Search

William Montgomery,1 Tamas Treuer,2 Wenyu Ye,3 Hai Bo Xue,4 Sheng Hu Wu,4 Li Liu,4 Zbigniew Kadziola,5 Michael D Stensland,6 Haya Ascher-Svanum7 1Global Health Outcomes Eli Lilly Australia Pty Ltd, West Ryde, NSW, Australia; 2Neuroscience Research, Eli Lilly and Company, Budapest, Hungary; 3Global Statistical Sciences, Lilly Suzhou Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd, Shanghai, People's Republic of China; 4Medical Department, Lilly Suzhou Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd, Shanghai, People's Republic of China; 5Global Statistical Sciences, Eli Lilly GmbH, Vienna, Republic of Austria; 6Agile Outcomes Research, Inc., Rochester, MN, USA; 7Global Health Outcomes, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA Objectives: This study examined whether participation in a weight control program (WCP) by patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine was also associated with improvements in clinical and functional outcomes. Methods: A post-hoc analysis was conducted using data from the Chinese subgroup (n=330) of a multi-country, 6-month, prospective, observational study of outpatients with schizophrenia who initiated or switched to oral olanzapine. At study entry and monthly visits, participants were assessed with the Clinical Global Impression of Severity, and measures of patient insight, social activities, and work impairment. The primary comparison was between the 153 patients who participated in a WCP at study entry (n=93) or during the study (n=60) and the 177 patients who did not participate in a weight control program (non-WCP). Mixed Models for Repeated Measures with baseline covariates were used to compare outcomes over time. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used to assess time to response. Results: Participants had a mean age of 29.0 years and 29.3 years, and 51.0% and 57.6% were female for WCP and non-WCP groups, respectively. Average initiated daily dose for olanzapine was 9.5±5.4 mg. WCP participants gained less weight than non-participants (3.9 kg vs 4.9 kg, P=0.03) and showed statistically significant better clinical and functional outcomes: greater improvement in illness severity (–2.8 vs –2.1, P

Haya Ascher-Svanum,1 Diego Novick,2,3 Josep Maria Haro,4 Jordan Bertsch,4 David McDonnell,1 Holland Detke11Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 2Eli Lilly and Company, Windlesham, Surrey, UK; 3Departament de Psiquiatria, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain; 4Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en el Área de Salud Mental, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, SpainBackground: Little is known about the long-term changes in the functioning of schizophrenia patients receiving maintenance therapy with olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI), and whether observed changes differ from those seen with oral olanzapine.Methods: This study describes changes in the levels of functioning among outpatients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine-LAI compared with oral olanzapine over 2 years. This was a secondary analysis of data from a multicenter, randomized, open-label, 2-year study comparing the long-term treatment effectiveness of monthly olanzapine-LAI (405 mg/4 weeks; n=264) with daily oral olanzapine (10 mg/day; n=260). Levels of functioning were assessed with the Heinrichs–Carpenter Quality of Life Scale. Functional status was also classified as “good”, “moderate”, or “poor”, using a previous data-driven approach. Changes in functional levels were assessed with McNemar’s test and comparisons between olanzapine-LAI and oral olanzapine employed the Student’s t-test. Results: Over the 2-year study, the patients treated with olanzapine-LAI improved their level of functioning (per Quality of Life total score) from 64.0–70.8 (P

