Epidemiology of Sjögren's: A Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Primary Sjögren's is a multi-system autoimmune disease affecting patients' physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing. The epidemiology of Sjögren's is not well understood, and up-to-date epidemiological evidence is needed to improve knowledge and awareness of Sjögren's among patients and healthcare professionals, and to ascertain the global burden of disease. The objective of this research was to conduct a de novo systematic literature review (SLR) to identify and synthesise evidence on global epidemiology of primary Sjögren's. METHODS: This SLR was conducted in May 2021 by searching MEDLINE and Embase databases, relevant conference proceedings, websites of registries, and health technology assessment agencies and databases. Publications were systematically screened for English language articles reporting on the incidence, prevalence, age at symptom onset, and age at diagnosis for people with primary Sjögren's. RESULTS: Of 3510 records identified, 68 publications were included, representing 62 unique studies. Studies reported on age at symptom onset (16/62; 25.8%) and age at diagnosis (43/62; 69.4%) more frequently than incidence (7/62; 11.3%) and prevalence (9/62; 14.5%). Primary Sjögren's was found to have the highest incidence and prevalence in females and in older age groups (incidence: ≥65 years; prevalence: ≥75 years). Average age at onset and diagnosis of primary Sjögren's ranged between 34-57 years and 40-67 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This SLR identified a paucity of incidence and prevalence data for primary Sjögren's, highlighting a need for further epidemiological studies. The global Sjögren's community must work together to follow the defined classification criteria of primary Sjögren's and reporting guidelines for incidence and prevalence data to allow for meaningful epidemiological comparisons across studies, settings, and countries.

Development and testing of an alternative responder definition for EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI).

OBJECTIVES: Dryness, fatigue and joint/muscle pain are typically assessed in Sjögren's trials using European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI). A Patient Acceptable Symptom State of <5 and a Minimal Clinically Important Improvement (MCII)/responder definition (RD) of ≥1 point or 15% on ESSPRI have previously been defined. This study explored alternative RDs to better discriminate between active treatment and placebo in trials. METHODS: Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to derive RD thresholds in blinded phase IIb trial data (N=190) and confirm these in blinded data pooled from three early phase II trials (N=126). The populations consisted of individuals with moderate-to-severe systemic primary Sjögren's. Anchors were prioritised by ESSPRI correlations and used in similar conditions. Triangulated estimates were discussed with experts (N=3). The revised RD was compared with the original using unblinded data to assess placebo and treatment responder rates. RESULTS: Patients were predominantly female (>90%), white (90%), with mean age of 50 years. Receiver operating characteristic estimates supported an MCII threshold of 1.5-1.6 in the phase II data, whereas correlation-weighted mean change estimates supported a low/minimal symptom severity threshold of ≥2. A low/minimal symptom severity of ≤3 showed the greatest sensitivity/specificity balance. Analyses in the pooled data supported these thresholds (MCII: 1.5-2.1; low/minimal symptom severity: 2.7-3.7). Unblinded analyses confirmed the revised RD reduced placebo rates. CONCLUSIONS: Completing a trial with an improvement of ≥1.5 points compared with baseline and an ESSPRI score of ≤3 points is a relevant RD for moderate-to-severe systemic Sjögren's and reduces placebo rates.

Patient Experience of Sjögren's Disease and its Multifaceted Impact on Patients' Lives.

INTRODUCTION: The symptoms associated with Sjögren's disease (Sjögren's) are well-documented from the physician's perspective. However, from the patient's perspective, there is limited information on symptoms and their impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to provide an expanded understanding of patients' experience of Sjögren's and how symptoms impact HRQoL using a novel multi-method social media listening (SML) approach. METHODS: A total of 26,950 social media posts with relevant content on Sjögren's posted by social media users from the USA, Canada, Australia, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and China were analysed using an artificial intelligence natural language processing tool to explore patient conversations. Symptoms by level of impact on patients were characterised based on 'commonness' and 'bothersomeness'. Applied concept association analysis was used to assess relationships between symptom domains and impact domains. A qualitative framework was applied to explore words and phrases patients use to describe symptoms and their impacts. RESULTS: Five of the identified symptom domains were very impactful: Pain; Dry Mouth and Throat; Fatigue, Energy and Sleep; Emotional Balance; and Dry Eye. The symptom domains Pain and Dry Mouth and Throat were the most common, while those of Emotional Balance and Fatigue, Energy and Sleep were the most bothersome. Symptom domains most closely associated with four HRQoL impact domains were Fatigue, Energy and Sleep, Dry Mouth and Throat and Dry Eye with Daily Functioning; Fatigue, Energy and Sleep with Financial Health; Emotional Balance with Psychological Wellbeing and Gynaecological Issues with Social Wellbeing. CONCLUSION: The results of this SML study show that Sjögren's affects diverse aspects of patients' lives, with symptoms extending beyond dry eyes and mouth and impacting daily living and functioning. Because symptoms may affect patients differently, these results highlight the importance of measuring impact on HRQoL to assess patient outcomes and treatment options in routine clinical practice and clinical trials.

