Estimating the net value of treating hepatitis C virus using sofosbuvir-velpatasvir in India.

Recently developed direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatments for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have been groundbreaking for their high efficacy across disease genotypes and lack of severe side effects. This study uses a cost-of-illness (COI) approach to estimate the net value conferred by this class of drugs using the cost and efficacy of one of these novel drug combinations, sofosbuvir and velpatasvir (SOF/VEL), recently licensed for generic manufacture in India. This study considers COI of lifetime earnings lost by patients and potential secondarily infected individuals due to disability and premature death from HCV infection. Expected net benefits of treatment are substantial for non-cirrhotic (NC) and compensated cirrhotic (CC) patients (ranging from 5,98,003 INR for NC women to 1,05,25,504 INR for CC men). Increased earnings are not sufficient to fully offset cost of treatment for decompensated cirrhotic individuals but treatment may still be justified on the basis of the intrinsic value of health improvements and other treatment benefits.

A financial incentive program to improve appointment attendance at a safety-net hospital-based primary care hepatitis C treatment program.

INTRODUCTION: Hepatitis C (HCV) infection is a significant health threat, with increasing incidence rates in the setting of the opioid crisis. Many patients miss appointments and cannot initiate treatment. We implemented financial incentives to improve appointment attendance in a primary care-based HCV treatment setting. METHODS: We conducted a systems-level financial incentives intervention at the Adult Primary Care HCV Treatment Program at Boston Medical Center which provides care to many patients with substance use disorders. From April 1 to June 30, 2017, we provided a $15 gift card to patients who attended appointments with an HCV treatment provider. We evaluated the effectiveness of the incentives by 1) conducting a monthly interrupted time series analysis to assess trends in attendance January 2016-September 2017; and 2) comparing the proportion of attended appointments during the intervention to a historical comparison group in the previous year, April 1 to June 30, 2016. RESULTS: 327 visits were scheduled over the study period; 198 during the intervention and 129 during the control period. Of patient visits in the intervention group, 72.7% were attended relative to 61.2% of comparison group visits (p = 0.03). Appointments in the intervention group were more likely to be attended (adjusted odds ratio 1.94, 95% confidence interval 1.16-3.24). Interrupted time series analysis showed that the intervention was associated with an average increase of 15.4 attended visits per 100 appointments scheduled, compared to the period prior to the intervention (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a financial incentive program was associated with improved appointment attendance at a safety-net hospital-based primary care HCV treatment program. A randomized trial to establish efficacy and broader implementation potential is warranted.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of pan-genotypic Sofosbuvir-Velpatasvir combination versus genotype dependent directly acting anti-viral drugs for treatment of hepatitis C patients in the universal coverage scheme of Punjab state in India.