William Montgomery,1 Li Liu,2 Michael D Stensland,5 Hai Bo Xue,2 Tamas Treuer,4 Haya Ascher-Svanum31Eli Lilly and Company, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 2Lilly Suzhou Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd, Shanghai, People's Republic of China; 3Eli Lilly and Company, Global Health Outcomes, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 4Eli Lilly and Company, Budapest, Hungary; 5Agile Outcomes Research, Inc, Rochester, MN, USABackground: This article describes the personal, societal, and economic burden attributable to schizophrenia in the People's Republic of China and highlights the potential for effective outpatient treatment to reduce this burden given recent changes in the Chinese health care system. The importance of effective antipsychotic therapy in reducing the burden of schizophrenia is also examined.Methods: Published research on the burden, disability, management, and economic costs of schizophrenia in the People's Republic of China was examined in the context of the larger body of global research. Research written in English or Chinese and published before June 2012 was identified using PubMed, CNKI, and Wanfang Med database searches. The contribution of effective antipsychotic therapy in reducing the risk for relapse and hospitalization and improving patients' functioning is described.Results: Schizophrenia imposes a substantial burden on Chinese society, with indirect costs accounting for the majority of the total cost. Functional impairment is high, leading to lost wages and work impairment. In the People's Republic of China, schizophrenia is the most common diagnosis among hospitalized psychiatric patients. Ongoing changes in the Chinese health care system may reduce some barriers to effective relapse prevention in schizophrenia and potentially reduce hospitalizations. The use of antipsychotics for acute episodes and maintenance treatment has been shown to decrease symptom severity and reduce the risk for relapse and hospitalization. However, discontinuing antipsychotic medication appears common and is a strong predictor of relapse. Cost-effectiveness research in the People's Republic of China is needed to examine the potential gains from improved outpatient antipsychotic treatment.Conclusion: Schizophrenia is a very costly mental illness in terms of personal, economic, and societal burden, both in the People's Republic of China and globally. When treated effectively, patients tend to persist longer with antipsychotic treatment, have fewer costly relapses, and have improved functioning. Further research examining the long-term effects of reducing barriers to effective treatments on the societal burden of schizophrenia in the People's Republic of China is needed.Keywords: People's Republic of China, schizophrenia, relapse, review, health care costs, antipsychotic agents

Lei Chen, Haya Ascher-Svanum, Anthony Lawson, Virginia L Stauffer, Allen Nyhuis, Virginia Haynes, Kory Schuh, Bruce J KinonEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USABackground: This study identified subgroups of patients with schizophrenia who differed on their movement disorder profile and compared their treatment outcomes.Methods: Data from a randomized, open-label, one-year study of patients with schizophrenia who were treated with antipsychotics in usual clinical care settings were analyzed (n = 640). Five measures of movement disorder were incorporated into a single Movement Disorder Index (MDI). Subgroups that differed in their movement disorder profile over the one-year study period were compared on clinical and functional outcomes.Results: Three subgroups were identified: a worsening of MDI in 15% of patients, an improvement in 33%, and no change in 53%. Compared with the other two subgroups, the MDI-worsened subgroup had poorer symptom improvement measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (mean changes of −11.0, −18.4, and −16.8 for the patients who had a worsening of MDI, no change, and an improvement, respectively), poorer symptom improvement on the PANSS positive and anxiety/depression subscale scores, worsening on the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary score, and a higher rate of hospitalization (P < 0.05).Conclusion: Patients with schizophrenia who experience worsening of their MDI score appear to have poorer clinical and functional outcomes, suggesting that such worsening may be a marker of poorer prognosis.Keywords: schizophrenia, treatment outcome, movement disorder

