Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pharmacoeconomic modelling in schizophrenia

Trap or support for decision makers?

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pharmacoeconomic evaluations are important elements in the decision making process, and decision tree analyses are statistical models that analyse both clinical and economic consequences of medical actions. Using one theoretic model, key confounding variables were identified that constituted a standardised framework for economic evaluation of schizophrenia management. The extent to which they were included in several previously published schizophrenia models was appraised. Five different models were developed, and a systematic review of schizophrenia modelling studies was conducted. Results indicate that atypical antipsychotics may be more or less cost-effective depending upon whether key confounding variables were taken into account, but vigilance is warranted when assessing data because serious discrepancies can occur between different methods of analysis. A need for standardised schizophrenia pharmacoeconomic models exists. Additionally, social rehabilitation should be considered because this may also influence outcomes. Standardising modelling techniques will facilitate adherence to guidelines issued by decision makers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Caroff SN, Mann SC, Campbell EC, Sullivan K (2002) Movement disorders associated with atypical antipsychotic drugs. J Clin Psychiatry 63 [Suppl 4]:12–19

    Google Scholar 

  2. Conley RR, Kelly DL (2002) Current status of antipsychotic treatment. Curr Drug Targets CNS Neurol Disorders 1:123–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Möller HJ (2003) Management of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia: new treatment options. CNS Drugs 17(11):793–823

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Genduso LA, Hakey JC (1997) Cost of illness studies for schizophrenia: components, benefits, results, and implications. Am J Manag Care 3:873–877

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Salize HJ, Rössler W (1996) The cost of comprehensive care of people with schizophrenia living in the community — a cost evaluation from a German catchment area. Br J Psychiatry 169:42–48

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rouillon F, Toumi M, Dansette GY, Benyaya J, Auquier P (1997) Some aspects of the cost of schizophrenia in France. Pharmacoeconomics 11(6): 578–594

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Masand PS, Berry SL (2000) Switching antipsychotic therapies. Ann Pharmacotherapy 34:200–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Masand PS (1998) Weight gain associated with atypical antipsychotics. J Psychotic Disorder 2:4–6

    Google Scholar 

  9. Beasley CM, Tollefson GD, Tran PV (1998) Safety of olanzapine. J Clin Psychiatry 58 [Suppl. 10]:13–17

  10. Wirshing DA, Maarder SR, Goldstein D, Wirshing WC (1997) Novel antipsychotics: comparison of weight gain liabilities [abstract]. In: Scientific Abstracts of the 36th Annual Meeting of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, Kamuela, Hawaii

  11. Souêtre E, Martin P, Lecanu JP, Alexandre L, Lozet H, Gauthier JM, Camus C (1992) Economic assessment of neuroleptic strategies in schizophrenia: amisulpride versus halopéridol. L’Encéphale 18:263–269 [French]

  12. Fichtner CG, Hanrahan P, Luchins DJ (1998) Pharmacoeconomic studies of atypical antipsychotics: review and perspective. Psychiatric Annals 28(7):381–396

    Google Scholar 

  13. Beck JR, Pauker SG (1983) The Markov process in medical prognosis. Med Decis Making 3:419–458

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR (1993) Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 13:322–338

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance G (1997) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  16. Weiden PJH, Mott T, Curcio N (1995) Recognition and management of neuroleptic noncompliance. In: Shriqui CL, Nasrallah HA (eds) Contemporary issues in the treatment of schizophrenia. American Psychiatric Press, Washington, DC, pp 411–434

  17. Olfson M, Mechanic D, Hansell S, Boyer CA, Walkup J, Weiden PJ (2000) Predicting medication noncompliance after hospital discharge among patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatr Serv 51(2):216–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rittmannsberger H, Pachinger T, Keppelmüller P, Wancata J (2004) Medication adherence among psychiatric patients before admission to inpatient treatment. Psychiatr Serv 55(2):174–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lundbeck H A/S. Data on file, available on request from corresponding author

  20. Langley-Hawthorne C (1997) Modeling the lifetime costs of treating schizophrenia in Australia. Clin Ther 19(6):1470–1495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mauskopf JA, David K, Grainger DL, Gibson PJ (1999) Annual health outcomes and treatment costs for schizophrenia populations. J Clin Psychiatry 60 [Suppl 19]:14–19

    Google Scholar 

  22. Foster RH, Goa KL (1999) Olanzapine: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in schizophrenia. Pharmacoeconomics 15(6):611–640

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Oh PI, Iskedjian M, Addis A, Lanctôt K, Einarson TR (2001) Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a cost-utility analysis. Can J Clin Pharmacol 8(4):199–206

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Almond S, O’Donnell O (1998) Cost analysis of the treatment of schizophrenia in the UK: a comparison of olanzapine and haloperidol. Pharmacoeconomics 13(5 Pt 2):575–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Glennie JL (1997) Pharmacoeconomic evaluations of clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia and risperidone in chronic schizophrenia. Technology overview: pharmaceuticals. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), Ottawa, issue 7.0

