Clinical and economic outcomes of olanzapine compared with haloperidol for schizophrenia. Results from a randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare, from the payor perspective, the clinical and economic outcomes of olanzapine to those of haloperidol for the treatment of schizophrenia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Clinical, quality-of-life and resource utilisation data were prospectively collected for US-residing patients with schizophrenia who were participating in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind clinical trial comparing olanzapine and haloperidol. Direct medical costs were estimated by assigning standardised prices (1995 values) to the resource utilisation data. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: 817 patients with schizophrenia who had a baseline Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score (BPRS) > or = 18 (items scored 0 to 6) and/or were no longer tolerating current antipsychotic therapy. INTERVENTIONS: Olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day (n = 551) or haloperidol 5 to 20 mg/day (n = 266) for 6 weeks. Patients showing a predefined level of clinical response entered a 46-week maintenance phase. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: After acute treatment, BPRS-based clinical improvements were seen in 38 and 27% of olanzapine and haloperidol patients, respectively (p = 0.002). Clinically important improvements on the Quality of Life Scale were achieved during acute treatment in 33% of olanzapine recipients and 25% of haloperidol recipients (p = 0.094). Olanzapine treatment in the acute phase led to significantly lower inpatient ($US5125 vs $US5795, p = 0.038) and outpatient ($US663 vs $US692, p = 0.001) costs, resulting in a significant overall reduction in mean total medical costs of $US388 (p = 0.033). This significant reduction in total costs was found despite olanzapine mean medication costs being significantly greater than haloperidol medication costs ($US326 vs $US15, p < 0.001). No significant differences in clinical improvement were observed in the maintenance phase. Maintenance phase olanzapine mean total medical costs were $US636 lower than haloperidol total costs (p = 0.128). Although olanzapine medication costs were significantly higher than haloperidol medication costs ($US3461 vs $US95, p < 0.001), this difference was offset by significantly lower inpatient ($US8322 vs $US10,662, p = 0.044) and outpatient ($US3810 vs $US5473, p = 0.038) costs. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, olanzapine treatment was more effective than haloperidol in producing clinical response in the acute phase. In addition, olanzapine treatment led to reductions in inpatient and outpatient costs that more than offset olanzapine's higher medication costs relative to haloperidol.     

Olanzapine: an updated review of its use in the management of schizophrenia

Olanzapine, a thienobenzodiazepine derivative, is a second generation (atypical) antipsychotic agent which has proven efficacy against the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Compared with conventional antipsychotics, it has greater affinity for serotonin 5-HT2A than for dopamine D2 receptors. In large, well controlled trials in patients with schizophrenia or related psychoses, olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day was significantly superior to haloperidol 5 to 20 mg/day in overall improvements in psychopathology rating scales and in the treatment of depressive and negative symptoms, and was comparable in effects on positive psychotic symptoms. The 1-year risk of relapse (rehospitalisation) was significantly lower with olanzapine than with haloperidol treatment. In the first double-blind comparative study (28-week) of olanzapine and risperidone, olanzapine 10 to 20 mg/day proved to be significantly more effective than risperidone 4 to 12 mg/day in the treatment of negative and depressive symptoms but not on overall psychopathology symptoms. In contrast, preliminary results from an 8-week controlled study suggested risperidone 2 to 6 mg/day was superior to olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day against positive and anxiety/depressive symptoms (p < 0.05), although consistent with the first study, both agents demonstrated similar efficacy on measures of overall psychopathology. Improvements in general cognitive function seen with olanzapine treatment in a 1-year controlled study of patients with early-phase schizophrenia, were significantly greater than changes seen with either risperidone or haloperidol. However, preliminary results from an 8-week trial showed comparable cognitive enhancing effects of olanzapine and risperidone treatment in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Several studies indicate that olanzapine has benefits against symptoms of aggression and agitation, while other studies strongly support the effectiveness of olanzapine in the treatment of depressive symptomatology. Olanzapine is associated with significantly fewer extrapyramidal symptoms than haloperidol and risperidone. In addition, olanzapine is not associated with a risk of agranulocytosis as seen with clozapine or clinically significant hyperprolactinaemia as seen with risperidone or prolongation of the QT interval. The most common adverse effects reported with olanzapine are bodyweight gain, somnolence, dizziness, anticholinergic effects (constipation and dry mouth) and transient asymptomatic liver enzyme elevations. In comparison with haloperidol, the adverse events reported significantly more frequently with olanzapine in > or = 3.5% of patients were dry mouth, bodyweight gain and increased appetite and compared with risperidone, only bodyweight gain occurred significantly more frequently with olanzapine. The high acquisition cost of olanzapine is offset by reductions in other treatment costs (inpatient and/or outpatient services) of schizophrenia. Pharmacoeconomic analyses indicate that olanzapine does not significantly increase, and may even decrease, the overall direct treatment costs of schizophrenia, compared with haloperidol. Compared with risperidone, olanzapine has also been reported to decrease overall treatment costs, despite the several-fold higher daily acquisition cost of the drug. Olanzapine treatment improves quality of life in patients with schizophrenia and related psychoses to a greater extent than haloperidol, and to broadly the same extent as risperidone. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine demonstrated superior antipsychotic efficacy compared with haloperidol in the treatment of acute phase schizophrenia, and in the treatment of some patients with first-episode or treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The reduced risk of adverse events and therapeutic superiority compared with haloperidol and risperidone in the treatment of negative and depressive symptoms support the choice of olanzapine as a first-line option in the management of schizophrenia in the acute phase and for the maintenance of treatment response.     