Louis S Matza,1 Glenn A Phillips,2 Dennis A Revicki,1 Haya Ascher-Svanum,3 Karen G Malley,4 Andrew C Palsgrove,1 Douglas E Faries,3 Virginia Stauffer,3 Bruce J Kinon,3 A George Awad,5 Richard SE Keefe,6 Dieter Naber71Outcomes Research, United BioSource Corporation, Bethesda, MD, 2Formerly with Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, 3Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, 4Malley Research Programming, Inc, Rockville, MD, USA; 5Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences; University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; 6Duke University Medical Center, Durham NC, USA; 7Universitaetsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, GermanyIntroduction: The Reasons for Antipsychotic Discontinuation Interview (RAD-I) was developed to assess patients’ perceptions of reasons for discontinuing or continuing an antipsychotic. The current study examined reliability and validity of domain scores representing three factors contributing to these treatment decisions: treatment benefits, adverse events, and distal reasons other than direct effects of the medication.Methods: Data were collected from patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and their treating clinicians. For approximately 25% of patients, a second rater completed the RAD-I for assessment of inter-rater reliability.Results: All patients (n = 121; 81 discontinuation, 40 continuation) reported at least one reason for discontinuation or continuation (mean = 2.8 reasons for discontinuation; 3.4 for continuation). Inter-rater reliability was supported (kappas = 0.63–1.0). Validity of the discontinuation domain scores was supported by associations with symptom measures (the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale for Schizophrenia, the Clinical Global Impression – Schizophrenia Scale; r = 0.30 to 0.51; all P < 0.01), patients’ primary reasons for discontinuation, and adverse events. However, the continuation domain scores were not significantly associated with these other indicators.Discussion: Results support the reliability, convergent validity, and known-groups validity of the RAD-I for assessing patients’ reasons for antipsychotic discontinuation. Further research is needed to examine validity of the RAD-I continuation section.Keywords: discontinuation, antipsychotic, schizophrenia, treatment continuation, patient-reported outcomes, instrument development

Wenyu Ye,1 Haya Ascher-Svanum,2 Yuka Tanji,3 Jennifer A Flynn,3 Michihiro Takahashi,3,4 Robert R Conley21Lilly Suzhou Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 2Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 3Lilly Research Laboratories Japan, Eli Lilly Japan KK, Kobe, Japan; 4Terauchi-Takahashi Psychiatric Clinic, Ashiya, JapanPurpose: Antipsychotic monotherapy is often recommended over antipsychotic polypharmacy because of fewer adverse events, reduced treatment complexity, and lower medication cost. This study compared the rate and the duration of antipsychotic monotherapy following initiation of olanzapine or risperidone in the treatment of outpatients with schizophrenia in Japan.Methods: Outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia in the Japan Medical Data Center database were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, diagnosis codes. Patients were between 20 and 65 years old, initiated on olanzapine or risperidone therapy between August 2003 and July 2008, and continuously enrolled during the 6 months prior to and the 12 months following the initiation date. Antipsychotic polypharmacy was defined as concurrent use of two or more antipsychotics. The probability of monotherapy during the 12-month follow-up period was assessed using a propensity score-adjusted generalized estimating equation model. Duration of monotherapy was contrasted using a propensity score-adjusted bootstrapping model.Results: After applying all inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final analytic sample consisted of 332 olanzapine- and 496 risperidone-treated outpatients. At treatment initiation, 61.5% of the olanzapine-treated patients and 45.6% of the risperidone-treated patients received antipsychotic monotherapy (P < 0.001). After correcting for background differences, monotherapy was more common among olanzapine-treated patients (P = 0.001). In addition, olanzapine was used as monotherapy for a longer duration (P = 0.006).Conclusion: Consistent with prior global research, this retrospective naturalistic study of schizophrenia outpatients in Japan found that olanzapine is more likely to be used as monotherapy and to be used as monotherapy for a longer duration than risperidone.Keywords: epidemiologic studies, polypharmacy, monotherapy duration, outpatient care, Japan