BACKGROUND: We undertook this study to assess the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained with the use of pan-genotypic sofosbuvir (SOF) + velpatasvir (VEL) for HCV patients, as compared to the current treatment regimen under the universal free treatment scheme in Punjab state. METHODOLOGY: A Markov model depicting natural history of HCV was developed to simulate the progression of disease. Three scenarios were compared: I (Current Regimen)-use of SOF + daclatasvir (DCV) for non-cirrhotic patients and ledipasvir (LDV) or DCV with SOF ± ribavirin (RBV) according to the genotype for cirrhotic patients; II-use of SOF + DCV for non-cirrhotic patients and use of SOF+VEL for compensated cirrhotic patients (with RBV in decompensated cirrhosis patients) and III-use of SOF+VEL for both non-cirrhotic and compensated cirrhotic patients (with RBV in decompensated cirrhosis patients). The lifetime costs, life-years and QALYs were assessed for each scenario, using a societal perspective. All the future costs and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. Finally, the incremental cost per QALY gained was computed for each of scenario II and III, as compared to scenario I and for scenario III as compared to II. In addition, we evaluated the lifetime costs and QALYs among HCV patients for each of scenario I, II and III against the counterfactual of 'no universal free treatment scheme' scenario which involves patients purchasing care in routine setting of from public and private sector. RESULTS: Each of the scenarios I, II and III dominate over the no universal free treatment scheme scenario, i.e. have greater QALYs and lesser costs. The use of SOF+VEL only for cirrhotic patients (scenario II) increases QALYs by 0.28 (0.03 to 0.71) per person, and decreases the cost by ₹ 5,946 (₹ 1,198 to ₹ 14,174) per patient, when compared to scenario I. Compared to scenario I, scenario III leads to an increase in QALYs by 0.44 (0.14 to 1.01) per person, and is cost-neutral. While the mean cost difference between scenario III and I is-₹ 2,676 per patient, it ranges from a cost saving of ₹ 14,835 to incurring an extra cost of ₹ 3,456 per patient. For scenario III as compared II, QALYs increase by 0.16 (0.03 to 0.36) per person as well as costs by ₹ 3,086 per patient which ranges from a cost saving of ₹ 1,264 to incurring an extra cost of ₹ 6,344. Shift to scenario II and III increases the program budget by 5.5% and 60% respectively. CONCLUSION: Overall, the use of SOF+VEL is highly recommended for the treatment of HCV infection. In comparison to the current practice (scenario I), scenario II is a dominant option. Scenario III is cost-effective as compared to scenario II at a threshold of one-time GDP per capita. If budget is an important constraint, velpatasvir should be given to HCV infected cirrhotic patients. However, if no budget constraint, universal use of velpatasvir for HCV treatment is recommended.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Shortened Direct-Acting Antiviral Treatment in Genotype 1 Noncirrhotic Treatment-Naive Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting antivirals are successful in curing hepatitis C virus infection in more than 95% of patients treated for 12 weeks, but they are expensive. Shortened treatment durations, which may have lower cure rates, have been proposed to reduce costs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of different shortened treatment durations for genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients. METHODS: Assuming a UK National Health Service perspective, we used a probabilistic decision tree and Markov model to compare 3 unstratified shortened treatment durations (8, 6, and 4 weeks) against a standard 12-week treatment duration. Patients failing shortened first-line treatment were re-treated with a 12-week treatment regimen. Parameter inputs were taken from published studies. RESULTS: The 8-week treatment duration had an expected incremental net monetary benefit of £7737 (95% confidence interval £3242-£11 819) versus the standard 12-week treatment, per 1000 patients. The 6-week treatment had a positive incremental net monetary benefit, although some uncertainty was observed. The probability that the 8- and 6-week treatments were the most cost-effective was 56% and 25%, respectively, whereas that for the 4-week treatment was 17%. Results were generally robust to sensitivity analyses, including a threshold analysis that showed that the 8-week treatment was the most cost-effective at all drug prices lower than £40 000 per 12-week course. CONCLUSIONS: Shortening treatments licensed for 12 weeks to 8 weeks is cost-effective in genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients. There was considerable uncertainty in the estimates for 6- and 4-week treatments, with some indication that the 6-week treatment may be cost-effective.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Early Treatment of Chronic HCV with Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic Hepatitis C virus (cHCV) is a major health issue worldwide. New effective direct-acting anti-viral (DAA) drugs such as the combination sofosbuvir/velpatasvir, represent an important turning point, given the high sustained virologic response (SVR) rates associated with their use. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost and effects of two different treatment strategies based on sofosbuvir/velpatasvir. Strategy 1: treating all patients, including those in the early stages of fibrosis; Strategy 2: reserving treatments for patients at more advanced stages of disease (≥ F3). The analysis compares the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Strategy 1 versus Strategy 2 in a cohort of HCV-infected patients and a cohort of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients. METHODS: A Markov model simulating the natural history of the disease was built considering a 60-year time horizon and two cohorts of 1000 patients aged ≥ 35 years. Disease morbidity was classified according to the METAVIR classification. The robustness of the model was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: In both cohorts, Strategy 1 results in higher resource consumption and a greater number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with Strategy 2. The ICERs for the cohort of HCV patients and the cohort of co-infected HCV/HIV patients ranged between €15,555-74,804/QALY and €10,708-55,138/QALY, respectively, depending on the assumed cost of the treatment. In the PSA, the ICER distribution remained below the threshold of €30,000/QALY in 96 and 97% of the scenarios in the cohorts of HCV and HCV/HIV patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Extending the treatment of HCV to patients at an early stage of HCV infection is estimated to be cost effective from the perspective of the Italian Healthcare System.