Qualitative Research with Patients and Physicians to Assess Content Validity and Meaningful Change on ESSDAI and ESSPRI in Sjögren's.

INTRODUCTION: European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) is a clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) instrument, assessing Sjögren's disease activity from the physician perspective. EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) is a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument, assessing patient-defined Sjögren's symptom severity. Both instruments are commonly used as clinical trial endpoints and have been psychometrically validated. However, qualitative evidence supporting content validity and what constitutes a meaningful change is limited. Qualitative evidence supporting Physician/Patient Global Assessment of disease activity and symptom severity (PhGA/PaGA) items used within anchor-based analyses for ESSDAI/ESSPRI is also lacking. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured, telephone/video interviews were conducted with patients with Sjögren's (n = 12) and physicians who specialise in Sjögren's (n = 10). Interviews explored: appropriateness of ESSDAI domain weights and meaningful improvements on domain/total scores from the physician perspective, appropriateness of ESSPRI's 2-week recall period from the patient/physician perspective, patients' perspectives on meaningful improvements in ESSPRI total scores, and patients'/physicians' interpretation of PhGA/PaGA items. RESULTS: Most ESSDAI domain weights were considered clinically appropriate. Generally, a one-category improvement in domain-level scores and a 3-point improvement in total ESSDAI scores were considered clinically meaningful. Most patients/physicians considered ESSPRI's 2-week recall period appropriate, and patients considered a 1-to-2-point ESSPRI total score improvement meaningful. PhGA/PaGA items developed for use as ESSDAI/ESSPRI anchors were consistently interpreted. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support use of ESSDAI and ESSPRI as Sjögren's clinical trials endpoints, as well as in clinical practice and other research settings. Qualitative data exploring meaningful change supports existing minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) thresholds.

European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) is an assessment used by physicians to measure how active Sjögren's is in individuals with the condition. EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) is a questionnaire completed by individuals with Sjögren's to assess the severity of their symptoms. It is important to show that ESSDAI and ESSPRI are considered appropriate by physicians and individuals with Sjögren's, respectively, and that ESSPRI is well understood by individuals with Sjögren's completing the questionnaire. Therefore, interviews were conducted with physicians who specialise in Sjögren's to explore the appropriateness of ESSDAI, the level of improvement on the assessment that would be important to individuals with Sjögren's, and the appropriateness of the ESSPRI recall period (i.e. whether it is acceptable to ask individuals to remember their symptoms over the past 2 weeks). Interviews were also conducted with individuals with Sjögren's to explore their understanding and relevance of ESSPRI (including the 2-week recall period) and the level of improvement on the questionnaire that would be important to them. Most physicians and patients considered ESSDAI and ESSPRI appropriate, supporting their use in a range of settings including Sjögren's clinical trials, clinical practice and other research settings. Most physicians reported that a 3-point improvement in ESSDAI total score would be meaningful to individuals with Sjögren's. Individuals with Sjögren's reported that a 1-to-2-point improvement in ESSPRI total score would be meaningful.

Content Validity of Sjögren's Syndrome Symptom Diary and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue in Patients with Sjögren's.