Haya Ascher-Svanum1, William S Montgomery2, David P McDonnell3, Kristina A Coleman4, Peter D Feldman11Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 2Eli Lilly Australia Pty Ltd, West Ryde, New South Wales, Australia; 3Eli Lilly and Company, Cork, Ireland; 4OptumInsight, Lilyfield, New South Wales, AustraliaBackground: Little is known about the comparative effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics in long-acting injection formulation. Due to the absence of head-to-head studies comparing olanzapine long-acting injection and risperidone long-acting injection, this study was intended to make exploratory, indirect, cross-study comparisons between the long-acting formulations of these two atypical antipsychotics in their effectiveness in treating patients with schizophrenia.Methods: Indirect, cross-study comparisons between olanzapine long-acting injection and risperidone long-acting injection used 12-month treatment-completion rates, because discontinuation of an antipsychotic for any cause is a recognized proxy measure of the medication's effectiveness in treating schizophrenia. Following a systematic review of the literature, two indirect comparisons were conducted using open-label, single-cohort studies in which subjects were stabilized on an antipsychotic medication before depot initiation. The first analysis compared olanzapine long-acting injection (one study) with pooled data from nine identified risperidone long-acting injection studies. The second analysis was a “sensitivity analysis,” using only the most similar studies, one for olanzapine long-acting injection and one for risperidone long-acting injection, which shared near-identical study designs and involved study cohorts with near-identical patient characteristics. Pearson Chi-square tests assessed group differences on treatment-completion rates.Results: Comparison of olanzapine long-acting injection data (931 patients) with the pooled data from the nine risperidone long-acting injection studies (3950 patients) provided almost identical 12-month treatment-completion rates (72.7% versus 72.4%; P = 0.87). When the two most similar studies were compared, the 12-month completion rate for olanzapine long-acting injection was significantly higher than for risperidone long-acting injection (81.3% versus 47.0%; P < 0.001). However, any conclusions drawn from this comparison may be limited by differences in the studies' geographic catchment areas.Conclusion: Using treatment-completion rates as a proxy measure of medication effectiveness, olanzapine long-acting injection did not differ significantly from risperidone long-acting injection when including all eligible studies. However, the findings of this exploratory analysis should be interpreted with caution, considering the methodological limitations of these indirect, cross-study comparisons.Keywords: antipsychotic drugs, intramuscular injection, olanzapine, risperidone, schizophrenia

Haya Ascher-Svanum, Alan JM Brnabic, Anthony H Lawson, Bruce J Kinon, Virginia L Stauffer, Peter D Feldman, Katarina KelinLilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USAAbstract: It is often difficult to determine whether a patient may best benefit by augmenting their current medication or switching them to another. This post-hoc analysis compares patients’ clinical and functional profiles at the time their antipsychotic medications were either switched or augmented. Adult outpatients receiving oral antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia were assessed during a 12-month international observational study. Clinical and functional measures were assessed at the time of first treatment switch/augmentation (0–14 days prior) and compared between Switched and Augmented patient groups. Due to low numbers of patients providing such data, interpretations are based on effect sizes. Data at the time of change were available for 87 patients: 53 Switched and 34 Augmented. Inadequate response was the primary reason for treatment change in both groups, whereas lack of adherence was more prevalent in the Switched group (26.4% vs 8.8%). Changes in clinical severity from study initiation to medication change were similar, as indicated by Clinical Global Impressions–Severity scores. However, physical and mental component scores of the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey improved in the Augmented group, but worsened in the Switched group. These findings suggest that the patient’s worsening or lack of meaningful improvement prompts clinicians to switch antipsychotic medications, whereas when patients show some improvement, clinicians may be more likely to try bolstering the improvements through augmentation. Current findings are consistent with physicians’ stated reasons for switching versus augmenting antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. Confirmation of these findings requires further research.Keywords: augmentation, drug substitution, polypharmacy, schizophrenia, switching

William Montgomery1, Tamas Treuer2, Jamie Karagianis3, Haya Ascher-Svanum4, Gavan Harrison51Global Health Outcomes, Eli Lilly and Company, Sydney, Australia; 2Emerging Markets Business Unit (Neuroscience), Eli Lilly and Company, Budapest, Hungary; 3Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 4Global Health Outcomes, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 5Asia-Pacific Medical Communications, Eli Lilly and Company, Sydney, AustraliaAbstract: Orally disintegrating olanzapine (ODO) is a rapid-dissolving formulation of olanzapine which disintegrates in saliva almost immediately, developed as a convenient and adherence-enhancing alternative to the standard olanzapine-coated tablet (SOT). Clinical studies, which form the basis of this review, have shown ODO and SOT to have similar efficacy and tolerability profiles. However, ODO appears to have a number of advantages over SOT in terms of adherence, patient preference, and reduction in nursing burden. Overall, the existing clinical data suggests that compared to SOT, ODO is not only well-suited for difficult-to-treat, agitated, and/or nonadherent patients but, due to its potential ability to improve adherence and greater patient preference, may also be an appropriate formulation for the majority of patients for which olanzapine is the antipsychotic of choice.Keywords: orodispersible formulation, orally disintegrating, olanzapine, atypical antipsychotics, patient adherence, preference, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder

Wenyu Ye1, Haya Ascher-Svanum2, Jennifer A Flynn3, Yuka Tanji3, Michihiro Takahashi3,41Lilly Suzhou Pharmaceutical Co, Shanghai, People's Republic of China; 2Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 3Lilly Research Laboratories Japan, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Kobe, 4Terauchi-Takahashi Psychiatric Clinic, Ashiya, JapanPurpose: Although expert guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia recommend antipsychotic monotherapy, the use of antipsychotic polypharmacy is common. This study identified characteristics that differentiate patients with schizophrenia who are treated with olanzapine monotherapy versus polypharmacy in usual care in Japan.Patients and methods: In a large (N = 1850) prospective, observational study, Japanese patients with schizophrenia who initiated treatment with olanzapine were followed for 1 year. Consistent with past research, antipsychotic polypharmacy was defined as the concurrent use of olanzapine and another antipsychotic for at least 60 days. Switching was defined as discontinuing a prior antipsychotic therapy rather than augmenting the medication regimen. Predictors of antipsychotic monotherapy were based on information available at the time of olanzapine initiation. Baseline characteristics were compared using t-tests and Χ2 tests. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of monotherapy.Results: Patients treated with olanzapine monotherapy (43.2%) differed from those treated with antipsychotic polypharmacy (56.8%) on demographics, treatment history, baseline symptom levels, functional levels, and treatment-emergent adverse events. Stepwise logistic regression identified multiple variables that significantly predicted monotherapy: older age, shorter duration of schizophrenia, outpatient status, comorbid medical conditions, lower body mass index, no prior anticholinergic use, no prior mood stabilizer use, and switching from a previous antipsychotic (typical or atypical).Conclusion: Consistent with prior research in Japan, antipsychotic polypharmacy appears to be common in the treatment of schizophrenia. Patients treated with monotherapy could be differentiated from those treated with antipsychotic polypharmacy based on a specific set of demographic and baseline clinical characteristics.Keywords: olanzapine, schizophrenia, polypharmacy, quality improvement

Wenyu Ye1, Haya Ascher-Svanum2, Yuka Tanji3, Jennifer A Flynn3, Michihiro Takahashi3,41Lilly Suzhou Pharmaceutical Co, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 2Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 3Lilly Research Laboratories Japan, Eli Lilly Japan KK, Kobe, 4Terauchi-Takahashi Psychiatric Clinic, Ashiya, JapanPurpose: Treatment continuation is considered an important measure of antipsychotic effectiveness in schizophrenia, reflecting the medication’s efficacy, safety, and tolerability from both patients’ and clinicians’ perspectives. This study identified characteristics of patients with schizophrenia who continue olanzapine therapy for a 1-year period in Japan.Methods: In a large (N = 1850), prospective, observational study, Japanese patients with schizophrenia who initiated treatment with olanzapine were followed for 1 year. Baseline characteristics were compared using t-tests and chi-square tests. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify independent baseline predictors of treatment continuation.Results: Most patients (68.2%) continued with olanzapine therapy for the full 1-year study period, with an average duration of 265.5 ± 119.4 days. At baseline, patients who continued were significantly more likely to be male, older, and inpatients; have longer illness duration, higher negative and cognitive symptoms, better health-related quality of life, and prior anticholinergic use. Continuers were significantly less likely to engage in social activities, live independently, work for pay, or have prior antidepressant use. Continuers showed significantly greater early (3-month) improvement in global symptom severity. Logistic regression found that continuation was significantly predicted by longer illness duration, lower positive symptoms, higher negative symptoms, and better health-related quality of life.Conclusions: In this large naturalistic study in Japan, most patients with schizophrenia stayed on olanzapine therapy for the full 1-year study period. Treatment completion with olanzapine was independently predicted by longer illness duration, lower positive symptoms, higher negative symptoms, and better health-related quality of life.Keywords: schizophrenia, atypical, antipsychotics, discontinuation

