizophrenia were common, with nearly one-fourth switching OAMs, the majority within the first 3 months of therapy. Initial OAM switchers experienced greater HCRU and costs than nonswitchers. These findings highlight the importance of initiating OAM monotherapy that effectively maintains symptom control and minimizes tolerability issues, which would limit the need to switch OAMs and therefore prevent excess HCRU and treatment costs.

Background: Schizophrenia is a chronic, relapsing, and burdensome psychiatric disorder affecting approximately 0.25%-0.6% of the US population. Oral antipsychotic treatment (OAT) remains the cornerstone for managing schizophrenia. However, nonadherence and high treatment failure lead to increased disease burden and medical spending. Cost-effective management of schizophrenia requires understanding the value of current therapies to facilitate better planning of management policies while addressing unmet needs., Objective: To review existing evidence and gaps regarding real-world effectiveness and economic and humanistic outcomes of OATs, including asenapine, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, iloperidone, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine/samidorphan, paliperidone, and quetiapine., Methods: We conducted a literature search using PubMed, American Psychological Association PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 2010 to March 2022 as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. English-language articles describing adults with schizophrenia receiving at least 1 of the selected OATs and reporting real-world effectiveness, direct or indirect costs, humanistic outcomes, behavioral outcomes, adherence/persistence patterns, or product switching were identified., Results: We identified 25 studies from a total of 24,190 articles. Real-world effectiveness, cost, and adherence/persistence outcomes were reported for most OATs that were selected. Humanistic outcomes and product switching were reported only for lurasidone. Behavioral outcomes (eg, interpersonal relations and suicide ideation) were not reported for any OAT. The key economic outcomes across studies were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, cost per quality-adjusted life-years, and health care costs. In studies that compared long-acting injectables (LAIs) with OATs, LAIs had a higher pharmacy and lower medical costs, while total health care cost was similar between LAIs and OATs. Indirect costs associated with presenteeism, absenteeism, or work productivity were not reported for any of the selected OATs. Overall, patients had poor adherence to OATs, ranging between 20% and 61% across studies. Product switching did not impact the all-cause health care costs before and after treatment., Conclusions: Our findings showed considerable gaps exist for evidence on behavioral outcomes, humanistic outcomes, medication switching, and adherence/persistence across OATs. Our findings also suggest an unmet need regarding treatment nonadherence and lack of persistence among patients receiving OATs. We identified a need for research addressing OATs' behavioral and humanistic outcomes and evaluating the impact of product switching in adults with schizophrenia in the United States, which could assist clinicians in promoting patient-centered care and help payers understand the total value of new antipsychotic drugs.

Aims: This study evaluated the association between provider types for patients with newly diagnosed Huntington's disease (HD) and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), costs, and treatment patterns., Materials and Methods: This retrospective analysis used MarketScan databases (1 January 2017-31 December 2021) to identify provider types who diagnosed and managed US adult patients with HD. Patients with continuous enrollment 6 months pre- and 12 months post-diagnosis were included. Outcomes evaluated over 12 months post-diagnosis included hospitalizations, outpatient visits, antipsychotic or vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitor use, and total healthcare costs., Results: Three hundred and forty eligible patients had a mean age at diagnosis of 49 years. 56.5% were female; 71.5% had a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0. Patients were diagnosed by neurologists (48.5%), primary care providers (PCPs) (35.6%), psychiatrists (3.5%), or other providers (12.4%). Patients diagnosed by PCPs or neurologists received significantly more follow-ups by the same diagnosing provider type ( p  < 0.05). All-cause and HD-related outpatient visits at 12-month follow-up had more patients diagnosed by PCPs (23.9, 5.1) than neurologists (18.0, 2.4), psychiatrists (16.7, 1.67), or others (15.3, 2.4). HD-related mean costs totaled $2,489 ($1,179 inpatient and $1,310 outpatient). Patients diagnosed by neurologists had significantly lower HD-related total non-medication costs vs. those diagnosed by PCPs (-$2,256; p  < 0.05). Among patients diagnosed by neurologists vs. PCPs, similar proportions received antipsychotics within the first year (55 vs. 52%, respectively); more patients managed by neurologists received VMAT2 inhibitors (12 vs. 7%, respectively)., Limitations: Our study includes limitations inherent to retrospective claims studies., Conclusions: Patients with HD are most often diagnosed by neurologists or PCPs; the same diagnosing provider type typically manages follow-up. Patients diagnosed by neurologists had significantly fewer HD-related outpatient visits, lower HD-related non-drug costs, and more frequently received VMAT2 inhibitors vs. those diagnosed by PCPs. Our findings show an integrated care team may provide evidence-based, personalized care for patients with HD.