Cost effectiveness of long-acting risperidone injection versus alternative antipsychotic agents in patients with schizophrenia in the USA

The availability of long-acting risperidone injection may increase adherence and lead to improved clinical and economic outcomes for individuals with schizophrenia. The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of long-acting risperidone, oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole, and haloperidol depot in patients with schizophrenia over 1 year from a healthcare system perspective. Published medical literature, unpublished data from clinical trials and a consumer health database, and a clinical expert panel were utilized to populate a decision analytical model comparing the seven treatment alternatives. The model captured rates of patient compliance, the rates, frequency and duration of relapse, incidence of adverse events, and healthcare resource utilization and associated costs. Primary outcomes were expressed in terms of percentage of patients relapsing per year, number of relapse days per year (number and duration of relapses per patient per year), and total direct 2003 medical cost per patient per year. On the basis of model projections, the proportions of patients experiencing a relapse requiring hospitalization in 1 year were 66% for haloperidol depot, 41% for oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole, and 26% for long-acting risperidone, whereas the proportions of patients with an exacerbation not requiring hospitalization were 60% for haloperidol depot, 37% for oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole, and 24% for long-acting risperidone. The mean number of days of relapse requiring hospitalization per patient per year were 28 for haloperidol depot, 18 for oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole, and 11 for long-acting risperidone, whereas the mean number of days of exacerbation not requiring hospitalization were eight for haloperidol depot, five for oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole, and three for long-acting risperidone. This would translate into direct medical cost savings with long-acting risperidone compared with oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole, and haloperidol depot of US dollars 161, 1425, 508, 259, 1068, and 8224, respectively. These findings were supported by sensitivity analyses. The utilization of long-acting risperidone is predicted to result in better clinical outcomes and lower total healthcare costs than its comparators, oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole, and haloperidol depot. Long-acting risperidone may therefore be a cost saving therapeutic option for patients with schizophrenia.     

Cost-effectiveness model of long-acting risperidone in schizophrenia in the US

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a devastating and costly illness that affects 1% of the population in the US. Effective pharmacological therapies are available but suboptimal patient adherence to either acute or long-term therapeutic regimens reduces their effectiveness. The availability of a long-acting injection (LAI) formulation of risperidone may increase adherence and improve clinical and economic outcomes for people with schizophrenia. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of risperidone LAI compared with oral risperidone, oral olanzapine and haloperidol decanoate LAI over a 1-year time period in outpatients with schizophrenia who had previously suffered a relapse requiring hospitalisation. PERSPECTIVE: US healthcare system. METHODS: Published medical literature, unpublished data from clinical trials and a consumer health database, and a clinical expert panel were used to populate a decision-analysis model comparing the four treatment alternatives. The model captured: rates of patient compliance; rates, frequency and duration of relapse; incidence of adverse events (bodyweight gain and extrapyramidal effects); and healthcare resource utilisation and associated costs. Primary outcomes were: the proportion of patients with relapse; the frequency of relapse per patient; the number of relapse days per patient; and total direct medical cost per patient per year. Costs are in year 2002 US dollars. RESULTS: Based on model projections, the proportions of patients experiencing a relapse requiring hospitalisation after 1 year of treatment were 66% for haloperidol decanoate LAI, 41% for oral risperidone and oral olanzapine and 26% for risperidone LAI, while the proportion of patients with a relapse not requiring hospitalisation were 60%, 37%, 37% and 24%, respectively. The mean number of days of relapse requiring hospitalisation per patient per year was 28 for haloperidol decanoate LAI, 18 for oral risperidone and oral olanzapine and 11 for risperidone LAI, while the mean number of days of relapse not requiring hospitalisation was 8, 5, 5 and 3, respectively. This would translate into direct medical cost savings with risperidone LAI compared with oral risperidone, oral olanzapine and haloperidol decanoate LAI of USD 397, USD 1742, and USD 8328, respectively. These findings were supported by sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The use of risperidone LAI for treatment of outpatients with schizophrenia is predicted in this model to result in better clinical outcomes and lower total healthcare costs over 1 year than its comparators, oral risperidone, oral olanzapine and haloperidol decanoate LAI. Risperidone LAI may therefore be a cost saving therapeutic option for outpatients with schizophrenia in the US healthcare setting.     