INTRODUCTION: Sjögren's Syndrome Symptom Diary (SSSD) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) are patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments assessing Sjögren's symptoms. Original SSSD items have demonstrated content validity, however qualitative evidence supporting the updated 'tiredness' item and two new supplementary items is lacking. Although well established and validated in other rheumatic diseases, there is no qualitative evidence supporting content validity of FACIT-F in Sjögren's. This study addressed these evidence gaps to support use of SSSD and FACIT-F as clinical trial endpoints, in clinical practice and in other research settings. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with patients with Sjögren's (n = 12) and expert Sjögren's physicians (n = 10). Patient interviews explored content validity (e.g., understanding and relevance) of the new and updated SSSD items, perceptions of item and total score meaningful change on SSSD, and understanding and relevance of FACIT-F items. Physician interviews explored opinions on various SSSD scoring approaches. RESULTS: The new and updated SSSD items and FACIT-F demonstrated good content validity. Most patients considered a two-point improvement on most SSSD items meaningful, as well as a one- or two-point total score improvement. Most physicians reported tracking changes in patient responses to individual items as the most appropriate SSSD scoring approach. CONCLUSIONS: SSSD and FACIT-F are content valid in a Sjögren's population, meeting an important criterion to support their use as clinical trial endpoints, but also their use in clinical practice and other research settings. Qualitative data exploring meaningful change will be valuable in supporting psychometrically derived responder definitions.

Sjögren's Syndrome Symptom Diary (SSSD) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) are questionnaires completed by individuals with Sjögren's to assess the severity of their symptoms. It is important to show that these questionnaires are well understood and relevant to the individuals who complete them. Therefore, interviews were conducted with individuals with Sjögren's to explore their understanding and relevance of new and updated SSSD questions. Similarly, the interviews explored whether the FACIT-F questionnaire was well understood and relevant to individuals with Sjögren's, as this has not been explored before. Interviews were also conducted with expert Sjögren's physicians to explore the best approach to scoring SSSD (e.g., calculating a total score or looking at scores on individual items). The new and updated SSSD questions and the FACIT-F questionnaire were well understood and considered relevant by most individuals with Sjögren's. This suggests these questionnaires are appropriate for use in Sjögren's clinical trials, clinical practice, and other research settings. Most individuals with Sjögren's considered an improvement of two points on individual SSSD questions to be important, as well as a one- or two-point improvement in their total SSSD score. Most physicians agreed on the best approach to scoring SSSD.

Patient Preferences in the Management of Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Conjoint Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: To identify patient preference drivers related to the management of wet age-related macular degeneration (wet AMD). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a self-explicated 'conjoint analysis' survey was administered online to eligible patients with wet AMD (receiving anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF] treatment for at least 12 months) from the USA, Canada, UK, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Japan, Taiwan, and Australia. The survey consisted of six domains with 21 attributes, which were selected on the basis of a literature review, social media listening, and tele-interviews/discussions with patients, clinical experts, and patient groups. Utility and relative importance scores were generated for each attribute and utility difference significance testing was performed using 'unequal variances t tests'. The Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13) questionnaire was administered to assess patients' knowledge, skill, and confidence in self-management. RESULTS: A total of 466 patients (mean age, 68 years; women, 54%; binocular wet AMD, 28%) with an average anti-VEGF treatment duration of 3.9 years completed the survey. The most important preference domains were 'treatment effects on vision' (non-significant) and 'vision-related symptom burdens' (p < 0.001), followed by 'treatment risk' (p < 0.05), 'impact on daily activities' (p < 0.05), 'burden of clinic/hospital visits' (p < 0.001), and 'impact on psychological well-being'. The five most important attributes in order of importance were clarity of vision, treatment effect on symptoms, quality of vision, time to treatment effect, and time to re-administration. The two most important attributes globally were also in the top three attributes across countries. The majority of participants in the study were level 3 or level 4 of the PAM-13 questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified the most important disease and treatment attributes to patients using patient-centred methods. The data showed the degree of harmonization of preferences across geographies and that participants actively adopt behaviours required for improved treatment outcomes. The identified preference drivers may inform future clinical development.

Reliability of a Novel Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure: HM-PRO.