Cost-effectiveness of generic pan-genotypic sofosbuvir/velpatasvir versus genotype-dependent direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C treatment.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with low-cost generic direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) available in India and other developing countries needs determination of HCV genotype ("genotype-dependent" regimens). Generic velpatasvir, a DAA that obviates the need for genotype determination ("pan-genotypic" regimen), recently became available but is costlier. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of genotype-dependent versus pan-genotypic DAA treatments in India. METHODS: A previously validated microsimulation model, adapted to Indian population, was used to compare the costs and long-term outcomes of three scenarios: no treatment, treatment with genotype-dependent regimens, and treatment with pan-genotypic regimen. Input parameters were derived from literature. Using a payer's perspective and lifetime time horizon, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: At the current price ($US223 for 4 weeks), pan-genotypic regimen was cost-saving compared with no treatment. Compared with genotype-dependent regimens, it increased QALYs by 0.92 and increased costs by $US107 but was deemed cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $US242 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis also supported the cost-effectiveness of pan-genotypic regimen. At the reduced price of $US188 for 4 weeks, the pan-genotypic regimen will become cost-neutral to genotype-dependent regimens (current price: $US100 for 4 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: At current prices, velpatasvir-based pan-genotypic regimen is cost-effective for HCV treatment in India where generic drugs are available. A reduction in the prices of pan-genotypic regimen has the potential to make its use cost-saving while simplifying treatment in community-level programs aimed at HCV elimination.

Direct acting antivirals for the treatment of hepatitis C in ethnic minority populations.

INTRODUCTION: Direct acting antivirals (DAA's) have revolutionized the treatment of hepatitis C (HCV). However, questions persist concerning their efficacy in minority populations. AREAS COVERED: In this review, the authors review outcomes for treatment of HCV by race and ethnicity among the clinical trials that have led to the current recommended treatments for HCV. The authors highlight the efficacy and safety differences by race and ethnicity. They also highlight deficiencies within the literature including small populations of racial/ethnic minorities within HCV clinical trials. DAA's can achieve cure rates for HCV over 95% with the use of once daily medications that have minimal side effects and few significant drug-drug interactions. Regimens with high pan-genotypic efficacy have further simplified treatment paradigms. The purpose of this review is to describe the data on DAA's in treating HCV in racial/ethnic populations. EXPERT OPINION: While the overall data in racial/ethnic minority populations is sparse, DAA's appear to have high efficacy in curing HCV in diverse racial/ethnic populations. Although achieving high sustained virologic response (SVR) rates, there are also data that suggests that some disparities in SVR persist, especially when considering shorter regimens for HCV treatment in racial/ethnic populations.

Future Considerations for the Evaluation of Hepatitis C Virus Treatments in Pan-Genotypic Therapy for Noncirrhotic Treatment-Naive Patients.

Given the recent approval of the first pan-genotypic chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy, managed care, health systems, and clinicians will need to evaluate current practices related to essential laboratory assessments used to select therapy. Historically, clinicians and payers required a battery of tests to determine HCV genotype, viral load, degree of fibrosis, and organ function. In light of current and forthcoming approvals of pan-genotypic therapy, clinicians and payers can expect a more competitive marketplace and a downward curve in the price of therapy. Ultimately, this development will lead to the cost of screenings and assessments having an increased role in selecting an optimal HCV therapy. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose. All authors contributed to study concept and design. Calabrese took the lead in data collection, along with Shaya. Data interpretation was performed by Calabrese and Hynicka, along with Rodriguez de Bittner and Shaya. The manuscript was written and revised by Calabrese and Hynicka, along with Rodriguez de Bittner and Shaya.