Increases in medication cost-sharing rates remain a controversial system-wide cost-containment measure for chronic mental health patients. The objective was to investigate the effects of cost-sharing increases on adherence to prescribed antipsychotic medication and psychiatric hospitalizations among patients with schizophrenia. In July 2012, a Spanish National Law raised the cost-sharing rate from 0 to 10% for pensioner outpatient medication while cost-sharing remained at 0% for other socioeconomic groups. To estimate the effects of the reform, we analyzed the prevalent adult schizophrenic population of Valencia, Spain, followed up 1 year before and after the Law took effect. We used a quasi-experimental design with a patient fixed-effects difference-in-differences regression to evaluate the reform effects on antipsychotic medication adherence, prescription, and hospitalization rates. A total of 5,672 included patients were exposed to the reform, whereas 5,545 were not. There were no differences in adherence, prescription, or hospitalization rates between exposed and nonexposed patients prior to its implementation. The odds ratio of exposed patients remaining adherent to issued prescriptions after the reform took effect were 0.70 99% confidence interval (CI 0.66-0.75), in relation to the nonexposed group. Additionally, the reform was associated with a reduction in exposure to antipsychotic medication (odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 99%CI 0.83-0.88) and an increase in hospitalization risk (OR 1.13, 99% CI 1.05-1.23) during the first year after implementation. Policies raising the cost-sharing rate of medication for patients with schizophrenia are simultaneously associated with unintended effects. We report decreases in antipsychotic exposure and increases in hospitalization rates that lasted for 1 year after follow-up., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: Continuous antipsychotic therapy is recommended as part of long-term maintenance treatment of schizophrenia, and gaps in antipsychotic treatment have been associated with increased risks of relapse and rehospitalization. Because the use of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics may reduce the likelihood of undetected medication gaps, initiating an LAI medication may affect resource utilization and costs. The LAI aripiprazole lauroxil (AL) was approved in the United States (US) in 2015 for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults., Objective: The objective of this retrospective observational cohort study was to examine treatment patterns, resource utilization, and costs following initiation of AL for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults., Methods: A retrospective analysis of Medicaid claims data identified a cohort of patients (N = 485) starting AL shortly after Food and Drug Administration approval in October 2015. Treatment patterns, resource utilization, and costs were compared 6 months before and after treatment initiation. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the type of antipsychotic (LAI, oral, or none) received before initiation of AL., Results: Over 6 months of follow-up, patients received an average of 4.6 injections out of a maximum of six (77%). After initiating AL, all-cause inpatient admissions decreased by 22.4%; other significant reductions were observed in mental health-related admissions and emergency room (ER) visits. All-cause inpatient costs decreased by an average of US$2836 per patient (p < 0.05) in the 6-month post-AL period, whereas outpatient pharmacy costs increased by US$4121 (p < 0.05), resulting in no significant difference in overall costs between the pre- and post-AL periods. The subgroup of patients who had been prescribed an oral antipsychotic before starting AL had significant reductions in proportion of patients with inpatient and ER visits and costs, but also reported a significant increase in pharmacy costs., Conclusions: AL was associated with a significant reduction in inpatient costs and an increase in outpatient pharmacy costs, resulting in no changes in total healthcare costs over 6 months. The adherence rate and reductions in inpatient use may indicate the potential for greater clinical stability among patients initiated on AL compared with their previous treatment., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Nowadays, many relevant drug-gene associations have been discovered, but pharmacogenomics (PGx)-guided treatment needs to be cost-effective as well as clinically beneficial to be incorporated into standard health care. To address current challenges, this systematic review provides an update regarding previously published studies, which assessed the cost-effectiveness of PGx testing for the prescription of antidepressants and antipsychotics. From a total of 1159 studies initially identified by literature database querying, and after manual assessment and curation of all of them, a mere 18 studies met our inclusion criteria. Of the 18 studies evaluations, 16 studies (88.89%) drew conclusions in favor of PGx testing, of which 9 (50%) genome-guided interventions were cost-effective and 7 (38.9%) were less costly compared to standard treatment based on cost analysis. More precisely, supportive evidence exists for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 drug-gene associations and for combinatorial PGx panels, but evidence is limited for many other drug-gene combinations. Amongst the limitations of the field are the unclear explanation of perspective and cost inputs, as well as the underreporting of study design elements, which can influence though the economic evaluation. Overall, the findings of this article demonstrate that although there is growing evidence on the cost-effectiveness of genome-guided interventions in psychiatric diseases, there is still a need for performing additional research on economic evaluations of PGx implementation with an emphasis on psychiatric disorders., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Prescription patterns of antipsychotic drugs (APDs) are typically sourced from country-specific data. In this study, a digital pharmacoepidemiological approach was used to investigate APD preferences globally. Publicly available data on worldwide web search intensities in Google for 19 typical and 22 atypical APDs were temporally and spatially normalized and correlated with reported prescription data. The results demonstrated an increasing global preference for atypical over typical APDs since 2007, with quetiapine, olanzapine, risperidone, and aripiprazole showing the largest search intensities in 2020. Cross-sectional analysis of 122 countries in 2020 showed pronounced differences in atypical/typical APD preferences that correlated with gross domestic product per capita. In conclusion, the investigation provides temporal and spatial assessments of global APD preferences and shows a trend towards atypical APDs, although with a relative preference for typical APDs in low-income countries. Similar data-sourcing methodologies allow for prospective studies of other prescription drugs.

Purpose/background: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the cost of illness in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) during 3 months before starting clozapine and for the initial 3 months of treatment with clozapine., Methods/procedures: Fifty-two patients with TRS were evaluated for the cost of illness (direct, indirect, and provider cost) by using a structured questionnaire for the period of 3 months before starting clozapine and then at the end of the 3 months of clozapine therapy., Findings/results: Total treatment cost for the period of 3 months before starting clozapine was Indian rupees (INR) 40,372 (560.72 US dollars), and the total treatment cost for the first 3 months of clozapine therapy was INR 40,553 (563.23 US dollars). At both the assessments, indirect cost formed the main bulk of the total cost, with no significant difference in the indirect cost. The total direct treatment cost reduced from INR 13,931.6 (193.49 US dollars) to INR 8756 (121.61 US dollars), and the difference between the 2 assessments was statistically significant, with an advantage for clozapine. Overall, after starting clozapine, the total direct cost reduced from 34.5% to 21.6%, and the total indirect cost reduced from 54.3% to 40.2%. After starting clozapine, total provider cost increased from 11.2% to 38.2% of the totalcost., Implications/conclusions: Treatment with clozapine is not associated with a significant increase in the overall treatment cost, in the short term. However, there is a significant reduction in direct treatment costs., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We compared economic outcomes when elderly patients with neuropsychiatric disorders received psychotropic medications guided by a combinatorial pharmacogenomic (PGx) test., Methods: This is a subanalysis of a 1-year prospective assessment of medication cost for patients with neuropsychiatric disorders receiving combinatorial PGx testing. Pharmacy claims were used to compare per member per year (PMPY) medication cost for patients ≥65 and <65 years old when medications were congruent or incongruent with the PGx test. Polypharmacy was also assessed., Results: Congruent prescribing was associated with savings of US$3497 PMPY ( P < .001) for patients ≥65 years and US$2467 PMPY ( P < .001) for patients <65, compared to incongruent prescribing. Congruent prescribing in patients ≥65 treated by primary care providers was associated with US$4113 PMPY ( P = .026) in savings, while congruent prescribing by psychiatrists was associated with US$120 PMPY ( P = .719). Congruent prescribing was also associated with one fewer neuropsychiatric medication for patients ≥65 ( P = .070)., Conclusion: Congruence with PGx testing was associated with medication cost savings in elderly patients.

Background: Orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) formulation of antipsychotics is one of the innovative drug delivery systems developed to improve medication adherence. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole ODT vs. aripiprazole standard oral tablet (SOT), as well as olanzapine SOT in China., Methods: We developed a discrete event simulation model from government payers' perspective. On the entry, 100,000 patients in each group were simulated for relapse, adverse events, changing adherence level, medication discontinuation, switching or quitting in response to three different medication adherence levels. The model projected quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and treatment costs over a 1-year time horizon. Parameter uncertainties were assessed through sensitivity analyses., Results: The QALYs per patient over 1-year treatment with aripiprazole ODT, aripiprazole SOT, or olanzapine SOT, were 0.7282, 0.7112, and 0.7218, respectively. The corresponding costs were $1,423, $2,215, and $1,493. In both comparisons, aripiprazole ODT was dominant. Compared with aripiprazole SOT and olanzapine SOT, the likelihood of aripiprazole ODT being cost-effective was 99.2% and 69.2%, respectively, using 3 times per capita GDP per QALY as willingness-to-pay threshold., Conclusions: The aripiprazole ODT is associated with more QALYs at lower costs compared with both aripiprazole SOT and olanzapine SOT in treating schizophrenia in China.

Background and Objective: Schizophrenia is a low-prevalence mental disorder with a global age-standardized prevalence of 21 million people (2016). Second-generation antipsychotics (lurasidone and quetiapine XR) are recommended as the first-line treatment for schizophrenia. It is interesting to investigate how the results of clinical studies translate into direct medical costs. The objective of this analysis was to assess the direct medical costs related to pharmaceutical treatments and the management of relapses in patients affected with schizophrenia treated with lurasidone (74 mg) vs quetiapine XR (300 mg) assuming the Italian and Spanish National Health Service perspective., Methods: A health economic model was developed based on a previously published model. The analysis considered direct medical costs related to the pharmacological therapies and inpatient or outpatient management of relapses (direct medical costs referred to 2019). The probability of relapses and related costs were derived from two systematic reviews. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was implemented to test the robustness of the results., Results: The use of lurasidone (74 mg) compared with quetiapine XR (300 mg) would lead to a reduction in direct medical costs in Italy and Spain, with a lower cost per patient of - 163.7 € (- 9.0%) and - 327.2 € (- 22.7%), respectively. In detail, it would lead to an increase in the cost of therapy of + 53.8% and of + 30.5% in Italy and Spain, respectively, to a decrease in the cost of relapses with hospitalization of - 135.7%, and to an increase in the cost of relapses without hospitalization of + 24.5%., Conclusions: The use of lurasidone (74 mg) for the treatment of patients affected with schizophrenia, compared with quetiapine XR (300 mg), would be a cost-saving strategy in the two contexts investigated assuming the National Health Service point of view.