Olanzapine versus risperidone. A prospective comparison of clinical and economic outcomes in schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine and risperidone treatment for schizophrenia. DESIGN AND SETTING: An international, multicentre, double-blind, prospective study. To facilitate economic comparisons, our sample was restricted to patients enrolled in US sites. 150 patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or schizophreniform disorder were randomised to therapy with either olanzapine 10 to 20 mg/day (n = 75) or risperidone 4 to 12 mg/day (n = 75) for a maximum of 28 weeks. In addition to tolerability and efficacy assessments, use of health services was assessed at baseline and prospectively, at 8-week intervals and at study completion. Clinically important response, defined as a 40% improvement in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, maintenance of response and rates of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms were compared between groups. Direct medical costs were estimated by assigning standardised prices to resource units. Median total, inpatient/outpatient service and medication acquisition costs were compared between treatment groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The mean modal dosages for the olanzapine and risperidone treatment groups were 17.7 +/- 3.4 mg/day and 7.9 +/- 3.2 mg/day, respectively. Olanzapine-treated patients were more likely to maintain response compared with risperidone-treated patients (p = 0.048). In addition, a smaller proportion of olanzapine-treated patients required anticholinergic therapy compared with risperidone-treated patients (25.3 vs 45.3%; p = 0.016). Total per patient medical costs over the study interval were $US2843 (1997 values) [36%] lower in the olanzapine treatment group than in the risperidone treatment group (p = 0.342). Medication costs were significantly higher for olanzapine-treated patients ($US2513 vs $US1581; p < 0.001), but this difference was offset by a reduction of $US3774 (52%) in inpatient/outpatient service costs for olanzapine-treated patients in comparison with risperidone-treated patients ($US3516 vs $US7291, p = 0.083). Median cost findings were consistent with results observed using other robust measures of central tendency and provide conservative estimates of potential savings that may be obtained from olanzapine therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, olanzapine-treated patients experienced clinical improvements that translated into savings in costs of care for both inpatient and outpatient services. These savings offset the difference in medication acquisition cost between olanzapine and risperidone.     

Modelling the impact of compliance on the costs and effects of long-acting risperidone in Canada

Schizophrenia is a chronic, relapsing disease that requires more healthcare resources to manage than any other single psychiatric illness. The main cost of treatment is hospitalization as a result of the exacerbation of symptoms often caused by poor compliance. Although the costs of hospitalization and relapse have been well documented, the differential effects of various medications on healthcare expenditure are still being determined. The aim of the present study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of long-acting risperidone in the treatment of high-risk, non-compliant patients with schizophrenia over a 5-year period in Canada. A discrete event model was developed comparing three scenarios, each with a different starting treatment: haloperidol depot, long-acting risperidone or oral risperidone. Second and third-line treatment options were olanzapine and clozapine, respectively, for all three scenarios. On the basis of 3000 simulated patient characteristics, the model generated individual patient histories. Outcomes included the number and duration of psychotic episodes, the cumulative Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score and direct medical costs. The time horizon of the model was 5 years and a 5% discount rate was used for costs and effects. The perspective of the model was that of the Canadian healthcare system. After 5 years, treatment with long-acting risperidone saved Canada dollars 6908 and Canada dollars 13,130 (discounted) and avoided 0.28 and 0.54 relapses per patient, compared with haloperidol depot and oral risperidone, respectively. In this model, initiating treatment of high-risk, non-compliant patients with schizophrenia with long-acting risperidone was the dominant strategy. With long-acting risperidone, direct costs were lower and clinical effectiveness was greater, compared with haloperidol depot or oral risperidone, during years 4 and 5.     