The Role of e-Health in Optimizing Task-Shifting in the Delivery of Antiviral Therapy for Chronic Hepatitis C.

PURPOSE: Recently, we reported the successful application of task-shifting to improve the management of patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection receiving treatment with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents in underserved areas of California. We assessed the impact of e-health on task-shifting in our treatment model. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, we reviewed the impact of e-health on optimizing the delivery of DAA-based regimen to HCV-infected patients in outreach clinics in medically underserved areas of California. A nonphysician healthcare provider worked in close conjunction with a hepatologist to monitor the patients during the course of antiviral therapy. We exclusively used our institution-based, secured e-health portal as the means of communication with the local staff and patients in outreach clinics. RESULTS: From January 2015 to June 2016, we treated over 100 HCV-infected patients with DAA-based regimens using the task-shifting model. During the study period, we did not experience any delay in the care of our patients undergoing treatment with DAA agents. Communication with the patient and staff using e-health was prompt, secured, and documented in electronic medical records. Due to the optimization of task-shifting by e-health and safety/tolerability of DAA, 95% patients did not need a follow-up clinic visit during the treatment. Return clinic visits during the treatment were unrelated to DAA use or associated with ribavirin-related anemia. In addition, we noted improvement in access and capacity of our outreach clinic. CONCLUSIONS: We report a positive impact of e-health in optimizing task-shifting for DAA in HCV-infected patients in underserved outreach clinics. More importantly, a secondary improvement in access and capacity of our clinic was noted.

HCV management in resource-constrained countries.

With the arrival of all-oral directly acting antiviral (DAA) therapy with high cure rates, the promise of hepatitis C virus (HCV) eradication is within closer reach. The availability of generic DAAs has improved access to countries with constrained resources. However, therapy is only one component of the HCV care continuum, which is the framework for HCV management from identifying patients to cure. The large number of undiagnosed HCV cases is the biggest concern, and strategies to address this are needed, as risk factor screening is suboptimal, detecting <20% of known cases. Improvements in HCV confirmation through either reflex HCV RNA screening or ideally a sensitive point of care test are needed. HCV notification (e.g., Australia) may improve diagnosis (proportion of HCV diagnosed is 75%) and may lead to benefits by increasing linkage to care, therapy and cure. Evaluations for cirrhosis using non-invasive markers are best done with a biological panel, but they are only moderately accurate. In resource-constrained settings, only generic HCV medications are available, and a combination of sofosbuvir, ribavirin, ledipasvir or daclatasvir provides sufficient efficacy for all genotypes, but this is likely to be replaced with pangenetypic regimens such as sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/pibrentaasvir. In conclusion, HCV management in resource-constrained settings is challenging on multiple fronts because of the lack of infrastructure, facilities, trained manpower and equipment. However, it is still possible to make a significant impact towards HCV eradication through a concerted effort by individuals and national organisations with domain expertise in this area.

Changes in Patterns of Utilization and Cost of Health Care Services Associated With Initiation of Asenapine for the Treatment of Schizophrenia in Adults.

