Cost of the Illness of Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia: A Mirror Image Study Comparing Clozapine With Other Antipsychotics.

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

Geographical disparities in prescription practices of lithium and clozapine: a community-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the socioeconomic and health resource characteristics associated with geographical variations of lithium and clozapine dispensing rates in France. METHOD: The study was performed using reimbursement data from the French Insurance Healthcare system over the period 2006-2013 in a community-based sample of persons aged 16 years and over. An ecological design was used to assess whether lithium and clozapine prescribing rates were associated with socioeconomic and health resource characteristics of the zone of residence (n = 95 French administrative subdivisions). RESULTS: Large geographical disparities were observed in dispensing rates: lithium dispensing rates by zone of residence ranged from 0 to 6.6 per 1000 (mean 2.4 per 1000) and clozapine dispensing rates ranged from 0 to 4.9 per 1000 (mean 0.8 per 1000). Higher density of GPs and regular communication between mental health services and primary care were independently associated with higher rates of lithium and clozapine dispensing and with a higher proportion of lithium users among mood-stabilizer users. CONCLUSION: A sufficient density of GPs and an effective communication and collaboration between mental healthcare services and primary care seems to favor greater access to psychotropic drugs with demonstrated efficacy but often viewed as 'risky' to prescribe.

Clozapine revisited: Impact of clozapine vs olanzapine on health care use by schizophrenia patients on Medicaid.

BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to evaluate health care use and cost patterns for clozapine compared with olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia. METHODS: Health care outcomes were measured over a 1-year posttreatment period for episodes of antipsychotic therapy initiated between 1997 and 2002. Four episode categories were defined: restart after lapse in therapy, switch after break, switch without break, and augmentation. We estimated the impact of clozapine or olanzapine using mixed model regression for costs by type of service and days of uninterrupted drug therapy. Time to admission in an acute hospital, psychiatric hospital, or longterm care facility, and time to suicide attempt were compared using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Clozapine increased duration of therapy and decreased risk of psychiatric hospitalization or suicide attempts compared to olanzapine. However, increased drug costs and use of community mental health centers (CMHC) for complete blood count (CBC) monitoring overwhelmed any offsetting savings. CONCLUSIONS: Clozapine is more expensive than olanzapine over the first year of treatment, primarily due to frequent CMHC visits required for CBC monitoring. However, fewer psychiatric hospitalizations, reduced suicide attempts, and longer duration of treatment should generate more benefits over time, which could eventually outweigh clozapine's higher first-year costs.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Aripiprazole Once-Monthly for the Treatment of Schizophrenia in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a severe and debilitating psychiatric disorder. Pharmacological interventions aim to ameliorate symptoms and reduce the risk of relapse and costly hospitalisation. Despite the established efficacy of antipsychotic medication, compliance to treatment is poor, particularly with oral formulation. The emergence of long acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations in recent years has aimed to counteract the poor compliance rates observed and optimise long term patient outcomes. AIMS OF THE STUDY: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole once-monthly 400mg (AOM 400) vs. risperidone long acting injectable (RLAI), paliperidone long acting injectable (PLAI) and olanzapine long acting injectable (OLAI) in the maintenance treatment of chronic, stable schizophrenia patients in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to emulate the treatment pathway of a hypothetical cohort of patients initiating maintenance treatment with LAI antipsychotics. The economic analysis was conducted from a National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a 10 year time horizon. Efficacy and safety probabilities were derived from mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) where possible. Analyses were conducted assuming pooled dosing from randomised clinical trials included in the MTCs. RESULTS: The model estimates that AOM 400 improves clinical outcomes by reducing relapses per patient comparative to other LAIs over the model time horizon (2.38, 2.53, 2.70, and 2.67 for AOM 400, RLAI, PLAI and OLAI respectively). In the deterministic analysis, AOM 400 dominated PLAI and OLAI; an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 3,686 per QALY gained was observed against RLAI. Results from the univariate sensitivity analyses highlighted the probability and cost of relapse as main drivers for cost-effectiveness. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, AOM 400 demonstrated a marginally higher probability of being cost-effective (51%) than RLAI, PLAI and OLAI (48%, 1% and 0%, respectively) at a willingness to pay threshold of GBP 20,000. DISCUSSION: The model was built to accommodate results of an adjusted MTC analysis. Furthermore the model effectively captures repercussions of deteriorating compliance to treatment by incorporating three levels of compliance with elevated risks of relapse for partial compliance and non-compliance. Limitations of the analysis include the limited number of studies incorporated in the MTC, the extrapolation of short term clinical data and the exclusion of the wider societal burden. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: Comparative to other atypical antipsychotics, AOM 400 represents value for money in the maintenance treatment of chronic, stable schizophrenia; however, in light of the PSA findings and comparable cost-effectiveness (i.e. against RLAI), the product profile and wider benefits of the respective treatments must be taken into account when prescribing antipsychotics. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Future research should assess the use of LAI antipsychotics earlier in the disease course of schizophrenia to see whether improved compliance and outcomes shortly following the onset of psychosis has the potential to alter the disease trajectory. Moreover it should be assessed whether changes in the disease trajectory can alleviate cost and resource pressures placed on national health services.

Comparison of sole nurse and team-delivered community clozapine services for people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

AIM: To compare sole nurse and doctor-led multidisciplinary team delivery of community clozapine services for people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. BACKGROUND: Around 20% of people with schizophrenia are treatment resistant and fail to respond to front line medications. Clozapine, a second-line treatment, has potentially serious side effects requiring regular monitoring. Different models of community clozapine services are emerging in the British National Health Service, but there is little evidence about which is best. DESIGN: Questionnaire survey of service users. METHODS: All patients on the lists of seven clozapine clinics (four sole nurse, three multidisciplinary team) in one trust were invited to participate, 2009-2010. Forward stepwise regression was used to investigate associations between patient well-being, functioning, self-efficacy and satisfaction, and clinic model attended, controlling for socio-demographic and health characteristics and processes of care. Use (and costs) of other health and social services accessed was compared between models. RESULTS: Sixty-six service users (35% participation rate) responded. Well-being and functioning were associated with patient characteristics and processes of care, not clinic model. Patients managed by sole nurses reported, over 3 months: more community psychiatric nurse visits and hospital psychiatrist appointments. Clinic list size affects costs per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary team delivery may reduce use of other services. Although multidisciplinary team delivery is regarded as best practice, sole nurses can effectively provide clozapine services and may be warranted in areas of low population density.

Cost-effectiveness of second-generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of alternate treatment strategies using second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for different sequences of treatments for 40-year-old patients with schizophrenia. We considered first-line treatment with one of the four SGAs: olanzapine (OLZ), risperidone (RSP), quetiapine (QTP), and ziprasidone (ZSD). Patients could switch to another of these antipsychotics as second-line therapy, and only clozapine (CLZ) was allowed as third-line treatment. We derived parameter estimates from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trial of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) study and published sources. RESULTS: The ZSD-QTP strategy (first-line treatment with ZSD, change to QTP if ZSD is discontinued, and switch to CLZ if QTP is discontinued) was most costly while yielding the greatest QALYs, with an incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) of $542,500 per QALY gained compared with the ZSD-RSP strategy. However, the ZSD-RSP strategy had an ICER of $5,200/QALY gained versus the RSP-ZSD strategy and had the greatest probability of being cost-effective given a willingness-to-pay threshold between $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY. All other treatment strategies were more costly and less effective than another strategy or combination of other strategies. Results varied by different time horizons adopted. CONCLUSIONS: The ZSD-RSP strategy was most cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold between $5,200 and $542,500 per QALY. Our results should be interpreted with caution because they are based largely on the CATIE trial with potentially limited generalizability to all patient populations and doses of SGAs used in practice.

Pharmacoeconomics of depot antipsychotics for treating chronic schizophrenia in Sweden.

AIMS: To determine the cost-effectiveness of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics for chronic schizophrenia in Sweden. METHODS: A 1-year decision tree was developed for Sweden using published data and expert opinion. Five treatment strategies lasting 1 year were compared: paliperidone palmitate (PP-LAI), olanzapine pamoate (OLZ-LAI), risperidone (RIS-LAI), haloperidol decanoate (HAL-LAI) and olanzapine tablets (oral-OLZ). Patients intolerant/failing drugs switched to another depot; subsequent failures received clozapine. Resources and employment time lost (indirect costs) were costed in 2011 Swedish kroner (SEK), from standard government lists. The model calculated the average cost/patient and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), which were combined into incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Multivariate and 1-way sensitivity analyses tested model stability. RESULTS: PP-LAI followed by OLZ-LAI had the lowest cost/patient (189,696 SEK) and highest QALYs (0.817), dominating in the base case. OLZ-LAI followed by PP-LAI cost 229,775 SEK (0.812 QALY), RIS-LAI followed by HAL-LAI cost 221,062 SEK (0.804 QALY), HAL-LAI followed by oral-OLZ cost 243,411 SEK (0.776 QALY), and oral-OLZ followed by HAL-LAI cost 249,422 SEK (0.773 QALY). The greatest proportions of costs (52.5-83.8%) were for institutional care; indirect costs were minor (2.4-3.8%). RESULTS were sensitive to adherence and hospitalization rates, but not drug cost. PP-LAI followed by OLZ-LAI dominated OLZ-LAI followed by PP-LAI in 59.4% of simulations, RIS-LAI followed by HAL-LAI in 65.8%, HAL-LAI followed by oral-OLZ in 94.0% and oral-OLZ followed by HAL-LAI in 95.9%; PP-LAI followed by OLZ-LAI was dominated in 1.1% of the 40,000 iterations. CONCLUSION: PP-LAI followed by OLZ-LAI was cost-effective in Sweden for chronic schizophrenia and cost-saving overall to the healthcare system.

Where to position clozapine: re-examining the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To review clozapine's position in treatment algorithms for schizophrenia. METHOD: Clozapine's status is reviewed in the context of its initial discovery and unique clinical and (or) pharmacological profile, withdrawal and link with hematologic concerns, reintroduction with monitoring guidelines, prototype for atypicality, positioning in treatment algorithms, and current evidence regarding efficacy, effectiveness, and side effects. RESULTS: The hematologic monitoring implemented with clozapine's reintroduction here in North America has proven successful in preventing clozapine-related deaths secondary to agranulocytosis. While its other side effects are not without concern, present evidence does not link clozapine to increased mortality rates; indeed, it appears better than other antipsychotics in this regard. Moreover, its clinical superiority compared with all other antipsychotics has been confirmed both in efficacy and in effectiveness trials. CONCLUSIONS: Schizophrenia continues to represent a treatment challenge, with many people demonstrating suboptimal response and poor functional outcome. Clozapine is routinely positioned as a third-line treatment in schizophrenia, but in light of existing evidence this warrants re-examination.

A translational research approach to poor treatment response in patients with schizophrenia: clozapine-antipsychotic polypharmacy.

Poor treatment response in patients with schizophrenia is an important clinical problem, and one possible strategy is concurrent treatment with more than one antipsychotic (polypharmacy). We analyzed the evidence base for this strategy using a translational research model focused on clozapine-antipsychotic polypharmacy (CAP). We considered 3 aspects of the existing knowledge base and translational research: the link between basic science and clinical studies of efficacy, the evidence for effectiveness in clinical research and the implications of research for the health care delivery system. Although a rationale for CAP can be developed from receptor pharmacology, there is little available preclinical research testing these concepts in animal models. Randomized clinical trials of CAP show minimal or no benefit for overall severity of symptoms. Most studies at the level of health services are limited to estimates of CAP prevalence and some suggestion of increased costs. Increasing use of antipsychotic polypharmacy in general may be a factor contributing to the under-utilization of clozapine and long delays in initiating clozapine monotherapy. Translational research models can be applied to clinical questions such as the value of CAP. Better linkage between the components of translational research may improve the appropriate use of medications such as clozapine in psychiatric practice.

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) and continuous antipsychotic treatment: 3-year results from the Schizophrenia Health Outcomes (SOHO) study.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the association between continuous antipsychotic use and health-related quality of life (HRQL) 3-year change in the European Schizophrenia Outpatients Health Outcomes (EU-SOHO) study. METHODS: EU-SOHO is an observational study of outcomes associated with antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia in an outpatient setting. HRQL was assessed at study entry and at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months using the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). UK population time trade-off (TTO) tariffs were applied to the self-rated EQ-5D health states to calculate HRQL ratings (0 = death, 1 = best). An epoch analysis approach was used as a conceptual framework to analyze the longitudinal data. Follow-up was divided into epochs or periods of continuous treatment. When a patient changed antipsychotic treatment, he or she was considered to have a new observation. Multilevel models were employed to evaluate the association of HRQL with medication and other clinical and sociodemographic variables for each epoch. A total of 9340 patients were analyzed (42.1% women; mean age 40 years). RESULTS: Mean EQ-5D scores increased over time; the largest improvement occurred in the first 6 months (mean increase of 0.19). Longer duration of illness and older age at first treatment were associated with worse baseline EQ-5D scores. Improvements in EQ-5D scores were greater for more socially active patients or those in paid employment. Few significant differences were found between antipsychotic medications. Olanzapine and clozapine were associated with higher HRQL increases. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous antipsychotic treatment is associated with important HRQL benefits at 3 years, most of which occurs during the first 6 months. Although some medications are associated with better HRQL outcomes, differences are small.

A randomized controlled trial of the cost-utility of second-generation antipsychotics in people with psychosis and eligible for clozapine.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether clozapine is likely to be more cost-effective than other second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in people with schizophrenia. METHODS: An integrated clinical and economic multicenter, rater-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared clozapine to the class of other SGAs, using the perspectives of the National Health Service, social support services, and patients. The practice setting was secondary and primary care in the United Kingdom; patients were followed for 1 year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), net benefit statistics, and cost acceptability curves were estimated. RESULTS: The ICER for clozapine was 33,240 pound per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (range 23,000-70,000 pound for the sensitivity analyses). The proportion of simulations when clozapine was more cost-effective than other SGAs reached 50% if decision-makers are prepared to pay 30,000 pound to 35,000 pound per QALY. This is at the top of the range of acceptable willingness-to-pay values per QALY implied by decisions taken by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to a limited body of evidence comparing clozapine to other SGAs and is the first economic and clinical RCT to compare clozapine to the class of other SGAs using the lower cost of generic clozapine and a pragmatic trial design. Policy decisions by the NICE suggest that additional reasons would be needed to accept clozapine as effective and efficient if it had a high probability of having ICERs more than 35,000 pound per QALY. The results and limitations of the analysis suggest that there is still a need for further economic evaluation of clozapine.

The impact of atypical antipsychotic medications on the use of health care by patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Using data in real-world clinical practice, this study aims to compare the health-care use patterns of patients with schizophrenia who use oral antipsychotics. METHODS: A total of 219,504 episodes of antipsychotic drug therapy initiated during the period from 2000 to 2002 were identified using data from the California Medicaid program. Four types of episodes were analyzed based on the patient's drug use history as far back as 1994: restarting therapy after a break in therapy using the same drug used in the preceding episode; switching therapy after a break in treatment using a different medication; switching therapy without a break in therapy; and augmentation. Health-care use patterns over a 1-year post-treatment period were analyzed using ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions, Cox proportional hazards models, and logistic regression. RESULTS: The impact of atypical antipsychotics on health-care use in the first post-treatment year varies by episode type. Patients switching to atypical medications generally cost significantly more than similar patients switching to a conventional antipsychotic. Olanzapine and risperidone, however, were associated with reductions in total costs relative to conventional antipsychotics when used in restart and augmentation episodes. Differences across all three second-generation antipsychotics were relatively small. CONCLUSIONS: Small differences across the atypical antipsychotics suggest that these drugs are interchangeable, raising the question of whether drug costs could be reduced through selectively contracting for a preferred drug. Potential savings may be limited by several factors. First, most episodes of treatment are restart episodes. Switching these patients to a preferred drug may have clinical risk. Second, patients with schizophrenia switch and augment therapies frequently, thus quickly reducing the population of patients who could be effectively treated with a single preferred drug.

Costs in the Treatment of Schizophrenia in Adults Receiving Atypical Antipsychotics: An 11-Year Cohort in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is associated with significant economic burden. In Brazil, antipsychotic drugs and outpatient and hospital services are provided by the Brazilian National Health System (SUS) for patients with schizophrenia. However, few studies capture the cost of managing these patients within the Brazilian NHS. This is important to appraise different management approaches within universal healthcare systems. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to use real-world data to describe the costs associated with the treatment of schizophrenia in adults receiving atypical antipsychotics in Brazil from 2000 to 2010. METHODS: We integrated three national databases for adult patients with schizophrenia receiving one or more atypical antipsychotics. We assessed only direct medical costs and the study was conducted from a public-payer perspective. A multivariate log-linear regression model was performed to evaluate associations between costs and clinical and demographic variables. RESULTS: We identified 174,310 patients with schizophrenia, with mean ± standard deviation (SD) annual costs of $US1811.92 ± 284.39 per patient. Atypical antipsychotics accounted for 79.7% of total costs, with a mean annual cost per patient of $US1578.74 ± 240.40. Mean annual costs per patient were $US2482.90 ± 302.92 for psychiatric hospitalization and $US862.96 ± 160.18 for outpatient psychiatric care. Olanzapine was used by 47.7% of patients and represented 62.8% of the total costs of atypical antipsychotics. Patients who used clozapine had the highest mean annual cost per patient for outpatient psychiatric care and psychiatric hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Atypical antipsychotics were responsible for the majority of the schizophrenia treatment costs, and psychiatric hospitalization costs were the highest mean annual cost per patient. Authorities should ensure efficient use of atypical antipsychotics and encourage outpatient psychiatric care over psychiatric hospitalization where possible.

Clinical trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses of antipsychotic use.

OBJECTIVE: Second-generation antipsychotics make up one of the fastest growing segments of the rapidly growing pharmaceutical sector. Given limited health care resources, assessment of the value for the cost of second-generation antipsychotics relative to first-generation antipsychotics is critical for resource-allocation decisions. METHOD: With a MEDLINE search, the authors identified eight studies (based on six randomized clinical trials) that analyzed the cost-effectiveness of second-generation antipsychotics relative to first-generation antipsychotics in individuals with schizophrenia disorders. The authors reviewed appropriate methods of measurement, analysis, and design of cost-effectiveness studies in randomized clinical trials and evaluated the validity of economic results derived from the studies in light of appropriate methods. RESULTS: The eight randomized clinical trial-based cost-effectiveness studies of antipsychotic medications faced a variety of threats to validity related to 1) measurement of costs, 2) measurement of effectiveness, 3) analysis of costs, 4) measurement of sampling uncertainty, 5) analysis of incomplete cost data, 6) minimizing loss to follow-up, and 7) threats to external validity. CONCLUSIONS: Economic claims made by the authors of a number of trial-based economic evaluations have generally been favorable to second-generation antipsychotics. However, the methodological issues the authors of the current study identified suggest that there is no clear evidence that atypical antipsychotics generate cost savings or are cost-effective in general use among all schizophrenia patients. Psychiatrists, researchers, and administrators should consider the methodological issues highlighted in interpreting study results. These issues should be addressed in future trial designs.

[Cost-effectiveness of Antipsychotics in the Maintenance Treatment of Schizophrenia in Colombia]. / Costo efectividad de los antipsicóticos en el tratamiento de mantenimiento de la esquizofrenia en Colombia.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the cost-effectiveness of the antipsychotics for treatment of schizophrenia. METHODS: A five-year Markov model was built form patients with schizophrenia on the stage of maintenance. Costs were taken from the perspective of the Colombian health care system (Sistema General de Seguridad Social en Salud). The effectiveness was measured in years of life under the same maintenance plan. RESULTS: The Markov model indicated clozapine as the as the most cost-effective alternative between the first line antipsychotics and haloperidol is it when comparing other antipsychotics. CONCLUSION: Clozapine it's the cost-effectiveness strategy among the first line of antipsychotics and haloperidol is it among the other antipsychotics. Strategies prioritizing the use of cost-effective antipsychotics could improve the resources allocation in the Colombian health care system.

The Business Case for Expanded Clozapine Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: In most settings, less than 25% of patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia receive clozapine, the only medication proven effective for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Therefore, a business case analysis was conducted to assess whether increasing clozapine utilization for treatment-resistant schizophrenia in a health care system would result in direct health care cost savings. METHODS: Veterans with treatment-resistant schizophrenia who were treated in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) were studied. Treatment response, suicides, adverse drug reactions (and associated mortality), and effects on inpatient hospitalization related to clozapine were derived from a systematic review of published studies. A one-factor sensitivity analysis and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) with Monte Carlo simulation were conducted to calculate the cost-benefits of increased clozapine utilization. RESULTS: Despite monitoring costs, in the base case analysis, the VHA would save $22,444 per veteran with treatment-resistant schizophrenia over the first year of clozapine therapy, primarily from 18.6 fewer inpatient days per patient. If current utilization was doubled, and 50% of those veterans continued clozapine treatment for one year, VHA would save an estimated $80 million. Cost savings were most sensitive to the proportion of treatment-resistant patients who received clozapine, decrease in inpatient days, cost of inpatient stays, clozapine response rate, and number of patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. In the PSA, initiation of clozapine for all VHA patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia who were not currently treated with clozapine would save at least $290 million in 95% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Increased clozapine utilization would result in net cost savings for the VHA.

Cost-effectiveness of clozapine monitoring after the first 6 months.

BACKGROUND: Clozapine is effective in treating patients with schizophrenia who do not respond to conventional neuroleptic drugs. The drug is unique in that it is available only with a US Food and Drug Administration-mandated system for weekly monitoring of patients' white blood cell counts. No study has been conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this mandatory monitoring system. METHODS: A benchmark case was established by utilizing cumulative incidence rates of agranulocytosis from a recent study with a large sample of clozapine-treated patients. We assumed a 20% mortality among patients with agranulocytosis, $30.61 in monitoring costs each week, and 14.4 years of remaining life expectancy after detection of agranulocytosis. Based on these bench-mark assumptions, cost-effectiveness ratios in dollars per quality-adjusted life-year were calculated for the first, second, and third 6-month periods during which a patient was receiving clozapine. Sensitivity analyses were performed with more conservative assumptions in 5 alternative scenarios. RESULTS: In the benchmark case, costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained were $61,694, $925,418, and $420,644 for the first, second, and third 6-month periods of clozapine treatment, respectively. In the alternative scenarios, these costs ranged from $7923 to $46,056 for the first 6-month period and from $54,025 to $690,850 for the second and third 6-month periods. CONCLUSIONS: While the costs of monitoring patients with schizophrenia in the first 6-month period of clozapine treatment seem to be justifiable, monitoring thereafter may not be cost-effective because of the very low incidence of agranulocytosis in the later periods.

Cost-effectiveness of clozapine in patients with high and low levels of hospital use. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Clozapine in Refractory Schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the relationship between pretreatment hospital use and the cost-effectiveness of clozapine in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia. METHODS: Data from a 15-site randomized clinical trial were used to compare clozapine with haloperidol in hospitalized Veterans Affairs patients with refractory schizophrenia (n = 423). Outcomes were compared among those with many days in the hospital use (hereafter, high hospital users) (n = 141; mean = 215 psychiatric hospital days in the year prior to study entry) and those with few days in the hospital use (hereafter, low hospital users) (n = 282; mean = 58 hospital days). Analyses were conducted with the full intention-to-treat sample (n = 423) and with crossovers excluded (n = 291). RESULTS: Clozapine treatment resulted in greater reduction in hospital use among high hospital users (35 days less than controls, P = .02) than among low users (21 days less than controls, P = .05). Patients taking clozapine also had lower health care costs; after including the costs of both medications and other health services, costs were $7134 less than for controls among high hospital users (P = .14) but only $759 less than for controls among low hospital users (P = .82). Clinical improvement in the domains of symptoms, quality of life, extrapyramidal symptoms, and a synthetic measure of multiple outcomes favored clozapine in both high and low hospital user groups. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial 1-year cost savings with clozapine are observed only among patients with very high hospital use prior to initiation of treatment while clinical benefits are more similar across groups. Cost-effectiveness evaluations, and particularly studies of expensive treatments, cannot be generalized across type of use groups.

Cost-effectiveness of clozapine compared with conventional antipsychotic medication for patients in state hospitals.

BACKGROUND: An open-label, randomized controlled trial compared clozapine with physicians'-choice medications among long-term state hospital inpatients in Connecticut. The goal was to examine clozapine's cost-effectiveness in routine practice for people experiencing lengthy hospitalizations. METHODS: Long-stay patients with schizophrenia in a state hospital were randomly assigned to begin open-label clozapine (n = 138) or to continue receiving conventional antipsychotic medications (n = 89). We interviewed study participants every 4 months for 2 years to assess psychiatric symptoms and functional status, and we collected continuous measures of prescribed medications, service utilization, and other costs. We used both parametric and nonparametric techniques to examine changes in cost and parametric analyses to examine changes in effectiveness. We used bootstrap techniques to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and create cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Both groups incurred similar costs during the 2-year study period, with a trend for clozapine to be less costly than usual care in the second study year. Clozapine was more effective than usual care on many but not all measures. With the use of effectiveness measures that favored clozapine (extrapyramidal side effects, disruptiveness), bootstrap techniques indicated that, even when a payer is unwilling to incur any additional cost for gains in effectiveness, the probability that clozapine is more cost-effective than usual care is at least 0.80. These findings were not as evident when outcomes where clozapine was not clearly superior (psychotic symptoms, weight gain) were examined. CONCLUSION: Clozapine demonstrated cost-effectiveness on some but not all measures of effectiveness when the alternative was a range of conventional antipsychotic medications.

Patient response and resource management: another view of clozapine treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Issues in clozapine treatment were considered in terms of implications for resource management. METHOD: A critical review of the literature on time course and pattern of response to clozapine was used to address treatment of negative symptoms, late responders, and extent of clinical benefit in ordinary settings. RESULTS: Superior efficacy of clozapine for partial and poor neuroleptic responders is observed in about one-half of the cases. Response is rapid once a therapeutic dose is reached, and the data do not support the proposition that some patients first respond only after 3-12 months of therapy. The cumulative benefit over several months of treatment and the broad range of symptoms involved in response are similar to those for typical neuroleptic drugs, suggesting that clozapine's superiority is based on greater effectiveness rather than a unique profile of treatment effects. Clozapine appears to be effective for secondary, but not primary, negative symptoms. Modal response is moderate, and extensive rehabilitation and clinical services are required to substantially enhance functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Many more patients merit trials with clozapine. Economic costs and adverse drug effects can be minimized by selecting patients most likely to benefit and discontinuing clozapine treatment when benefit is not observed within 2-4 months. Appropriate patients include 1) those with good responses to typical neuroleptics who experience substantial adverse effects and 2) those whose disorders respond poorly to standard neuroleptics and are defined by psychotic symptoms, thought disorder, and hostility. Treatment of primary negative symptoms is not supported by the current experimental data.