Long-acting risperidone compared with oral olanzapine and haloperidol depot in schizophrenia: a Belgian cost-effectiveness analysis

Patients with schizophrenia suffer numerous relapses and rehospitalizations that are associated with high direct and indirect medical expense. Suboptimal therapeutic efficacy and, in particular, problems with compliance are major factors leading to relapse. Atypical antipsychotic agents offer improved efficacy and a lower rate of extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with conventional antipsychotic drugs. Long-acting intramuscular risperidone combines these benefits with improvements in compliance associated with depot injections. To assist decision making regarding the place of long-acting risperidone in therapy, a cost-effectiveness analysis of strategies involving first-line treatment with long-acting risperidone, oral olanzapine or depot haloperidol was performed from the perspective of the Belgian healthcare system. A decision tree model was created to compare the cost effectiveness of three first-line treatment strategies in a sample of young schizophrenic patients who had been treated for 1 year and whose disease had not been diagnosed for longer than 5 years. The model used a time horizon of 2 years, with health state transition probabilities, resource use and cost estimates derived from clinical trials, expert opinion and published prices. The four health states in the model were derived from an analysis of the literature. The principal efficacy measure was the proportion of patients successfully treated, defined as those who responded to initial treatment and who had none to two episodes of clinical deterioration without needing a change of treatment over the 2-year period. Comprehensive sensitivity analysis was carried out to test the robustness of the model. A greater proportion of patients were successfully treated with long-acting risperidone (82.7%) for 2 years, compared with those treated with olanzapine (74.8%) or haloperidol (57.3%). Total mean costs per patient over 2 years were 16,406 Euro with long-acting risperidone, 17,074 Euro with olanzapine and 21,779 Euro with haloperidol (year of costing 2003). The mean cost-effectiveness ratios were 19,839 Euro, 22,826 Euro and 38,008 Euro per successfully treated patient for long-acting risperidone, olanzapine and haloperidol, respectively. Results of the sensitivity analysis confirmed that the results were robust to a wide variation of different input variables (effectiveness, dosing distribution, patient status according to healthcare system). Long-acting risperidone was the dominant strategy, being both more effective and less costly than either oral olanzapine or depot haloperidol. Long-acting risperidone appears to represent a favourable first-line strategy for patients with schizophrenia requiring long-term maintenance treatment.     

Cost-benefit analysis of risperidone and clozapine in the treatment of schizophrenia in Israel

In this study, the benefits and costs of treating schizophrenia with either risperidone or clozapine were examined. The lifetime drug-treatment cost incurred by a patient with schizophrenia in Israel was $US7561 (1996 values) with an initial 6-month trial with risperidone, compared with $US6326 with clozapine and $US3360 with typical antipsychotics. Total lifetime costs of psychiatric health services (excluding medications) by individuals who were continuously receiving typical antipsychotics were $US181,555 per patient. Assuming a 6.3% decrease in hospital use with typical antipsychotics and an absolute 30% decrease with risperidone or clozapine, the use of clozapine or risperidone reduced hospitalisation costs by $US7159 per patient, but increased community-care costs by $US1627 per patient, giving health-service benefit:cost ratios of 1.87:1 and 1.32:1, respectively. After adding indirect benefits resulting from increased work productivity (minus indirect costs related to increases in transport costs because of visits for blood monitoring during clozapine therapy), the benefit:cost ratios increased to 2.04:1 and 1.48:1, respectively. Assuming that clozapine caused a 30% decrease in hospital use by patients with new-onset schizophrenia, risperidone would have to decrease hospital use by 43.2% (i.e. a 13.2% relative advantage) for its societal benefits to justify its increased costs.     

Risperidone olanzapine drug outcomes studies in schizophrenia (RODOS): health economic results of an international naturalistic study.

We report the health economic data from the Risperidone Olanzapine Drug Outcomes studies in Schizophrenia (RODOS) programme. Details of the efficacy and tolerability data from RODOS are available in a companion paper. The population analysed during RODOS consisted of 1901 patients with diagnoses of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The mean +/- SD daily dose of olanzapine treatment was 14.5 +/- 5.1 mg compared to 5.3 +/- 2.6 mg for risperidone. Use of concomitant neuroleptics (risperidone, 65%; olanzapine, 62%; P = 0.2) and other concomitant drugs (risperidone, 76%; olanzapine, 73%; P = 0.2) was similar in both groups. The mean +/- SD total costs of all inpatient drugs was significantly (P < 0.001) higher for olanzapine (US$ 297.5 +/- 305.1) than risperidone (US$159.9 +/- 183.3). Although this difference in the average total costs in part reflects the longer treatment duration for olanzapine compared to risperidone (34 days versus 31 days), the cost difference remained when looking at costs on a daily basis. The mean +/- SD daily cost of all inpatient drugs was also significantly (P < 0.001) higher for olanzapine (US$7.7 +/- 4.0) than for risperidone (US$ 4.6 +/- 2.9). These findings were very consistent across all nine countries. The results from RODOS suggest that treatment costs are significantly higher with olanzapine than with risperidone without any clinical benefit to offset this.     

