Cost of Relapse Management in Patients with Schizophrenia in Italy and Spain: Comparison Between Lurasidone and Quetiapine XR.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Schizophrenia is a low-prevalence mental disorder with a global age-standardized prevalence of 21 million people (2016). Second-generation antipsychotics (lurasidone and quetiapine XR) are recommended as the first-line treatment for schizophrenia. It is interesting to investigate how the results of clinical studies translate into direct medical costs. The objective of this analysis was to assess the direct medical costs related to pharmaceutical treatments and the management of relapses in patients affected with schizophrenia treated with lurasidone (74 mg) vs quetiapine XR (300 mg) assuming the Italian and Spanish National Health Service perspective. METHODS: A health economic model was developed based on a previously published model. The analysis considered direct medical costs related to the pharmacological therapies and inpatient or outpatient management of relapses (direct medical costs referred to 2019). The probability of relapses and related costs were derived from two systematic reviews. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was implemented to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The use of lurasidone (74 mg) compared with quetiapine XR (300 mg) would lead to a reduction in direct medical costs in Italy and Spain, with a lower cost per patient of - 163.7 € (- 9.0%) and - 327.2 € (- 22.7%), respectively. In detail, it would lead to an increase in the cost of therapy of + 53.8% and of + 30.5% in Italy and Spain, respectively, to a decrease in the cost of relapses with hospitalization of - 135.7%, and to an increase in the cost of relapses without hospitalization of + 24.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of lurasidone (74 mg) for the treatment of patients affected with schizophrenia, compared with quetiapine XR (300 mg), would be a cost-saving strategy in the two contexts investigated assuming the National Health Service point of view.

Health Care Cost in Patients With Schizophrenia Treated With Brexpiprazole Versus Other Oral Atypical Antipsychotic Therapy.

PURPOSE: Brexpiprazole is an oral atypical antipsychotic (OAA) for the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ). This study compared all-cause and psychiatric inpatient hospitalization and medical costs in adult patients with SCZ newly treated with brexpiprazole versus other US Food and Drug Administration-approved OAAs in a real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from: (1) the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases, and the MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid database; and (2) the de-identified Optum Clinformatics Datamart. Adult patients were identified if they had SCZ and initiated either brexpiprazole or another OAA during the study identification period (July 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, for MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental and for Optum; July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016, for MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid) and had ≥12 months of continuous enrollment before (baseline) and after (follow-up) the first treatment date. Linear regression analyses were performed to test associations between treatment groups (brexpiprazole vs another OAA) and costs (total and medical); negative binomial regression models were used to estimate number of hospitalizations per year, adjusting for baseline characteristics and medication adherence to index treatment during the 12-month follow-up. FINDINGS: The final study sample consisted of 6254 patients with SCZ: 176 initiated brexpiprazole; 391, ziprasidone; 453, paliperidone; 523, lurasidone; 786, aripiprazole; 1234, quetiapine; 1264, olanzapine; and 1427, risperidone. Controlling for baseline characteristics and medication adherence, the adjusted number of hospitalizations (both all-cause and psychiatric), all-cause total costs, and all-cause medical costs did not differ across groups. Brexpiprazole users had the lowest mean psychiatric costs among all OAA users ($12,013; 95% bootstrap CI, 7488-16,538). Compared with brexpiprazole users, paliperidone (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.52 [1.05-2.19]; P = 0.027) and quetiapine (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.47 [1.04-2.07]; P = 0.029) users had more psychiatric hospitalizations per year. Paliperidone had higher psychiatric costs than brexpiprazole (total, $32,066 [95% bootstrap CI, 28,779-35,353] vs $23,851 [18,907-28,795]; medical, $19,343 [16,294-22,392] vs $12,013 [7488-16,538]). Psychiatric medical costs were also $6744 higher in olanzapine users (95% bootstrap CI, 1694-11,795; P = 0.009) than in brexpiprazole users. IMPLICATIONS: Patients with SCZ treated with brexpiprazole had fewer psychiatric hospitalizations and lower psychiatric costs than those treated with paliperidone. Differences in the number of all-cause hospitalizations and medical costs among treatments were not statistically significant. Although treatment decisions are driven by a number of factors (eg, clinical circumstances and drug costs), choice of OAA may affect health care costs.

