Comparative cost-effectiveness of amisulpride and olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia in China.

BACKGROUND: Both amisulpride and olanzapine are leading treatments for schizophrenia in China. This study aimed to investigate the long-term cost-effectiveness of amisulpride and olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia in China. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to simulate the lifetime clinical and economic outcomes of schizophrenia treatment from the healthcare payer perspective. The long-term costs and QALYs were estimated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the impact of variance of parameters on the results. RESULTS: Treatment with amisulpride provided an effectiveness gain of 16.59 QALYs at an average cost of USD 25,884 whereas olanzapine resulted in 16.38 QALYs at a cost of USD 34,839 over a lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the most sensitive variable was the unit cost of olanzapine. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on a Monte Carlo simulation with a lifetime horizon, the probability of amisulpride being cost-effective was 99.8% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 9,322, the GDP per capita in China 2018. A scenario analysis with updated olanzapine unit cost suggested an ICER of 7,857 USD/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Amisulpride is likely to be a cost-effective option with increased effectiveness compared with olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia patients in China.

Comparative efficacy and safety between amisulpride and olanzapine in schizophrenia treatment and a cost analysis in China: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and cost-minimization analysis.

BACKGROUND: Amisulpride was introduced into China in 2010 as a second-generation atypical antipsychotic, while olanzapine has been on the market since 1999 as one of the leading treatments for schizophrenia in China. Since more Chinese patients are gaining access to amisulpride, the study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and costs between amisulpride and olanzapine for schizophrenia treatment in China. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang database were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 2018. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was utilized to assess the quality of included studies. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of amisulpride and olanzapine, followed by a cost-minimization analysis using local drug and medical costs reported in China. RESULTS: Twenty RCTs with 2000 patients were included in the systematic review. There were no significant differences between amisulpride and olanzapine on efficacy measures based on scores from the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity or Improvement. For safety outcomes, amisulpride was associated with lower fasting blood glucose and less abnormal liver functions as well as significantly lower risks of weight gain, constipation, and somnolence; olanzapine was associated with significantly lower risks of insomnia and lactation/amenorrhea/sexual hormone disorder. No significant differences were found in risks of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), tremor, akathisia, abnormal corrected QT interval. Cost-minimization analysis showed that amisulpride was likely to be a cost-saving alternative in China, with potential savings of 1358 Chinese Yuan (CNY) per patient for a three-month schizophrenia treatment compared with olanzapine. CONCLUSION: As the first meta-analysis and cost-minimization analysis comparing the efficacy, safety and cost of amisulpride and olanzapine within a Chinese setting, the study suggests that amisulpride may be an effective, well-tolerated, and cost-saving antipsychotic drug alternative in China.