Purpose: To evaluate spillover effects of Medicaid antipsychotic prior authorization (PA) policies among commercially insured youth., Methods: Commercially insured youth residing in nine US states that implemented PA exclusively for antipsychotics in 2011 or 2012 were identified using a 10% random sample of enrollees in the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database spanning 2007 to 2015. Youth were included if they were ≤18 years, met the age criteria of the PA at the time of dispensing, and had at least 1 month of prescription drug coverage from 2007 to 2015. The primary outcome of interest was the monthly prevalence of antipsychotics. We implemented segmented regression of interrupted time series analysis to estimate changes in the monthly prevalence of targeted medications, overall and stratified by age. Trends were compared in the 4-year period before and the 3-year period after implementation of PA policies., Results: Antipsychotics prescribing significantly decreased 6.74/10 000 (95% CI, -9.04 to -4.44) enrollees per month immediately after PA implementation. However, PA was not associated with significant long-term trend changes (-0.06; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.03). Antipsychotic prescribing in children <12 years-old significantly decreased 0.14/10 000 (95% CI, -0.21 to -0.07) enrollees per month after PA implementation, while prescribing in adolescents 12 to 18 years-old significantly increased 0.32/10 000 (95% CI, 0.16 to 0.47) enrollees per month., Conclusion: While Medicaid PA polices for antipsychotic oversight did not affect overall prescribing, there were spillover effects in U.S. commercially insured children <12 years-old. This suggests that state-level Medicaid policies intended to improve the quality of care and safe use of antipsychotics can have broad reach., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Increases in prescription drug cost-sharing may decrease adherence to treatment among persons with schizophrenia and lead to discontinuation of use and an increased risk of hospitalization., Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of new deductible and increased drug copayments implemented on antipsychotic and other drug purchases and on rates of hospitalizations and primary care contacts among persons with schizophrenia in Finland., Research Design: Interrupted time series analysis., Subjects: All persons with schizophrenia in Finland who were alive at the beginning of 2015 (N=41,017)., Measures: We measured the rates of antipsychotic, other psychotropic and cardiometabolic drug purchasers, hospitalizations, and primary care contacts during 2015 and 2016 with data collected from several nationwide health care registers., Results: During 2016, the proportion of antipsychotic purchasers decreased by -0.26 percentage points per month [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.47 to -0.05] compared with 2015. The trend of other psychotropic purchasers decreased to -0.13 percentage points per month in 2016 (95% CI: -0.22 to -0.04) compared with 2015 and cardiometabolic drug purchases to -0.17 percentage points per month (95% CI: -0.29 to -0.05) compared with 2015. The decreasing trend of psychiatric hospitalizations in 2015 halted in 2016. There were no other significant differences in health care utilization., Conclusions: In our nationwide time-series analysis, we observed decreases in the slopes of antipsychotic and other drug purchases of persons with schizophrenia after prescription drug cost-sharing increase implementation on January 1, 2016. Policymakers need to be aware of the unintended consequences of increasing cost-sharing among people with severe mental disorders.

Aims: To estimate the budgetary impact of providing additional reimbursement for long acting injections for schizophrenia patients in psychiatric hospital settings in Japan to improve patient outcomes in schizophrenia. Methods: Budget impact analysis of change in reimbursement policy using a prevalence-based model over a five-year time horizon. The results are reported as net change in expenditure and consequent cost/savings in Japanese yen at the time of analysis. Results: The budget impact analysis shows that an increase in reimbursement for LAIs could lead to cumulative savings of an estimated 36.6 billion JPY over five years. These savings result from a decrease in hospitalization costs and an increased usage of LAI (assumed to be 10%). Based on the sensitivity analysis, the saving estimates are most sensitive to change in market share of generic and branded oral antipsychotics. Limitations: Historical data were used to estimate the future costs of drug and hospitalization; however, it is not the best predictor of future, hence a source of potential bias. A good level of treatment adherence with oral antipsychotics was assumed, which is generally not the case; therefore, we might have overestimated the effectiveness of oral atypical antipsychotics. Additionally, the drug cost due to reimbursement might have also been overestimated because in clinical setting, the increase of LAI use may not have reached 10% of the market share. Lastly, patients' behavior was derived from models, which may have loosely approximated the reality. Conclusions: An additional reimbursement for the use of LAI in schizophrenia patients is likely to be cost neutral/cost saving and should be considered as a policy option to improve patient outcomes and budget sustainability.

Background: Numerous economic models have assessed the cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic medications in schizophrenia. It is important to understand what key impacts of antipsychotic medications were considered in the existing models and limitations of existing models in order to inform the development of future models., Objectives: This systematic review aims to identify which clinical benefits, clinical harms, costs and cost savings of antipsychotic medication have been considered by existing models, to assess quality of existing models and to suggest good practice recommendations for future economic models of antipsychotic medications., Methods: An electronic search was performed on multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, The NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database) to identify economic models of schizophrenia published between 2005-2020. 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. Key impacts of antipsychotic medications considered by exiting models were descriptively summarised., Results: Sixty models were included. Existing models varied greatly in key impacts of antipsychotic medication included in the model, especially in clinical outcomes used for assessing reduction in psychotic symptoms and types of adverse events considered in the model. Quality of existing models was generally low due to failure to capture the health and cost impact of adverse events of antipsychotic medications and input data not obtained from best available source. Good practices for modelling antipsychotic medications are suggested., Discussions: This review highlights inconsistency in key impacts considered by different models, and limitations of the existing models. Recommendations on future research are provided., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Evanthia Achilla’s current commercial affiliation with IQVIA does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

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.

Background: Both amisulpride and olanzapine are leading treatments for schizophrenia in China. This study aimed to investigate the long-term cost-effectiveness of amisulpride and olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia in China., Methods: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to simulate the lifetime clinical and economic outcomes of schizophrenia treatment from the healthcare payer perspective. The long-term costs and QALYs were estimated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the impact of variance of parameters on the results., Results: Treatment with amisulpride provided an effectiveness gain of 16.59 QALYs at an average cost of USD 25,884 whereas olanzapine resulted in 16.38 QALYs at a cost of USD 34,839 over a lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the most sensitive variable was the unit cost of olanzapine. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on a Monte Carlo simulation with a lifetime horizon, the probability of amisulpride being cost-effective was 99.8% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 9,322, the GDP per capita in China 2018. A scenario analysis with updated olanzapine unit cost suggested an ICER of 7,857 USD/QALY., Conclusions: Amisulpride is likely to be a cost-effective option with increased effectiveness compared with olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia patients in China.

