A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Antipsychotics for Treatment of Schizophrenia in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Reductions in prices following the expiry of patents on second-generation antipsychotics means that they could be made available to patients with schizophrenia in low-income countries. In this study we examine the cost effectiveness of antipsychotics for schizophrenia in Uganda. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic 10-state Markov model to represent the clinical and treatment course of schizophrenia and the experience of the average patient within the Uganda healthcare system. The model was run for a base population of 25-years-old patients attending Butabika National Referral Mental Hospital, in annual cycles over a lifetime horizon. Parameters were derived from a primary chart abstraction study, a local community pharmacy survey, published literature, and expert opinion where necessary. We computed mean disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) and costs (in US$ 2012) for each antipsychotic, incremental cost, and DALYs averted as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, mean DALYs were highest with chlorpromazine (27.608), followed by haloperidol (27.563), while olanzapine (27.552) and risperidone had the lowest DALYs (27.557). Expected costs were highest with quetiapine (US$4943), and lowest with risperidone (US$4424). Compared to chlorpromazine, haloperidol was a dominant option (i.e. it was less costly and more effective); and risperidone was dominant over both haloperidol and quetiapine. The ICER comparing olanzapine to risperidone was US$5868 per DALY averted. CONCLUSION: When choosing between first-generation antipsychotics, clinicians should consider haloperidol as the first-line agent for schizophrenia. However, overall, risperidone is a cost-saving strategy; policymakers should consider its addition to essential medicines lists for treatment of schizophrenia in Uganda.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a cost-utility analysis.

The high costs and efficacy of clozapine warrant a systematic pharmacoeconomic evaluation to assess its relative cost-utility compared with that of older antipsychotic therapies. An economic analysis of clozapine consisted of a meta-analysis and a cost-utility analysis. Clozapine was compared with haloperidol and chlorpromazine. An incidence-based deterministic decision analysis was used to model the management of chronic schizophrenia over one year. Probabilities of clinical outcomes were obtained from a random effects, single arm meta-analysis. Utility weights were evaluated in a cohort of patients by using a standard gamble methodology. A government payer perspective was adopted for this analysis. Clozapine was the dominant therapy in this analysis because it was associated with the lowest overall expected cost and highest expected number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Compared with chlorpromazine, clozapine might save $38,879/year while producing 0.04 more QALYs. This analysis was limited in that studies were of short duration, the sample size for health utility analysis was small and the analysis was based on a model. Clozapine appears to be a very cost effective therapy in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia compared with haloperidol and chlorpromazine.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tropisetron vs. chlorpromazine-dexamethasone in the control of acute emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy in children.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) between a standard antiemetic regimen-chlorpromazine + dexamethasone (CPM-DEX)- and a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist-tropisetron (TROP)--in the control of acute emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy in children, considering two analytic perspectives: hospital and patients. METHODS: The CEA was performed by constructing a decision tree, for both analytic perspectives, of the possible outcomes of treatment with TROP (single 0.2 mg/kg i.v.) or CPM (5-15 mg i.v. infusion for 3 doses) plus DEX (2 mg/m2 i.v. bolus i.v. x2). The patients were stratified by age in two groups (2-12 and 13-17). To estimate the probability of each endpoint at the decision tree we have taken as a base a trial developed in the Department of Pediatrics. Direct medical cost of primary therapy, failure, complications and side effects were included in the cost calculations. RESULTS: From patients' analytic perspective, TROP was more cost-effective than CPM-DEX for both groups of patients. Discrepancy between both analytic perspectives in 13-17 year-old patient's group was resolved in favour of the option chosen from the patients' analytic perspective (TROP). Sensitivity analysis showed the reliability of the results. CONCLUSIONS: 1. TROP was more cost-effective than CPM-DEX. 2. Taking into account the patients' analytic perspective is essential when we compare antiemetics pharmacoeconomically. 3. It seems necessary to increase the effectiveness of TROP in pediatric patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy with strategies such as the addition of a steroid.