PURPOSE: To examine changes in patterns of utilization and cost of health care services associated with initiation of asenapine for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using 2 large US health care claims databases. METHODOLOGY: All adults who initiated therapy with asenapine between Aug. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012, were identified; the date of the earliest claim for asenapine during this period was deemed the index date. Patients without ≥1 claims with a schizophrenia diagnosis within 12 months prior to the index date were excluded. We compared patterns of utilization and cost of health care services between 6-month periods immediately before and after index date ("preindex"and "postindex" respectively). RESULTS: 366 patients were identified who initiated asenapine and who met all other selection criteria; mean (SD) age was 40.5 (16.3) years and 57.1% were women. Relative to preindex, patients were less likely during postindex to be hospitalized (41.8% vs 26.2%, P<.001) or to visit the emergency room (24.9% vs 18.9%, P=.03). Mean (SD) total health care costs decreased by $4776 in the postindex period ($16,811 [$26,176] vs $12,035 [$17,037] during preindex), primarily due to a decrease in inpatient costs ($10,616 [$24,977] vs $5286 [$15,846]); mean pharmacy costs increased by $828 ($3656 [$3309] vs $4482 [$3,073]) (all P<.001). CONCLUSION: Use of asenapine for the treatment of schizophrenia was associated with reduced levels of health care utilization and cost during the 6-month period immediately following therapy initiation, primarily due to reduced levels of inpatient care.

The need for cost-effective choices to treat patients with bipolar 1 disorders including asenapine.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar 1 disorders (BPD) are a chronic disorder with prevalence rates of up to 2.6% of the adult population or higher and appreciable direct and indirect costs. As a result, these are a concern to health authorities especially given the low age of onset. Consequently, there is a need to treat BPD patients well and improve their quality-of-life. Pharmacotherapy includes mood stabilizers and atypical antipsychotics (AAPs). AAPs have different mechanisms of action and side-effects, so treatment needs to be tailored. Asenapine in clinical trials is as effective as olanzapine, with less metabolic side-effects. METHODS: Chitnis and colleagues assessed the cost-effectiveness of asenapine among patients in healthcare databases. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: They showed in routine care that asenapine also reduces hospital and emergency room admissions, making it cost neutral in BPD, which is of interest to health authorities and clinicians.

Impact of initiation of asenapine on patterns of utilization and cost of healthcare resources associated with the treatment of bipolar I disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of initiation of asenapine on "real-world" levels of utilization and cost of healthcare services for the treatment of bipolar I disorder (BPD) in the US. METHODS: Using two large US healthcare claims databases that collectively included commercially insured patients aged < 65 years and Medicare enrollees, this study identified all adults (≥ 18 years) with evidence of BPD who began therapy with asenapine between 2009-2012. The date of the earliest claim for asenapine during this period was deemed the 'index date', and patients without continuous enrollment for the 6-month periods before and after this date were excluded ('pre-index' and 'post-index', respectively). Healthcare claims with a BPD diagnosis, plus psychiatric medications and the costs thereof (2012 dollars) were deemed 'BPD-related'. Differences in BPD-related utilization and cost of healthcare services were compared between the pre- and post-index periods. RESULTS: A total of 1403 patients met all selection criteria; the mean age was 42.8 years and 70.6% were women. Relative to pre-index, significant decreases were noted in post-index use of BPD-related healthcare services, most notably admissions (from 24.0% to 12.3% during the post-index period) and emergency department visits (from 4.6% to 2.6%) (both p < 0.05). While pharmacy costs increased, mean total post-index BPD-related healthcare costs were $979 lower than pre-index ($5002 vs $5981; p < 0.05), primarily due to the decrease in BPD-related admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to the 6-month period beforehand, levels of utilization of BPD-related healthcare services and costs decreased during the 6-month period immediately following initiation of asenapine therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder with mixed episodes in an Italian context.