Importance: The existing economic models for schizophrenia often have 3 limitations; namely, they do not cover nonpharmacologic interventions, they report inconsistent conclusions for antipsychotics, and they have poor methodologic quality., Objectives: To develop a whole-disease model for schizophrenia and use it to inform resource allocation decisions across the entire care pathway for schizophrenia in the UK., Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical model used a whole-disease model to simulate the entire disease and treatment pathway among a simulated cohort of 200 000 individuals at clinical high risk of psychoses or with a diagnosis of psychosis or schizophrenia being treated in primary, secondary, and tertiary care in the UK. Data were collected March 2016 to December 2018 and analyzed December 2018 to April 2019., Exposures: The whole-disease model used discrete event simulation; its structure and input data were informed by published literature and expert opinion. Analyses were conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a lifetime horizon. Key interventions assessed included cognitive behavioral therapy, antipsychotic medication, family intervention, inpatient care, and crisis resolution and home treatment team., Main Outcomes and Measures: Life-time costs and quality-adjusted life-years., Results: In the simulated cohort of 200 000 individuals (mean [SD] age, 23.5 [5.1] years; 120 800 [60.4%] men), 66 400 (33.2%) were not at risk of psychosis, 69 800 (34.9%) were at clinical high risk of psychosis, and 63 800 (31.9%) had psychosis. The results of the whole-disease model suggest the following interventions are likely to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 ($25 552) per quality-adjusted life-year: practice as usual plus cognitive behavioral therapy for individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis (probability vs practice as usual alone, 0.96); a mix of hospital admission and crisis resolution and home treatment team for individuals with acute psychosis (probability vs hospital admission alone, 0.99); amisulpride (probability vs all other antipsychotics, 0.39), risperidone (probability vs all other antipsychotics, 0.30), or olanzapine (probability vs all other antipsychotics, 0.17) combined with family intervention for individuals with first-episode psychosis (probability vs family intervention or medication alone, 0.58); and clozapine for individuals with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (probability vs other medications, 0.81)., Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study suggest that the current schizophrenia service configuration is not optimal. Cost savings and/or additional quality-adjusted life-years may be gained by replacing current interventions with more cost-effective interventions.

Background: Recently, patents of several atypical antipsychotics have reached their expiration date., Aims: The purpose of the study was to highlight whether modifications of economic/scientific factors may be associated with possible changes in ongoing clinical research on antipsychotic drugs., Methods: A large systematic analysis was used to depict the time-dependent distribution of published research articles addressing the clinical properties of oral risperidone and olanzapine conventional tablets, two largely prescribed atypical antipsychotics for which the patents have already expired in most of the countries., Results: The systematic analysis indicated that the time-dependent distribution of the selected research articles followed a wave-shape pattern. A dramatic decline of primary and secondary analyses investigating the clinical effects of oral risperidone and olanzapine has occurred in the last decade, complemented by an expected strong reduction in the numbers of industrial-supported clinical studies and a smaller, but significant, decline in the amount of independent research articles., Conclusions: To date, greater involvement of independent research seems to be the only realistic chance to properly continue the investigation on the clinical properties of oral risperidone and olanzapine conventional tablets, as well as those of other off-patent antipsychotic drugs. However, the limits and potentialities of independent research in accomplishing such a demanding and enduring scientific effort should be addressed.

Background: Schizophrenia is a chronic debilitating condition characterized by disorders in thought, affect and behavior. Considering the low effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and the potentially high cost of an inadequate choice, a systematic cost-effectiveness evaluation of the list of subsidized antipsychotic drugs is necessary in order to allow an adequate choice of pharmacotherapy for the patient and the financial reality of the Brazilian public health system (SUS)., Objective: The aims of this study are to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the subsidized antipsychotic drugs for the first-line treatment of schizophrenia in Brazil and aripiprazole, and to discuss a reasonable incorporation price for aripiprazole., Methods: A three-year Markov model with quarterly cycles was developed in TreeAge Pro® 2009 to assess the cost-effectiveness of six listed oral antipsychotic drugs for the first-line treatment of schizophrenia in the Brazilian public health system (haloperidol, chlorpromazine, risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and olanzapine) and oral aripiprazole. Outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Reasonable prices for aripiprazole were calculated based on the placement of the drug in the efficiency frontier and the cost-effectiveness ratio of the most efficient comparator., Results: Olanzapine was considered cost-effective adopting any threshold value. If me-too drugs are required to be least as efficient as the comparators, olanzapine would still be cost-effective under 0.031 USD/mg. Aripiprazole was absolutely dominated by risperidone. The sensitivity analysis showed important uncertainty, which was expected. There is, nevertheless, a prominent separation between ziprasidone, quetiapine and the efficiency frontier. Aripiprazole was not considered cost-effective even when its price was set at zero: CER = USD 4,102 vs. USD 3,945 (haloperidol), USD 3,616 (chlorpromazine), USD 3,646 (risperidone) and USD 3,752 (olanzapine) USD/QALY., Conclusion: Olanzapine was considered the most cost-effective drug for the first-line treatment of schizophrenia in Brazil. Aripiprazole was dominated by risperidone and was not considered cost-effective against olanzapine., Implications for Health Care Provision and Use: This work demonstrated, using a price adjustment process, that there is no viable price that would make aripiprazole cost-effective for incorporation in the Brazilian public health system in the first-line of treatment of schizophrenia. The drug can be useful in specific cases, since individual variability of response to antipsychotic drugs is important.

Background: Recent evidence has demonstrated that, over 12 months, pharmacy costs associated with switching nonadherent recently relapsed patients from oral atypical antipsychotics (OAAs) to once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) were offset by reduced relapse rates and schizophrenia-related health care costs. In addition, earlier use of PP1M may generate greater cost savings., Objective: To project the long-term economic impact when a proportion of nonadherent patients with a recent relapse switch from OAAs to PP1M., Methods: A 36-month decision-tree model with twelve 3-month cycles was developed from a Medicaid payer's perspective. The target population was nonadherent, recently relapsed OAA patients. At equal adherence, probability of relapse was equal between PP1M and OAAs, and OAA patients were nonadherent until treatment switch. Event rates (adherence, relapse, and switch) and cost inputs (pharmacy and relapse) were based on the literature, and rates remained constant. Outcomes included number of relapses, pharmacy costs, and relapse costs (2017 U.S. dollars) at years 1, 2, and 3. One-way sensitivity (OSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) evaluated the effect of varying model inputs on health plan and per-patient level costs., Results: Based on a hypothetical health plan of 1 million members, 3,037 OAA patients were recently relapsed and nonadherent. Compared with continuing OAAs, switching 5% of patients (n = 152) to PP1M resulted in net cost savings of $674,975, $723,298, and $562,310 at the plan level; $4,445, $4,764, and $3,703 per patient switched per year; and $0.0562, $0.0603, and $0.0469 per member per month in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively, resulting in total plan-level savings of > $1.9 million over 3 years. A total of 221 relapses were avoided (year 1: 92; year 2: 72; and year 3: 57). In years 1, 2, and 3, respectively, total annual plan-level schizophrenia-related costs were $114.1 million, $107.2 million, and $105.8 million when all patients switched to PP1M before any subsequent relapse (n = 3,037); $123.4 million, $109.6 million, and $106.7 million when patients switched to PP1M after a first subsequent relapse (n = 2,631); and $127.6 million, $121.6 million, and $117.0 million when all patients remained on OAAs. The cost per patient switched to PP1M was lower when all patients received PP1M before a subsequent relapse versus after their first subsequent relapse at all years (year 1: $37,559 vs. $45,089; year 2: $35,288 vs. $36,321; and year 3: $34,826 vs. $35,155). OSA demonstrated consistent net cost savings per patient switched, ranging from $640 to $10,484 (year 1); $1,774 to $9,245 (year 2); and $1,354 to $7,026 (year 3). PSA demonstrated 96.3%, 99.7%, and 99.7% of iterations were cost saving in years 1, 2 and 3, respectively., Conclusions: Pharmacy costs associated with switching nonadherent OAA patients with a recent relapse to PP1M were offset by reduced relapse rates and health care costs at years 1, 2, and 3, with earlier use of PP1M resulting in increased cost savings at all years., Disclosures: This research was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Pilon, Morrison, Lefebvre, and Shak are employees of Analysis Group, a consulting company that received research grants from Janssen Scientific Affairs to conduct this study. El Khoury and Kim are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs. At the time this study was conducted, Llaneza was an employee of HireGenics, which provided services to Janssen Scientific Affairs for the study. Part of the material in this manuscript was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 2019 Annual Meeting; March 25-29, 2019; San Diego, CA.