Medication Adherence, Health Care Utilization, and Costs in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder Initiating Adjunctive Atypical Antipsychotic Treatment.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare medication adherence, health care utilization, and cost among patients receiving adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) with brexpiprazole, quetiapine, or lurasidone. METHODS: Using Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare Supplemental Databases, we identified adults with MDD initiating adjunctive treatment with brexpiprazole, quetiapine, or lurasidone (index atypical antipsychotic [AAP]). We compared medication adherence and persistence measured by proportion of days covered (PDC) and treatment duration of index AAP, all-cause and psychiatric hospital care (hospitalization or emergency department visit), and medical costs during 6-month follow-up. Models performed included logistic regression for hospital care, linear regression for PDC and cost, and Cox proportional hazards regression for time to discontinuation, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and utilization differences during the 6 months before index AAP. FINDINGS: The total sample included 778 brexpiprazole, 626 lurasidone, and 3458 quetiapine therapy initiators. Adjusting for baseline differences, the risk of discontinuation of index AAP was statistically significantly higher for quetiapine than for brexpiprazole (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25; P = 0.023) and did not differ between lurasidone and brexipiprazole (HR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.00-1.29; P = 0.054). The adjusted rate of all-cause hospitalization or emergency department visit in the postindex period was lowest for brexpiprazole at 27.4% (95% CI, 24.0%-31.0%), compared with 31.1% (95% CI, 27.3%-35.2%) for lurasidone and 35.3% (95% CI, 33.5%-37.1%) for quetiapine (P< 0.001 for all comparisons). Quetiapine users had increased all-cause costs compared with brexpiprazole users (estimate = $2309; 95% CI, $31-$4587; P = 0.047); all-cause medical costs did not differ between lurasidone and brexpiprazole (estimate = $913; 95% CI, $-2033 -$3859; P = 0.543). Adjusted psychiatric hospital care, psychiatric costs, and PDC did not differ significantly among the groups. IMPLICATIONS: In patients with MDD and a variety of insurance types, brexpiprazole use was associated with statistically significantly lower risks of discontinuation, risk of hospital care (hospitalization and ED visits), and all-cause medical costs compared with adjunctive quetiapine. Differences between brexpiprazole and lurasidone were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that drug choice is associated with subsequent health care utilization and costs.

Comparative economic evaluation of quetiapine plus lamotrigine combination vs quetiapine monotherapy (and folic acid vs placebo) in patients with bipolar depression (CEQUEL).

OBJECTIVES: Although not licensed for acute bipolar depression, lamotrigine has evidence for efficacy in trials and its use is recommended in guidelines. So far there had been no prospective health economic evaluation of its use. METHODS: Cost-utility analysis of the CEQUEL trial comparing quetiapine plus lamotrigine vs quetiapine monotherapy (and folic acid vs placebo in an add-on factorial design) for patients with bipolar depression (n = 201) from the health and social care perspective. Differences in costs together with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between the groups were assessed over 52 weeks using a regression-based approach. RESULTS: Health-related quality of life improved substantially for all randomization groups during follow-up with no significant difference in QALYs between any of the comparisons (mean adjusted QALY difference: lamotrigine vs placebo -0.001 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.05), folic acid vs placebo 0.002 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.05)). While medication costs in the lamotrigine group were higher than in the placebo group (£647, P < 0.001), mental health community/outpatient costs were significantly lower (-£670, P < 0.001). Mean total costs were similar in the groups (-£180, P = 0.913). CONCLUSIONS: Lamotrigine improved clinical ratings in bipolar depression compared with placebo. This differential effect was not detected using the EQ-5D-3L. The additional cost of lamotrigine was balanced by significant savings in some other medical costs which made its use cost neutral to the health service. Compared to placebo, folic acid produced neither clinical nor significant health economic benefits. The study supports the use of lamotrigine in combination with other drugs to treat bipolar depression.

Study protocol for a randomised pragmatic trial comparing the clinical and cost effectiveness of lithium and quetiapine augmentation in treatment resistant depression (the LQD study).