BACKGROUND: Patients' experience of symptoms often goes undetected during consultation in an outpatient clinic, and the use of a patient-reported outcome measure (PRO) in such a setting could be useful to aid treatment decision-making. A new PRO measure, the HM-PRO (Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure) has been recently developed to evaluate hematological malignancy (HM) patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and their symptom experience in daily clinical practice as well as in research. The objectives of the study were to assess: the internal consistency of the scores for Part A (impact) and its four domains (physical behavior; social well-being; emotional behavior; and eating and drinking habits) and Part B (signs and symptoms); and the test-retest reliability of the individual items of the newly developed hematological malignancy specific composite measure, the HM-PRO. METHODS: This was a prospective longitudinal observational study where 150 patients with different HMs and different stage of disease (male n = 98 (65.3%); mean age 64.9 ± 14.4 years, range 17.9-89.2 years; mean time since diagnosis 3.7 ± 4.9 years, range 0.04-25.8 years) completed the HM-PRO at baseline (assessment 1 at t1) and after 7 days (assessment 2 at t2). Data analysis was performed using IBMSPSS 23 statistical software. RESULTS: The Cronbach's alpha estimates of the HM-PRO for both assessment points (t1 and t2) were above 0.9 for Part A, and above 0.8 for Part B, showing strong stability of the measurement. The level of agreement for the reproducibility between the two assessments, using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), was very strong with Part A: ICC = 0.93 (95% CI = 0.90-0.95), and Part B: ICC = 0.91 (0.88-0.93). The ICC for the four domains of Part A ranged from 0.85-0.91. The ICC was greater than 0.8 for overall score of Part A and Part B for all the 10 diagnoses, confirming strong reliability. CONCLUSION: This study clearly indicates that the HM-PRO possesses strong test-retest reliability for both Part A and Part B. The Cronbach's alpha confirmed acceptable internal consistency. The extensive reliability testing described in this study supports the generic nature of the HM-PRO for use in hematological malignancies in both routine clinical practice, to aid treatment decisions, as well as in research.

Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Construct Validity Study.

BACKGROUND: Validity is the ability of an instrument to measure what it claims to measure. It means the degree to which the empirical evidence supports the trustworthiness of interpretations based on the calculated scores. The hematological malignancy (HM) specific patient reported outcome measure (HM-PRO), is a newly developed instrument for use in daily clinical practice as well as in research. This study, provides the evidence for construct validity of the HM-PRO, specifically focusing on the convergent and divergent validity compared to the other established instruments used in hematology. METHODS: This validation study adopted a prospective cross-sectional design where a heterogeneous group of patients diagnosed with different HMs and different disease state were recruited. A total of 905 patients were recruited from seven secondary care hospitals in the UK and online through five patient organizations. Patients were asked to complete the HM-PRO and other cancer specific PRO's, FACT-G and EORTC QLQ C-30. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 23 statistical software. RESULTS: A total of 486 males (53.7%) and 419 females (46.3%), with a mean age of 64.3 (± 12.4) years and mean time since diagnosis of 4.6 ( ± 5.2) were recruited. The total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with the five functional scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (Physical = -0.71, Role = -0.72, Emotional = -0.64, Cognitive = -0.58, Social = -0.74-p < 0.001). With respect to correlation with FACT-G, the total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with Physical (-0.74), Emotional (-0.57), Functional (-0.66) domains and overall score of FACT-G (-0.74). Similarly, the total score of Part B of the HM-PRO highly correlated with three symptoms scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 (Fatigue scale = -0.74, Nausea and Vomiting = -0.52, Pain = -0.59-p < 0.001) and individual symptom items (Dyspnea = 0.51, Insomnia= 0.43, Appetite loss = 0.54-p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The construct validity evidence presented in this research is a testimony to the HM-PRO's ability to measure HRQoL issues which it intends to measure. This is of utmost importance when a PRO is used in routine clinical practice so that the interpretation of the scores or response to an individual item is understood by the clinicians/nurses as intended by the patients.

Quality-of-life issues and symptoms reported by patients living with haematological malignancy: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to identify health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) issues and symptoms in patients with haematological malignancies (HMs) and develop a conceptual framework to reflect the inter-relation between them. METHODS: A total of 129 patients with HMs were interviewed in a UK multicentre qualitative study. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using NVivo-11. RESULTS: Overall, 34 issues were reported by patients and were grouped into two parts: quality of life (QoL) and symptoms. The most prevalent HRQoL issues were: eating and drinking habits; social life; physical activity; sleep; and psychological well-being. Furthermore, most prevalent disease-related symptoms were: tiredness; feeling unwell; breathlessness; lack of energy; and back pain. The most prevalent treatment side effects were: tiredness; feeling sick; disturbance in sense of taste; and breathlessness. CONCLUSIONS: Both HMs and their treatments have a significant impact on patients' HRQoL, in particular on issues such as job-role change, body image and impact on finances.

Development of a Novel Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Content Validity.