The prevalence of psychiatric disorders is high among prisoners, who often need psychotropic medication, but compliance with treatment is often poor. This combination leads to poorer prisoner-patient health and increased health costs.The aim of this study was to test the impact of a treatment adherence programme (TAP) on medication adherence and subjective well-being among prisoners with mental health problems. We conducted a randomised controlled trial of a treatment adherence programme compared with treatment as usual (TAU) among 183 prisoners with mental health problems. Those in the TAP group showed greater treatment adherence and reported better subjective well-being with medication than those in the TAU group. We conclude that the treatment adherence of prisoners who require medication for mental health problems may be improved through specific intervention programmes. This could make a positive contribution to individual health and well-being., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

What Is Known and Objectives: Schizophrenia is a serious mental disorder and is associated with substantial economic and social burden. Cost-effectiveness analysis is important to assess the costs of different therapeutic options. However, there is a lack of information on the reporting quality of economic evaluations, cost drivers, as well as updated data focused on aripiprazole, an antipsychotic drug commonly prescribed in schizophrenia. This study evaluates and summarizes the evidence of economic evaluations of the use of aripiprazole in schizophrenia. In addition, we aimed to identify cost drivers and critically assess the reporting qualities of these studies., Methods: A comprehensive literature research was conducted using PubMed, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, CEA Registry and LILACS databases dated until March 2018. Full economic analyses of aripiprazole in schizophrenia that were based on decision analytical models and published in English, Portuguese or Spanish languages were included. Two independent authors identified the studies and performed data extraction and quality assessment using 24 items from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement., Results and Discussion: A total of 79 potential studies were identified, of which 17 studies performing model-based economic evaluations fully met the eligibility criteria. Of these, 15 were industry-funded studies. A trend favouring olanzapine, lurasidone and paliperidone could be observed, whereas aripiprazole was extensively described as a dominated alternative. However, notably, 93% of the industry-funded studies presented results favouring their sponsors, only two of them being the manufacturer of aripiprazole. Cost drivers were usually related to the relapse rates/probabilities regardless of the funding source. The overall quality of reporting of the economic analyses was poor, with most studies scoring around 12-13 points. The most frequent problems were the lack of description of relevance of the outcome measures, characteristics of the base case population and report of precision measures for all the parameters of the model., What Is New and Conclusion: No consistent conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole could be drawn due to the context-specific costs, conflicting parameters of effectiveness and safety, and bias related to industry sponsorship. Cost drivers, though, were usually related to the relapse rates/probabilities. In addition, poor reporting quality of the studies performing full economic analysis requires further improvement to ensure greater transparency of the findings., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Pharmaceutical promotion can lead to market size expansion, which is beneficial if previously untreated patients access treatment but deleterious if it leads to overuse, an area of concern for second generation antipsychotics (SGA). We contribute to a growing body of work suggesting that networks of social and professional relationships shape prescribing behavior. We examined 88,439 Medicare Part D prescribing physicians, finding that promotion is associated with SGA market size expansion (elasticity: 0.062) and that network-level promotional activity is associated with network members' branded product prescribing. Research on the effects of promotion should account for its effects in prescribers' networks.

Purpose: The primary objective was to evaluate the impact of an analgosedation protocol in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) on daily doses and costs of analgesic, sedative, and antipsychotic medications., Methods: We conducted a single-center quasi-experimental study in 363 mechanically ventilated patients admitted to our CICU from March 1, 2011, to April 13, 2013. On March 1, 2012, an analgosedation protocol was implemented. Patients in the pre-implementation group were managed at the cardiologist's discretion, which consisted of a continuous sedative-hypnotic approach and opioids as needed. Patients in the implementation group were managed using this protocol., Results: The mean ± S.D. per-patient doses (mg/day) of propofol, lorazepam, and clonazepam decreased with the use of an analgosedation protocol (propofol 132,265.7 ± 12,951 versus 87,980.5 ± 10,564 [p = 0.03]; lorazepam 10.5 ± 7.3 versus 3.3 ± 4.0 [p < 0.001]; clonazepam 9.9 ± 8.3 versus 1.1 ± 0.5 [p = 0.03]). The mean daily cost of propofol and lorazepam also significantly decreased (33.5% reduction in propofol cost [p = 0.03]; 69.0% reduction in lorazepam cost [p < 0.001]). The per-patient dose and cost of fentanyl (mcg/day) declined with analgosedation protocol use (fentanyl 2,274.2 ± 2317.4 versus 1,026.7 ± 981.4 [p < 0.001]; 54.8% decrease in fentanyl cost [p < 0.001])., Conclusion: The implementation of an analgosedation protocol significantly decreased both the use and cost of propofol, lorazepam, and fentanyl. Further investigation of the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of a critical care consultation service with implementation of an analgosedation protocol is warranted in the CICU., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2019. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The objectives of the study were to determine the cost variability of antipsychotics in public (hospi tals) and private pharmaceutical establishments (pharmacies and clinics), calculate the cost variability of antipsychotics between establishments and estimate the cost of monthly maintenance treatment with antipsychotics. A cost analysis study was performed, unit costs of antipsychotics were obtained from the Peruvian Pharmaceutical Products Observatory. The results show that the cost variability of antipsycho tics was greater in pharmacies and clinics than in hospitals, and the analysis of cost variability between pharmaceutical establishments showed that the cost of an antipsychotic in a pharmacy and clinic was 1.3 to 140 times and 2.8 to 124 times, respectively, the cost of the drug in a hospital. The cost of monthly maintenance treatment varied from S/3 to S/2130 according to the drug and pharmaceutical establish ment.