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30-50% of patients with major depressive disorder can be classed as treatment resistant, widely defined as a failure to respond to two or more adequate trials of antidepressants in the current episode. Treatment resistant depression is associated with a poorer prognosis and higher mortality rates. One treatment option is to augment an existing antidepressant with a second agent. Lithium and the atypical antipsychotic quetiapine are two such add-on therapies and are currently recommended as first line options for treatment resistant depression. However, whilst neither treatment has been established as superior to the other in short-term studies, they have yet to be compared head-to-head in longer term studies, or with a superiority design in this patient group. METHODS: The Lithium versus Quetiapine in Depression (LQD) study is a parallel group, multi-centre, pragmatic, open-label, patient randomised clinical trial designed to address this gap in knowledge. The study will compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of the decision to prescribe lithium or quetiapine add-on therapy to antidepressant medication for patients with treatment resistant depression. Patients will be randomised 1:1 and followed up over 12 months, with the hypothesis being that quetiapine will be superior to lithium. The primary outcomes will be: (1) time to all-cause treatment discontinuation over one year, and (2) self-rated depression symptoms rated weekly for one year via the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology. Other outcomes will include between group differences in response and remission rates, quality of life, social functioning, cost-effectiveness and the frequency of serious adverse events and side effects. DISCUSSION: The trial aims to help shape the treatment pathway for patients with treatment resistant depression, by determining whether the decision to prescribe quetiapine is superior to lithium. Strengths of the study include its pragmatic superiority design, broad inclusion criteria (external validity) and longer follow up than previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN16387615 , registered 28 February 2016. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03004521 , registered 17 November 2016.

Real-world adherence assessment of lurasidone and other oral atypical antipsychotics among patients with schizophrenia: an administrative claims analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare adherence with lurasidone to other oral atypical antipsychotics among Medicaid and commercially insured patients with schizophrenia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Administrative claims of patients with schizophrenia treated with atypical antipsychotics (lurasidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone) from October 2010 to September 2011 were identified from MarketScan Commercial and Medicaid Databases, and were classified by the first (index) antipsychotic. Patients were 18-64 years, had insurance coverage 12 months pre- and 6 months post-index, and no pre-index use of the index drug. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medication possession ratio (MPR), discontinuation rate, and mean time to discontinuation were assessed post-index. Pairwise comparisons (lurasidone versus each drug) were conducted using chi-square tests and Student's t-tests. RESULTS: There were 146 Medicaid (mean age 43.5 years, 47.9% female) and 63 commercial (mean age 40.0 years, 42.9% female) patients treated with lurasidone. In the Medicaid population, the MPR for patients treated with lurasidone was 0.60, versus 0.41-0.48 for patients treated with other antipsychotics (all p < .05). Patients treated with lurasidone exhibited a lower discontinuation rate compared to patients treated with all other antipsychotics (49.3% versus 62.3%-68.3%, all p < .05). The mean time to discontinuation with lurasidone was significantly longer than with ziprasidone (p < .05). In the commercial population, the MPR for patients treated with lurasidone (0.61) was higher compared to patients treated with quetiapine (0.44) and ziprasidone (0.43) (both p < .05). The discontinuation rate (44.4%) was lower for patients treated with lurasidone compared to patients treated with all other antipsychotics except risperidone (p < .05). The mean time to discontinuation was longer for lurasidone than with other antipsychotics. CONCLUSIONS: In Medicaid and commercial populations, patients treated with lurasidone demonstrated greater adherence compared to patients treated with other atypical antipsychotics. Limitations of using administrative claims data include potential errors or inconsistencies in coding, and lack of complete clinical information.

Cost-effectiveness of lurasidone vs quetiapine extended-release (XR) in patients with bipolar depression.

OBJECTIVE: Bipolar disorder imposes a high economic burden on patients and society. Lurasidone and quetiapine extended-release (XR) are atypical antipsychotic agents indicated for monotherapy treatment of bipolar depression. Lurasidone is also indicated as adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate for depressive episodes associated with bipolar disorder. The objective of this analysis was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lurasidone and quetiapine XR in patients with bipolar depression. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed to compare lurasidone to quetiapine XR. The model was based on a US third-party payer perspective over a 3-month time horizon. The effectiveness measure in the model was the percentage of patients achieving remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score ≤12 by weeks 6-8). The comparison of remission rates was made through an adjusted indirect treatment comparison of lurasidone and quetiapine XR pivotal trials using placebo as the common comparator. Resource utilization for remission vs no remission was estimated from published expert panel data, and resource costs were obtained from a retrospective database study of bipolar I depression patients. Drug costs were estimated using the mean dose from clinical trials and wholesale acquisition costs. RESULTS: Over the 3-month model time period, lurasidone and quetiapine XR patients, respectively, had similar mean numbers of emergency department visits (0.48 vs 0.50), inpatient days (2.1 vs 2.2), and office visits (9.3 vs 9.6). More lurasidone than quetiapine XR patients achieved remission (52.0% vs 43.2%) with slightly higher total costs ($4982 vs $4676), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3474 per remission. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed lurasidone had an 86% probability of being cost-effective compared to quetiapine XR at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $10,000 per remission. CONCLUSIONS: Lurasidone may be a cost-effective option when compared to quetiapine XR for the treatment of adults with bipolar depression.

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.