BACKGROUND: The quality of life of patients at all stages of hematological malignancy is greatly affected by the disease and its treatment. There is a wide range of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) issues important to these patients. Any new instrument developed to measure HRQoL of such patients should be content valid, i.e., the items should be comprehensively relevant to the patients and their health condition. The aim of the present study was to examine content validity of a hematological malignancy specific patient reported outcome measure (HM-PRO) developed for use in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Following literature review and semi-structured interviews, the generated themes and sub-themes were discussed to develop the prototype version of the HM-PRO. A 4-step approach was used for content validation: initial testing and cognitive interviewing; item rating; content validity panel meeting; final field testing and cognitive interviewing. Additional questions related to patients' perception of recall period and preferred sentence structure (i.e., question or statement) of the items were also asked during cognitive interviews. RESULTS: The content analysis of 129 transcribed semi-structured interviews resulted in the prototype version of the instrument consisting of 58 items grouped into two parts: Part A (impact/HRQoL - 34 items) and Part B (signs and symptoms - 24 items). The initial testing showed intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of >0.8 for both Part A and Part B. Item rating for language clarity, completeness, relevance, and response scale by experts and patients showed content validity index for scales average >0.8 for both Part A and Part B, except 0.64 for relevance for Part A by the patient panel. The final testing of the revised version of the instrument showed the Cronbach's alpha value of 0.91 for Part A and 0.76 for Part B, suggesting high internal consistency, and ICC of 0.91 for Part A and 0.76 for Part B. The recall period of "today" for Part-A and "last 3 days" for Part-B were the patients' preferred "recall period." Furthermore, the patients expressed preference to the HM-PRO items as statements. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study confirm that the HM-PRO possesses a strong content validity, includes all the issues important to patients and is easy to read, understand and respond to spontaneously.

Paper and electronic versions of HM-PRO, a novel patient-reported outcome measure for hematology: an equivalence study.

Aim: To determine measurement equivalence of paper and electronic application of the hematological malignancy-patient-reported outcome (HM-PRO), a specific measure for the evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in HMs. Patients & methods: Following International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research ePRO Good Research Practice Task Force guidelines, a total of 193 adult patients with different HMs were recruited into a multicenter prospective study. The paper and the electronic version of the instrument were completed in the outpatient clinics in a randomized crossover design with a 30 min time interval to minimize the learning effect. Those who completed the paper version first, completed the electronic version after 30 min and vice versa. Instrument version and order effects were tested on total score of the two parts of the HM-PRO (Part A: quality of life and Part B: signs & symptoms) in a two-way ANOVA with patients as random effects. Intraclass correlation coefficients (95% CI) and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were used to evaluate test-retest reliability and reproducibility. The effects of instrument version and order were tested on total score of the two parts of HM-PRO. Results: The questionnaire version and administration order effects were not significant at the 5% level. There were no interactions found between these two factors for HM-PRO (Part A [quality of life]; p = 0.95); and (part B [signs and symptoms]; p = 0.72]. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were greater than 0.9, and intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.94 to 0.98; furthermore, the scores were not statistically different between the two versions, showing acceptable reliability indexes. Noteworthy, the difference between the completion time for both paper (mean = 6:38 min) and electronic version (mean = 7:29 min) was not statistically significant (n = 100; p = 0.11). Patients did not report any difficulty in completing the electronic version during cognitive interviews and were able to understand and respond spontaneously. Conclusion: Measurement equivalence has been demonstrated for the paper and electronic application of the HM-PRO.

Haematological malignancy: Are we measuring what is important to patients? A systematic review of quality-of-life instruments.

The wide range of health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments used in haematology makes it challenging for haematologists and other care team members in practice to select, use and understand the scoring system and finally interpret the results. The main objectives of this study were to: (a) provide a comprehensive list of quality-of-life issues important to patients suffering from haematological malignancies, identified through the literature; (b) provide a list of health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments used in haematological malignancies in both daily clinical practice and research; and (c) evaluate the relevance and comprehensibility of the identified instruments in haematological malignancies. Systematic literature review of two databases, followed by addition of articles by manual searching, was carried out. The articles focusing on the primary studies, which have used semi-structured/structured interviews or surveys to identify issues important to HM patients, and other studies describing the results of testing measurement properties, such as reliability, validity and responsiveness of the instruments currently used to evaluate the HRQoL in different HMs, were included. Fifty-seven studies reported development and validation of 30 HRQoL instruments, which have been used in haematology. Twenty-four studies were identified using qualitative methods to report HRQoL issues and symptoms from a patient's perspective. No identified instrument captured all the issues identified from the qualitative studies. None of the instruments reviewed appeared to have been developed for use in clinical practice and specifically for patients with HM, except MyPOS. Furthermore, measurement properties were established, largely, in clinical trial scenarios. There is a need for development of a new HRQoL instrument entirely based on involvement of patients with haematological malignancies.