Jian Chen1, Haya Ascher-Svanum1, Allen W Nyhuis1, Michael G Case1, Glenn A Phillips1, Kory J Schuh1, Vicki Poole Hoffmann2 1Eli Lilly and Company, 2Lilly USA, LLC, Indianapolis, IN, USA Background: The aim of this study was to assess the reasons for discontinuing or continuing olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia, from the perspectives of the patients and their clinicians. Methods: The Reasons for Antipsychotic Discontinuation/Continuation (RAD) is a pair of questionnaires assessing these reasons from the perspectives of patients and their clinicians. Outpatients with schizophrenia (n = 199) who were not acutely ill participated in a 22-week open-label study of olanzapine from November 2006 to September 2008. Reasons for continuing or discontinuing olanzapine (on a five-point scale), along with the single most important reason and the top primary reasons, were identified. Concordance between reasons given by patients and clinicians was assessed. Results: The top primary reasons for continuing olanzapine were patients' perceptions of improvement, improvement of positive symptoms, and improved functioning. The study discontinuation rate was low (30.2%), and only a subset of patients who discontinued reported reasons for medication discontinuation. The top primary reasons for discontinuing olanzapine were insufficient improvement or worsening of positive symptoms, adverse events, and insufficient improvement or worsening of negative symptoms. Ratings given by patients and clinicians were highly concordant. Conclusion: The main reason for continuing or discontinuing olanzapine appears to be medication efficacy, especially for positive symptoms. Reasons for medication discontinuation differ somewhat from reasons for continuation, with a high level of concordance between patient and clinician responses. Keywords: antipsychotic agents, schizophrenia, olanzapine, questionnaires

Xiaomei Peng1, Haya Ascher-Svanum1, Douglas E Faries1, Virginia L Stauffer1, Sara Kollack-Walker1, Bruce J Kinon1, John M Kane21Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana; 2Zucker Hillside Hospital, Department of Psychiatry, Glen Oaks, New York, USABackground: To compare the cost-effectiveness of treating early responders versus early nonresponders to an atypical antipsychotic (risperidone) and the cost-effectiveness of treating early nonresponders maintained on risperidone versus those switched to olanzapine.Methods: This post hoc analysis used data from a randomized, double-blind, 12-week schizophrenia study (Study Code: HGMN, n = 628). Participants were initially assigned to risperidone therapy. Early response was defined as a ≥ 20% improvement on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score from baseline to two weeks. Early responders continued on risperidone, whereas early nonresponders were randomized in a double-blind manner to continue on risperidone or switch to olanzapine for 10 additional weeks. Early responders and early nonresponders maintained on risperidone were compared for health-state utilities (benefits) and total cost over the 12-week study; early nonresponders maintained on risperidone or switched to olanzapine were compared from randomization (10-week period). Utilities were derived from the PANSS and adverse events. Mixed models were used to assess group differences in utilities. Treatment costs were calculated based on health states. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were then utilized to compare treatment groups.Results: Early responders to risperidone had significantly greater total utility and lower total treatment costs than early nonresponders to risperidone. Compared with early nonresponders who continued on risperidone, those who were switched to olanzapine had significantly higher total utility scores at endpoint and numerically lower total treatment costs, reflecting significantly lower nonmedication treatment costs, even though medication costs were significantly higher compared with generic risperidone.Conclusion: Treatment of early responders was more cost-effective than treatment of early nonresponders to atypical antipsychotic therapy. Switching early nonresponders to olanzapine resulted in improved treatment effectiveness, met the criteria for some dominance, and appeared modestly more cost-effective than maintaining treatment with generic risperidone.Keywords: cost-benefit analysis, olanzapine, risperidone, treatment outcome, schizophrenia