INTRODUCTION: Bipolar disorder is a chronic disease characterized by periods of mania or hypomania, depression, or a combination of both (mixed state). Because bipolar disorder is one of the leading causes of disability, it represents an important economic burden on society. Asenapine (ASE) is a new second-generation antipsychotic developed and approved for the treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder. The objective of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ASE compared to olanzapine (OLA) in the treatment of patients experiencing mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder in the context of the Italian National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A pharmacoeconomic model was developed to simulate the management of Italian bipolar I patients with mixed episodes over a 5-year time horizon by combining clinical parameters with resource utilization. An expert panel of Italian psychiatrists and health economists was responsible for adapting a UK model to the Italian context. The primary outcome measure of the economic evaluation was the incremental cost effectiveness ratio, where effectiveness is measured in terms of quality adjusted life-years gained. Scenario analyses, sensitivity analyses, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: This pharmacoeconomic model showed that ASE resulted to be dominant over OLA; in fact, ASE was associated with lower direct costs (derived largely by the savings from hospitalizations avoided) and also generated a better quality of life. Results were robust to changes in key parameters; both scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses demonstrated model reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study suggest that the management of bipolar I patients with mixed episodes using ASE as alternative to OLA can lead to cost saving for the Italian NHS and improve patients quality of life.

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of bipolar I disorder patients with mixed episodes.

OBJECTIVE: Around one-third of patients with bipolar I disorder (BD-I) experience mixed episodes, characterized by both mania and depression, which tend to be more difficult and costly to treat. Atypical antipsychotics are recommended for the treatment of mixed episodes, although evidence of their efficacy, tolerability, and cost in these patients is limited. This study evaluates, from a UK National Health Service perspective, the cost-effectiveness of asenapine vs olanzapine in BD-I patients with mixed episodes. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a Markov model. Efficacy was informed by a post-hoc analysis of two short-term clinical trials, with response measured as a composite Young Mania Rating Score and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale end-point. Probabilities of discontinuation and relapse to manic, mixed, and depressive episodes were sourced from published meta-analyses. Direct costs (2012-2013 values) included drug acquisition, monitoring, and resource use related to bipolar disorder as well as selected adverse events. Benefits were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: For treating mixed episodes, asenapine generated 0.0187 more QALYs for an additional cost of £24 compared to olanzapine over a 5-year period, corresponding to a £1302 incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The higher acquisition cost of asenapine was roughly offset by the healthcare savings conferred through its greater efficacy in treating these patients. The model shows that benefits were driven by earlier response to asenapine during acute treatment and were maintained during longer-term follow-up. RESULTS were sensitive to changes in key parameters including short and longer-term efficacy, unit cost, and utilities, but conclusions remained relatively robust. CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS suggest that asenapine is a cost-effective alternative to olanzapine in mixed episode BD-I patients, and may have specific advantages in this population, potentially leading to healthcare sector savings and improved outcomes. Limitations of the analysis stem from gaps in clinical and economic evidence for these patients and should be addressed by future clinical trials.

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of schizophrenia in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Asenapine is the first tetracyclic antipsychotic approved in Canada for the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ). Asenapine has shown a comparable efficacy profile to other atypical antipsychotics and it is associated with a favourable metabolic profile and less weight gain. This study aimed to assess the economic impact of asenapine compared to other atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of SCZ in Canada. METHODS: A decision tree combined with a Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-utility of asenapine compared with other atypical antipsychotics. The decision tree takes into account the occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms, the probability of switching to a different antipsychotic, and the probability of gaining weight. The Markov model takes into account long-term metabolic complications including diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart diseases, and stroke. In the base-case analysis, asenapine was compared to olanzapine. Asenapine was also compared with other atypical antipsychotics commonly used in Canada in alternative scenarios. Analyses were conducted from both Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives over a 5-year time horizon. RESULTS: In the treatment of SCZ, asenapine is a dominant strategy over olanzapine from both MoH and societal perspectives. Compared to quetiapine, asenapine is also a dominant strategy. Furthermore, asenapine has a favorable economic impact compared to ziprasidone and aripiprazole, as these antipsychotics are not cost-effective compared to asenapine from both MoH and societal perspectives. CONCLUSION: Despite the short time horizon, the lack of compliance data and the assumptions made, this economic evaluation demonstrates that asenapine is a cost-effective strategy compared to olanzapine and to most of the atypical antipsychotics frequently used in Canada.