Economic analysis of paliperidone long-acting injectable for chronic schizophrenia in Portugal.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with chronic schizophrenia suffer a huge burden, as do their families/caregivers. Treating schizophrenia is costly for health systems. The European Medicines Agency has approved paliperidone palmitate (PP-LAI; Xeplion), an atypical antipsychotic depot; however, its pharmacoeconomic profile in Portugal is unknown. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the viewpoint of the Portuguese National Health Service. METHODS: PP-LAI was compared with long acting injectables risperidone (RIS-LAI) and haloperidol (HAL-LAI) and oral drugs (olanzapine; oral-OLZ) adapting a 1-year decision tree to Portugal, guided by local experts. Clinical information and costs were obtained from literature sources and published lists. Outcomes included relapses (both requiring and not requiring hospitalization) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were expressed in 2014 euros. Economic outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs); including cost-utility (outcome = QALYs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (outcomes = relapse/hospitalization/emergency room (ER) visit avoided). RESULTS: The base-case cost of oral-OLZ was 4447€ (20% drugs/20% medical/60% hospital); HAL-LAI cost 4474€ (13% drugs/13% medical/74% hospital); PP-LAI cost 5326€ (49% drugs/12% medical/39% hospital); RIS-LAI cost 6223€ (44% drugs/12% medical/44% hospital). Respective QALYs/hospitalizations/ER visits were oral-OLZ: 0.761/0.615/0.242; HAL-LAI: 0.758/0.623/0.250; PP-LAI: 0.823/0.288/0.122; RIS-LAI: 0.799/0.394/0.168. HAL-LAI was dominated by oral-OLZ and RIS-LAI by PP-LAI for all outcomes. The ICER of PP-LAI over oral-OLZ was 14,247€/QALY, well below NICE/Portuguese thresholds (≈24,800€/30,000€/QALY). ICERs were 1973€/relapse avoided and 2697€/hospitalization avoided. Analyses were robust against most variations in input values, as PP-LAI was cost-effective over oral-OLZ in >99% of 10,000 simulations. CONCLUSION: In Portugal, PP-LAI dominated HAL-LAI and RIS-LAI and was cost-effective over oral-OLZ with respect to QALYs gained, relapses avoided, and hospitalizations avoided.

Pharmacoeconomics of long-acting atypical antipsychotics for acutely relapsed chronic schizophrenia in Finland.

BACKGROUND: Atypical long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics are increasingly available for treating chronic schizophrenia in patients chronically non-adherent to prescribed regimens. Few economic studies have compared these products. PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole (ARI-LAI), paliperidone (PP-LAI), olanzapine (OLZ-LAI), and risperidone (RIS-LAI) in patients with chronic schizophrenia in Finland. METHODS: A 1-year decision tree model was adapted with guidance from an expert panel. Patients started hospitalized in relapse; those who responded continued treatment, others were switched to secondary drugs, then clozapine in the event of 2nd line failure. Rates of adherence, stable disease, relapse, and hospitalization were taken from pivotal trials, and utilities from published research. Included were direct costs paid by the Finnish Ministry of Health, in 2015 euros. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), hospitalization rates, and rates of relapse not requiring hospitalization. Model robustness was assessed using a series of 1-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Expected costs were lowest for PP-LAI at 41,148€, followed by 41,543€ for ARI-LAI, 42,067€ for RIS-LAI and 45,406€ for OLZ-LAI. Respective QALYs were 0.683, 0.671, 0.666, and 0.672. Re-hospitalization rates and non-admitted relapses were 23.6% and 3.9% for PP-LAI, 28.5% and 4.1% for ARI-LAI, 28.8% and 5.0% for RIS-LAI, 28.3% and 5.2% for OLZ-LAI. PP-LAI treatment was associated with the most days with stable disease (132.0), followed by OLZ-LAI (125.5), ARI-LAI (122.6), and RIS-LAI (114.4). Sensitive inputs between PP-LAI and ARI-LAI included rates of adherence, dropouts, and relapses plus drug prices; dropout and relapse rates for RIS-LAI; OLZ-LAI results were insensitive. In probability sensitivity analyses, PP-LAI dominated ARI-LAI in 75.8% of the 10,000 iterations, RIS-LAI in 83.1% and OLZ-LAI in 95.7%. CONCLUSIONS: PP-LAI dominated the other atypicals. It appears to be the preferred option for treating chronic relapsing schizophrenia.