Purpose: Brexpiprazole is an oral atypical antipsychotic (OAA) for the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ). This study compared all-cause and psychiatric inpatient hospitalization and medical costs in adult patients with SCZ newly treated with brexpiprazole versus other US Food and Drug Administration-approved OAAs in a real-world setting., Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from: (1) the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases, and the MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid database; and (2) the de-identified Optum Clinformatics Datamart. Adult patients were identified if they had SCZ and initiated either brexpiprazole or another OAA during the study identification period (July 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, for MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental and for Optum; July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016, for MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid) and had ≥12 months of continuous enrollment before (baseline) and after (follow-up) the first treatment date. Linear regression analyses were performed to test associations between treatment groups (brexpiprazole vs another OAA) and costs (total and medical); negative binomial regression models were used to estimate number of hospitalizations per year, adjusting for baseline characteristics and medication adherence to index treatment during the 12-month follow-up., Findings: The final study sample consisted of 6254 patients with SCZ: 176 initiated brexpiprazole; 391, ziprasidone; 453, paliperidone; 523, lurasidone; 786, aripiprazole; 1234, quetiapine; 1264, olanzapine; and 1427, risperidone. Controlling for baseline characteristics and medication adherence, the adjusted number of hospitalizations (both all-cause and psychiatric), all-cause total costs, and all-cause medical costs did not differ across groups. Brexpiprazole users had the lowest mean psychiatric costs among all OAA users ($12,013; 95% bootstrap CI, 7488-16,538). Compared with brexpiprazole users, paliperidone (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.52 [1.05-2.19]; P = 0.027) and quetiapine (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.47 [1.04-2.07]; P = 0.029) users had more psychiatric hospitalizations per year. Paliperidone had higher psychiatric costs than brexpiprazole (total, $32,066 [95% bootstrap CI, 28,779-35,353] vs $23,851 [18,907-28,795]; medical, $19,343 [16,294-22,392] vs $12,013 [7488-16,538]). Psychiatric medical costs were also $6744 higher in olanzapine users (95% bootstrap CI, 1694-11,795; P = 0.009) than in brexpiprazole users., Implications: Patients with SCZ treated with brexpiprazole had fewer psychiatric hospitalizations and lower psychiatric costs than those treated with paliperidone. Differences in the number of all-cause hospitalizations and medical costs among treatments were not statistically significant. Although treatment decisions are driven by a number of factors (eg, clinical circumstances and drug costs), choice of OAA may affect health care costs., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Schizophrenia entails a considerable humanistic and economic burden. Improved treatment continuity to antipsychotic therapy is paramount to reduce the risk of relapse. The novel three-monthly paliperidone palmitate treatment (PP3M) offers the longest dosing interval currently available in France. This study assesses its cost-effectiveness, versus the currently available one-monthly long-acting treatment (PP1M) in French schizophrenic patients., Methods: A Markov model with monthly cycles was developed and adapted. It encompassed [a] administration of PP3M or PP1M in first-line, [b] a period where the patient does not receive any active treatment, and [c] a follow-up treatment line consisting of a treatment mix reflecting French clinical practice. Relapse rates in first-line were based on a pivotal non-inferiority head-to-head trial, and treatment discontinuation rates were based on French real-world data. Accounting for differences in drug exposure, time-dependent monthly relapse rates were applied following discontinuation to first line. The impact of a less frequent injection schedule for PP3M in QoL was accounted for through the application of a utility differential. The collective perspective was adopted throughout a 5-year time horizon. Four percent discount rates were applied on costs and outcomes., Results: PP3M was dominant when compared to PP1M, featuring an incremental QALY of 0.123 and a cost saving effect (-669€) resulting from reduced therapy costs (drug acquisition, administration and monitoring) and relapse-related costs. Sensitivity analysis supported the robustness of the results., Conclusion: With slightly better QALY outcomes and a cost-saving effect when compared to PP1M, introducing PP3M is an improvement to the current treatment in France., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Objective: Stratified medicine refers to the use of tests that predict treatment response to drive treatment decisions for individual patient. The pharmacoeconomic implications of this approach in schizophrenia are unknown. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical stratified medicine algorithm (SMA) compared with treatment as usual (TAU), for patients with schizophrenia who failed a first-line antipsychotic., Methods: A decision analytic model with embedded Markov process was constructed, which simulated the health and cost outcomes for patients followed SMA or TAU over a lifetime horizon, from healthcare and social care perspective. In the base-case analysis, sensitivity and specificity of the stratifier were both set as 60%. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the impact of uncertainty around the value of important parameters. The primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained., Results: When both sensitivity and specificity of the stratified test were set at 60%, SMA appeared to be the optimal strategy as it produces more QALYs and incurs lower costs than TAU. This is robust to all scenarios tested. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the probability for SMA to be the optimal strategy is 82.4%., Conclusions: Our results suggest that use of any stratifier with a sensitivity and specificity over 60% is very likely to be cost-effective comparing to TAU, for psychotic patients who failed a first-line antipsychotic. This finding, however, should be interpreted with caution due to lack of evidence for clozapine as a second-line antipsychotic.

Poor adherence to treatment remains a major problem in the management of patients with schizophrenia. In the 60s, first generation antipsychotics in depot formulation have been introduced on the market with the aim to improve adherence to therapy. However, the limited effectiveness on negative symptoms and the tendency to induce extrapyramidal side effects has limited their use. Currently there are five second-generation antipsychotic long-acting formulations and the use of these drugs has definitely changed perspective: they are no more restricted as compounds intended to improve compliance, but they can be considered first-line drugs with proven efficacy and good tolerability. In this narrative review the efficacy and tolerability of paliperidone palmitate, as well as the economic impact of the use of this particular molecule, have been evaluated in the short- and long-term treatment of schizophrenia. Taking into account the results of different studies, paliperidone, especially in his long-acting formulation, can be considered a viable and effective treatment for patients with schizophrenia, both in the short- and in the long term.

A number of cross-sectional studies report extensive use of psychiatric services and high healthcare costs in autistic youths. However, little is known about how the use of these services evolves from the time of diagnosis, as children grow up. Our objectives were to investigate the use, costs, and predictors of psychiatric services following autism spectrum diagnosis. We built a cohort of 1227 newly diagnosed autism spectrum individuals identified in the Quebec (Canada) Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec administrative database (January 1998 to December 2010). Mean number and cost per individual of psychiatric healthcare use (hospitalizations, medical visits, psychoactive drug use) were calculated yearly for 5 years following autism spectrum diagnosis. Mean number of psychiatric visits decreased over time by more than threefold (7.5 vs 2.1 visits) from year 1 to year 5, whereas psychoactive drug use increased from 16.0 to 25.2 claims. Psychiatric hospitalizations decreased during follow-up, but still represented the greatest costs per individual (CAD9820 for year 1; CAD4628 for year 5). Antipsychotics represented over 50% of drug costs. Mixed-effect model with repeated measures showed that previous psychoactive drug use was the strongest predictor of greater psychiatric healthcare cost during follow-up (odds ratio: 9.96; 95% confidence interval: 7.58-13.10). These trends contrast with guidelines advocating cautious prescribing of antipsychotics with periodical re-assessment of their benefit.

Background: Clinicians play an important role in containing pharmaceutical spending at the patient level, as well as ensuring efficacy and quality outcomes, yet little research has examined how to achieve this goal., Measures: Using auditing and feedback (A&F) as part of a Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, we evaluated our community-based hospice program's prescribing habits for opioids, antipsychotics, and antidepressants and calculated oral pharmaceutical prescription costs per-patient-day. Quality of care was reflected by patient pain scores in electronic medical records., Intervention: Our P&T Committee adopted an A&F approach to monitor and assess provider prescribing habits and cost. An already-existing pain quality improvement program assessed care quality., Outcomes: Pain relief either improved or was maintained while medication costs were reduced by over $1.00 per-patient-day from 2010 to 2011., Conclusions/lessons Learned: An active, hospice P&T Committee featuring A&F can significantly affect medication costs for a hospice program while maintaining or improving patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Harmonized requirements apply for the marketing authorization of medicinal products in the EU Member States. On the contrary, the national legislations on the drug reimbursement are not harmonized. The aim of this study was to find out if they are robust enough to ensure high standards of public health protection with focus on the symptomatic treatment of dementia in the elderly., Methods: A computerized search of authorized therapeutic indications of haloperidol and trihexyphenidyl in the national databases of 8 EU member states and an analysis of the national legislation on reimbursement policies in Lithuania and Latvia was performed., Results: There is a discrepancy in the decisions on the marketing authorization vs the reimbursement in Lithuania and Latvia (reimbursement of haloperidol and trihexyphenidyl for the off-label treatment of dementia)., Conclusions: National legislation on the drug reimbursement in Lithuania and Latvia does not provide safeguards for public health at the same level as the marketing authorization does. Absence of a revision of former decisions in the light of new evidence is a critical weakness of the drug reimbursement in Lithuania and Latvia. Reimbursement for the off-label indications may pose a risk to public health.

Background: Safety monitoring of medicines is essential during therapy for bipolar disorder (BD). We determined the extent of safety monitoring performed according to the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) guidelines in patients with BD attending the main tertiary care psychiatry clinics in Sri Lanka to give realistic recommendations for safety monitoring in resource limited settings., Methods: Patients diagnosed with BD on mood stabilizer medications for more than 1 year were recruited. Data were collected retrospectively from clinic and patient held records and compared with the standards of care recommended by ISBD guidelines for safety monitoring of medicines., Results: Out of 256 patients diagnosed with BD, 164 (64.1%) were on lithium. Only 75 (45.7%) had serum lithium measurements done in the past 6 months and 96 (58.5%) had concentrations recorded at least once in the past year. Blood urea or creatinine was measured in the last 6 months only in 30 (18.3%). Serum electrolytes and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) concentrations were measured in the last year only in 34 (20.7%) and 30 (18.3%) respectively. Calcium concentrations were not recorded in any patient. None of the patients on sodium valproate (n = 119) or carbamazepine (n = 6) had blood levels recorded to establish therapeutic concentrations. Atypical antipsychotics were prescribed for 151 (59%), but only 13 (8.6%) had lipid profiles and only 31 (20.5%) had blood glucose concentration measured annually. Comorbidities experienced by patients influenced monitoring more than the medicines used. Patients with diabetes, hypothyroidism and hypercholesterolemia were more likely to get monitored for fasting blood glucose and (p < 0.001), TSH (p < 0.001) and lipid profiles (p < 0.001). Lithium therapy was associated with TSH monitoring (p < 0.05). Therapy with atypical antipsychotics was not associated with fasting blood glucose or lipid profile monitoring (p > 0.05). A limitation of the study is that although some tests were performed, the results may not have been recorded., Conclusions: Safety monitoring in BD was suboptimal compared to the ISBD guidelines. ISBD standards are difficult to achieve in resource limited settings due to a multitude of reasons. Realistic monitoring benchmarks and recommendations are proposed for methods to improve monitoring in resource limited settings based on our experience.