A cost-cost study comparing etanercept with infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the total costs associated with the administration of two different tumour necrosis factor (TNF) strategies used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA): etanercept, a soluble TNF receptor that can be administered at home by subcutaneous injection, versus infliximab, an antibody that requires an intravenous infusion in a hospital outpatient setting. DESIGN AND SETTING: The main analytical framework of the study was a cost-cost analysis comparing the total annual costs associated with the administration of etanercept and infliximab in adult RA patients. The perspective of the study was that of the Dutch society. An economic model was constructed to determine the costs of both treatments. The cost evaluation included direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs and indirect costs. The base-case analysis compared monotherapy with etanercept versus a combination therapy with infliximab and methotrexate. Data for the economic model came from published literature, expert opinion and official price and tariff lists. All costs were in 1999 values. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: The analysis was performed for the adult RA population eligible for treatment with etanercept or infliximab in The Netherlands. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The analysis showed that the total annual drug costs per patient do not differ substantially between infliximab and etanercept, with costs of Netherland guilders (NLG)31,526 (12,610 US dollars) and NLG31,334 (12,534 US dollars), respectively. However, the other medical costs (i.e. excluding the costs of the two drugs themselves) are substantially higher for infliximab due to the additional costs associated with administration in an outpatient clinic and the use of methotrexate [NLG 12,621 (5048 US dollars) versus NLG269 (107 US dollars) for etanercept]. The impact of direct nonmedical costs (transportation) and indirect costs were negligible. Overall treatment with infliximab is more expensive than treatment with etanercept with total costs of NLG45 115 (18,046 US dollars) and NLG3I,621 (12,648 US dollars), respectively (42.7% increase). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the assumptions used in the model, we may conclude that the use of etanercept compares favourably with infliximab from a budgetary and health economic perspective: the total costs are substantially lower when the efficacy of etanercept is assumed to be at least equivalent to the efficacy of infliximab.     

Cost analysis of the treatment of schizophrenia in the UK. A simulation model comparing olanzapine, risperidone and haloperidol

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of 2 atypical drug therapies (olanzapine and risperidone) with one another and with a conventional antipsychotic (haloperidol) in the treatment of schizophrenia. DESIGN AND SETTING: The analysis is based on a simulation model with parameter values taken mainly from clinical trial data in patients with schizophrenia, and was conducted within a UK context. RESULTS: The 3 therapies are approximately cost neutral over a 5-year period (olanzapine 35,701 Pounds, risperidone 36,590 Pounds and haloperidol 36,653 Pounds). There is evidence of greater efficacy with the atypical drugs [average percentage of 5 years with Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores < 18: olanzapine 63.6%, risperidone 63.0% and haloperidol 52.2%]. The cost and efficacy differences between the 2 atypical drugs are too small to rank them in terms of cost effectiveness. Extensive sensitivity analysis does not change any of the main conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Given evidence of efficacy gains to the atypical drugs, these represent cost-effective treatment options. Prospective data from nontrial treatment settings would help substantiate the model findings.     

Costs and effects of long-acting risperidone compared with oral atypical and conventional depot formulations in Germany