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sacristián JA, Gomez JC, Salvador-Carulla L (1997) Cost effectiveness analysis of olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenia in Spain. Actas luso-españolas de neurologia, psiquiatría y ciencias afines 25(4):225–234 [Spanish]

  27. Guest JF, Cookson RF (1999) Cost of schizophrenia to UK society. Pharmacoeconomics 15:597–610

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Duggan A, Warner J, Knapp M, Kerwin R (2003) Modelling the impact of clozapine on suicide in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia in the UK. Br J Psychiatry 182:505–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Davies LM, Drummond MF (1993) Assessment of costs and benefits of drug therapy for treatment-resistant schizophrenia in the United Kingdom. Br J Psychiatry 162:38–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Glazer WM, Ereshefsky L (1996) A pharmacoeconomic model of outpatient antipsychotic therapy in “revolving door” schizophrenic patients. J Clin Psychiatry 57(8):337–345

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Laurier C, Kennedy W, Lachaine J, Gariepy L, Tessier G (1997) Economic evaluation of zuclopenthixol acetate compared with injectable haloperidol in schizophrenic patients with acute psychosis. Clin Ther 19(2):316–329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Byrom B, Garratt C, Kilpatrick AT (1998) Influence of antipsychotic profile on cost of treatment of schizophrenia: a decision analysis approach. Int J Psychiatry 2:129–138

    Google Scholar 

  33. Palmer CS, Revicki DA, Genduso LA, Hamilton SH, Brown RE (1998) A cost-effectiveness clinical decision analysis model for schizophrenia. Am J Manag Care 4(3):345–355

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Davies A, Langley PC, Keks NA, Catts SV, Lambert T, Schweitzer I (1998) Risperidone versus haloperidol: II. Cost-effectiveness. Clin Ther 20(1):196–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Launois R, Graf von der Schulenberg M, Knapp M, Toumi M (1998) Cost-effectiveness of sertindole versus olanzapine or haloperidol: a comprehensive model. Int J Psychiat Clin Pract 2 [Suppl 2]:79–86

    Google Scholar 

  36. Almond S, O’Donnell O (2000) Cost analysis of the treatment of schizophrenia in the UK: a simulation model comparing olanzapine, risperidone and haloperidol. Pharmacoeconomics 17(4):383–389

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lecomte P, De Hert M, Dijk MV, Nuijten M, Nuyts G, Persson U (2000) A 1-year cost-effectiveness model for the treatment of chronic schizophrenia with acute exacerbations in Belgium. Value Health 3(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tilden D, Aristides M, Meddis D, Burns T (2002) An economic assessment of quetiapine and haloperidol in patients with schizophrenia only partially responsive to conventional antipsychotics. Clin Ther 24(10):1648–1667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Emsley RA, Raniwalla J, Bailey PJ, Jones AM on behalf of the PRIZE Study Group (2000) A comparison of the effects of quetiapine (‘seroquel’) and haloperidol in schizophrenic patients with a history of and a demonstrated, partial response to conventional antipsychotic treatment. PRIZE Study Group. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 15:121–131

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ganguly R, Miller LS, Martin BC (2003) Future employability, a new approach to cost-effectiveness analysis of antipsychotic therapy. Schizophr Res 63:111–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2004) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Oxford, Radcliffe Medical Press

  42. Dalkey N, Helmer O (1963) An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Man Sci 9(3):458–467

    Google Scholar 

  43. Evans C, Crawford B (2000) Expert judgement in pharmacoeconomic studies. Guidance and future use. Pharmacoeconomics 17(6):545–553

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nuijten MJC (1999) Measuring sensitivity in pharmacoeconomic studies–refining point sensitivity and range sensitivity by incorporating probability distributions. Pharmacoeconomics 16(1):33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

H. Lundbeck A/S provided funding for this research, which is part of the doctoral thesis of KH. The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments and suggestions of Professors M. Fardeau and R. Launois as well as the editorial assistance of J. Cochran in preparing this manuscript.

Conflict of interest:

The corresponding author draws attention to a connection with the following supplier(s): H. Lundbeck A/S provided funding for this study. K. Hansen and M. Toumi are employees of H. Lundbeck A/S.

C. Lancon has no conflict of interest or financial interest in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Paris XI, Center for Health Economics and Administration Research (CHEAR), INSERM U 537, 80 rue du Général-Leclerc, 94276, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre Cedex, France

    Karina Hansen

  2. Department of Psychiatry, Sainte Marguerite University Hospital, BP 29, 13274 , Marseilles, France

    Christophe Lançon

  3. Economics and Pricing Division, H. Lundbeck A/S, 37 Avenue Pierre 1er de Serbie, 75008 , Paris, France

    Mondher Toumi

  4. Health Economics and Epidemiology Department, H. Lundbeck A/S, 37 Avenue Pierre 1er de Serbie, 75008 , Paris, France

    Karina Hansen

Authors
  1. Karina Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christophe Lançon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mondher Toumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karina Hansen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hansen, K., Lançon, C. & Toumi, M. Pharmacoeconomic modelling in schizophrenia. Eur J Health Econ 7, 19–29 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-005-0326-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-005-0326-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation