A pharmacoeconomic analysis of sertindole in the treatment of schizophrenia in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Atypical antipsychotics have similar clinical efficacy in the treatment of schizophrenia; variability in their tolerability represents the discerning factor in treatment choices. Sertindole has a relatively good tolerability profile that favours long-term patient adherence and, therefore, is associated with lower rates of relapse and rehospitalization. AIM: A model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of a 5-year treatment strategy starting with sertindole versus olanzapine, risperidone, aripiprazole or the typical antipsychotic agent, haloperidol. METHODS: The model was based on published trials and local clinical practice, and considered costs from the perspective of the Swedish National Health Insurance Board. RESULTS: All atypical agents were clinically superior and more cost-effective than haloperidol with a cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of approximately 490,000 Swedish kroner. Sertindole was associated with the lowest direct and indirect medical costs, driven by its tolerability profile. CONCLUSIONS: Sertindole represents a useful alternative to the current treatment options available in Sweden. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The relatively good tolerability profile of sertindole translates into lower costs of schizophrenia management, primarily driven by substantially lower direct and indirect costs. Sertindole appears to be a clinically and cost-effective alternative in the management of patients with schizophrenia in Sweden.

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.