Schizophrenia is one of the most expensive psychiatric conditions because of high direct and indirect costs associated with the nature of the illness, its resistance to treatment and the consequences of relapse. Long-acting risperidone is a new formulation of an atypical antipsychotic drug that also offers the improvements in compliance associated with haloperidol depot. The aim of this simulation study was to compare the benefits and costs of three pharmacological treatment strategies comprising first-line treatment with long-acting risperidone injection, a haloperidol depot or an oral atypical antipsychotic agent, over a 5-year period in Germany. A discrete event simulation model was developed to compare three treatment scenarios from the perspective of major third-party payers (sickness funds and social security 'Sozialversicherung'). The scenarios comprised first-line treatment with haloperidol depot (scenario 1), long-acting risperidone (scenario 2) and oral olanzapine (scenario 3). Switches to second or third-line options were allowed when side-effects occurred or a patient suffered more than a fixed number of relapses. The model accounted for fixed patient characteristics, and on the basis of these, simulated patient histories according to several time-dependent variables. The time horizon for this model was limited to 5 years, and in accordance with German guidelines, costs and effects were discounted by between 3 and 10%. Direct costs included medication, type of physician visits and treatment location. Indirect costs were not included. Information on treatment alternatives, transition probabilities, model structure and healthcare utilization were derived from the literature and an expert panel. Outcomes were expressed in terms of the number and duration of psychotic episodes, cumulative symptom scores, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Univariate sensitivity analyses were carried out, as were subgroup analyses based on disease severity and for patients at high risk of being non-compliant. The long-acting risperidone strategy was calculated to avoid 0.23 and 0.33 relapses per patient, decrease the cumulative symptom score by 25 and 33 points, and decrease the costs by 2017 Euro and 6096 Euro per patient (1608 Euro and 5422 Euro discounted), compared with the haloperidol depot and olanzapine strategies, respectively, over a 5-year period (year of costing 2004). Among high-risk non-compliant patients, long-acting risperidone was estimated to avoid 0.23 and 0.47 relapses and save 4822 Euro and 10,646 Euro per patient (4107 Euro and 9490 Euro discounted), compared with the haloperidol depot and olanzapine strategies, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust and mainly sensitive to changes in the reported relative effectiveness of atypical and conventional formulations for preventing symptom recurrence, and in the relative compliance with oral and long-acting formulations. In this model, long-acting risperidone is a dominant strategy compared with a haloperidol depot or oral atypical antipsychotic agent, being both more effective and less costly over a 5-year period. Results for long-acting risperidone are even more favourable among patients at high risk of being noncompliant or with more severe disease.     

Minimum effective doses of haloperidol for the treatment of first psychotic episode: a comparative study with risperidone and olanzapine

Minimum doses of haloperidol might show similar efficacy and side-effects compared to atypical antipsychotics. The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy of minimum doses of haloperidol with standard doses of risperidone and olanzapine on a 6-month open trial in first psychotic episode patients and to examine the effect of compliance on their outcome. Forty-two patients were recruited and started on flexible doses of these drugs. Olanzapine was given with no cost to the patients. Efficacy and side-effects were monitored every 3 months using standardized assessments. Thirty patients completed the study. All treatment groups showed improvement in positive, negative and depressive symptoms. There were no differences in side-effects among them. The haloperidol group required higher doses of anticholinergics. The rate of treatment discontinuation was higher in the risperidone group due to the direct cost. Minimum doses of haloperidol might prove to be a good choice of treatment for patients with a first episode of psychosis.     

Healthcare costs of patients with heart failure treated with torasemide or furosemide

OBJECTIVE: To compare the direct healthcare costs of patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) prescribed torasemide (torsemide) or furosemide (frusemide). DESIGN AND SETTING: As part of a prospective, randomised, nonblind study, we assessed the effects of torasemide and furosemide on readmission to hospital in 193 patients treated for CHF at a US urban public healthcare system. We also calculated total direct healthcare costs for the 2 drugs. The perspective of the analysis was that of the healthcare system. Healthcare charge and utilisation data, demographic information, and health status data were obtained from an electronic database containing data for all patients treated within the healthcare system. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Upon admission to the hospital, patients were eligible if they had evidence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, were at least 18 years old, and were receiving furosemide. INTERVENTION: Inpatients were randomised to either torasemide or furosemide treatment for 1 year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Patients treated with torasemide had fewer hospital admissions than those treated with furosemide [18 vs 34% for CHF (p = 0.013) and 38 vs 58% for any cardiovascular cause (p = 0.005)]. In the torasemide group, expected annual hospital costs per patient were lower for CHF admissions (by $US1054; 1998 values) and for all cardiovascular admissions (by $US1545) than in the furosemide group. Because the annual acquisition cost of torasemide was $US518 per patient higher than that of furosemide, the resulting net cost saving per patient was $US536 for CHF and $US1027 for all cardiovascular causes. Outpatient costs did not differ between treatment groups regardless of whether drug costs were considered. Total direct costs were $US2124 lower with torasemide than with furosemide (not statistically significant). CONCLUSIONS: Owing largely to reduced readmission to the hospital, the cost of inpatient care for patients with CHF is significantly lower with torasemide than with furosemide, despite the higher acquisition cost of torasemide. Treatment with torasemide resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in total direct costs (outpatient plus inpatient) compared with furosemide.