Introduction: Olanzapine pamoate has a higher cost of treatment than the oral form and requires administration in a hospital setting (unlike other long-acting antipsychotics), and the cost-effectiveness of this treatment may be questioned. Many scientific societies and national health systems are increasingly interested in the pharmacoeconomic impact of health products. The search for efficacy of a treatment can be done in two ways: medico-economic modeling studies or observational studies i.e. randomized controlled trials or mirror studies. The models are based on theoretical models from published clinical data simulating the course and evolution of patient health conditions, which benefit from a particular therapeutic strategy. Even if the design of observational mirror studies makes it possible to get closer to the clinical reality by observing the patient before and after the initiation of the treatment, the majority of the pharmacoeconomic studies published on olanzapine pamoate are modeling works that do not reflect actual conditions of care. The Guillaume Régnier Hospital Center in Rennes has a large cohort of patients treated with olanzapine pamoate: 121 instauration treatments are recorded from April 1, 2010 to Mars 1, 2015. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine pamoate in actual clinical practice., Methods: This is a one-year cost-effectiveness retrospective observational mirror-image study of a cohort of 52 patients with schizophrenia who were treated for at least three months with olanzapine pamoate. The primary efficacy endpoint is the differential in the number of full-time hospitalizations before and after the introduction of olanzapine pamoate versus the hospital cost differential. The secondary criteria are the difference of the number of the days spent in hospital and the number of outpatient consultations between the year preceding the injection and the year following it. The results were calculated on the general cohort and within 2 subgroups: patients treated for more than one year and those receiving less than one year of treatment with olanzapine pamoate., Results: Fifty-two patients were included (median age=35 years, sex ratio H/F=2.7) and only 38.5% discontinued treatment. For patients who maintained long-acting treatment, they received a dosage of 25mg oral olanzapine (min=7.5mg, max=60mg), 5mg more medially than the group having stopped the olanzapine pamoate (20mg; min=10mg, max=40mg). The majority of these patients were receiving off-label authorized marketing doses of oral olanzapine, whereas 22% of them had off-label dosages of olanzapine pamoate. The main causes of discontinuation were symptom persistence, loss of vision and the occurrence of adverse effects (including weight gain and sedation). Olanzapine pamoate significantly reduced the number of hospitalizations compared to the previous management strategy (1 less hospitalization, P<0.001 in patients treated more than one year and in the general cohort). As a logical consequence the number of hospitalization days in day care increased after the establishment of this long-acting antipsychotic with hospital reserve status (18 in median; min=0, max=159). We observed a non-statistically significant tendency of decrease in the number of days of full-time hospitalization and an increase in the number of ambulatory procedures, particularly in patients who have maintained the treatment for one year. This efficiency had a non-significant additional cost of €3361 per year. There was an average multiplication by 8,5 of the drug cost a year later in the general cohort (5.5 in the group of patients treated less than one year and 10.4 in the group of patients who maintained it a year). There was a 23,2% average increase in the cost of hospitalization in the general cohort (3.75 % in patients who maintained treatment compared to 48.9% in patients who discontinued treatment)., Conclusion: By its mirror design, the study was placed in real conditions of care of the patient with schizophrenia. A total of 61.5% of patients maintained treatment with olanzapine pamoate for a minimum of one year. This APAP is more effective without significantly increasing the cost compared to the previous therapeutic strategy (including oral olanzapine). The additional cost is partly due to the administration restriction in a hospital setting in relation to risk of Post-Injection Delirium/Sedation Syndrom (PDSS). There is currently no acceptable efficiency limit. The results of this cost-effectiveness analysis cannot be extrapolated to the other long-acting antipsychotics since it is the only one with hospital reserve status. The current limitations of medico-economics in psychiatry derive from the heterogeneity of clinical forms and the management of mental pathologies., (Copyright © 2018 L’Encéphale, Paris. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To investigate the trend in the launch price of new drugs for five common health conditions., Design: Cross-sectional study using data on new drugs launched in the UK between 1981 and 2015 for hypertension, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, schizophrenia and colorectal cancer., Data and Sources: All drugs marketed in the UK between 1981 and 2015 (inclusive), and licensed specifically for the treatment of one of the five chosen conditions were included in the study. Newly launched medicines and their launch prices were identified by hand-searching all editions of the British National Formulary in addition to searching the websites of relevant regulatory agencies (European Medicines Agency and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency). The launch price in UK pounds for a 28-day supply of each medicine at a typical or usual maintenance dose was adjusted for the effects of general inflation using the gross domestic product deflator series., Results: 104 drugs were included in our study with a mean inflation-adjusted 28-day launch price of £288 (SD £678). The launch price of new drugs varied significantly across the five conditions, with drugs for hypertension having the lowest mean price (£27) and drugs for colorectal cancer having the highest mean price (£1590) (p<0.001). There were large increases in launch prices across the study period, but the magnitude and pattern was markedly different between therapeutic areas. Biological drugs represented 13.5% of all included drugs and had a significantly higher launch price than non- biological drugs (£1233 vs £141, p<0.001). 22.1% of included drugs were first-of-kind and had a significantly higher launch price than follow-on drugs (£768 vs £151) (p<0.0001)., Conclusion: Drugs prices continue to increase across different therapeutic areas. This has some association with novelty, but, it is not clear if this increase in price is associated with medical benefits., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure format and declare: all authors have financial support from the NIHR for the submitted work; all authors have no financial relationships with any organisations thatmight have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and all authors have no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: This study aimed to analyze (1) the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) compared to olanzapine standard oral tablet (SOT) and (2) the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine-SOT compared to aripiprazole-SOT for patients with schizophrenia in China., Methods: A microsimulation model was adapted from a healthcare payers' perspective. The model ran over a 1-year time horizon, using quarterly cycles. The costs of adverse events were acquired through a clinical expert panel. The average bidding prices in China of olanzapine-ODT, olanzapine-SOT, aripiprazole-SOT, and other switch alternatives were used. Inpatient and outpatient medical costs were sourced from the Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance database in Tianjin. Additionally, adherence, efficacy, safety, and utility data were taken from the literature. Uncertainty of parameters were assessed through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses., Results: The total annual costs per patient in aripiprazole-SOT arm, olanzapine-SOT arm, and olanzapine-ODT arm are USD 2,296.05, USD 1,940.05, and USD 2,292.81, respectively. The average number of relapses per patient in 1 year in the aripiprazole-SOT arm, olanzapine-SOT arm, and olanzapine-ODT arm, are 0.734, 0.325, and 0.198, respectively. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient in 1 year in the aripiprazole-SOT arm, olanzapine-SOT arm, and olanzapine-ODT arm are 0.714, 0.737, and 0.758, respectively. Consequently, (1) the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of administrating olanzapine-ODT over olanzapine-SOT are USD 2,791.96 per relapse avoided and USD 16,798.39 per QALY gained; and (2) the ICERs of using olanzapine-SOT over aripiprazole-SOT are USD -870.39 per relapse avoided and USD -15,477.93 per QALY gained. All ICERs are under the willingness-to-pay threshold in China of USD 25,772.67. The sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results., Conclusion: As the first-line treatment for schizophrenia in China, olanzapine-ODT is cost-effective compared to olanzapine-SOT and olanzapine-SOT is cost-effective compared to aripiprazole-SOT.

Background: Very few data are available to demonstrate the economic benefit of early paliperidone palmitate once-monthly long-acting injectable (PP1M) treatment in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder., Methods and Materials: This study has retrospectively compared the healthcare utilization and associated costs of pre- and post-PPIM treatment in 413 patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder recruited from three major public hospitals providing psychiatric services in Hong Kong. Patients were categorized into early treatment (≤3 years since diagnosis) and chronic (>3 years) groups, and also whether they were receiving polypharmacy (POP)., Results: It was found that patients who were started on early therapy with no POP had the most favourable outcomes. Overall results of the entire cohort, including both early and late treatments, indicate that there was a slight increase in annual in-patient days (IP) per patient and outpatient visit (OP) by 3.18 and 1.87, respectively, and a decrease in emergency room visit (ER) of 0.9 (p < 0.05). For non-polypharmacy (NP) patients receiving early PP1M therapy, there was a significant decrease in IP and ER of 21.56 (p < 0.05) and 1.15 (p < 0.05), respectively, but an increase in OP of 1.88 (p < 0.05). For patients with POP, there was an all-across increase in IP and all-across decrease in OP and ER. In monetary terms, a NP patient receiving early therapy may have an overall saving of HKD40,878 (USD5,241, 1USD = 7.8HKD) per year compared to HKD6,224 (USD798) in patients where therapy was given after 3 years. For patients with POP, there was an all-across increase in overall spending despite reductions in OP and ER., Conclusions: From the 413 patients studied, potential annual savings is higher by early administration of PPIM in patients with NP. Analysis using multivariate linear regression based on generalized estimating equations and sensitivity analysis using a linear mixed model supported the findings.

Objectives: Multiple real-world studies have reported potential cost savings associated with second-generation antipsychotic long-acting injectable therapies (SGA-LAIs), including once monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M). Yet, only about 12% of Medicaid patients with schizophrenia initiate SGA-LAIs, with poor adherence contributing to frequent relapse among patients on oral atypical antipsychotics (OAAs). The objective of this study was to project the economic impact when an incremental proportion of non-adherent patients with a recent relapse switched from OAAs to PP1M., Methods: A 12 month decision-tree model was developed from a Medicaid payers' perspective. The target population was non-adherent OAA patients with a recent relapse. At equal adherence, risk of relapse was equal between PP1M and OAAs, and OAA patients remained non-adherent until treatment switch. Outcomes included number of relapses, relapse costs and pharmacy costs., Results: Based on a hypothetical health plan of 1 million members, 3037 schizophrenia patients were non-adherent on OAAs with a recent relapse. Compared to continuing OAAs, switching 5% of patients (n = 152) to PP1M resulted in net schizophrenia-related cost savings of $674,975 at a plan level, $4445 per patient switched per year and $0.0562 per member per month, with a total of 92 avoided relapses over 12 months. Total annual plan level schizophrenia-related costs were $114.1 M when all patients switched to PP1M before any subsequent relapse (n = 3037), $123.4 M when patients switched to PP1M after a first subsequent relapse (n = 2631), and $127.6 M when all patients continued OAAs. Switching all patients to PP1M before any subsequent relapse averted 917 relapses, at a lower cost per patient switched ($37,559) compared to switching after a first subsequent relapse ($45,089) or continuing OAAs ($42,005)., Conclusion: Over 12 months, pharmacy costs associated with switching patients from OAAs to PP1M were offset by reduced relapse rates and schizophrenia-related healthcare expenditures, with earlier use of PP1M projected to generate greater cost savings.