COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ASENAPINE IN THE TREATMENT OF SCHIZOPHRENIA IN CANADA
Author(s)
Lachaine J1, Beauchemin C1, Mathurin K1, Gilbert D2, Beillat M3, Corson H31University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2Lundbeck Canada Inc, Montreal, QC, Canada, 3Lundbeck S.A.S., Issy les Moulineaux, France
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Asenapine is a new antipsychotic approved in Canada for the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ) and bipolar disorder I as monotherapy and co-therapy. Asenapine has shown a comparable efficacy profile to atypical antipsychotics. In contrast, however, to most atypical antipsychotics, it is associated with a favourable metabolic profile as well as with a minimal weight gain. The objective was to assess, from a Canadian perspective, the economic impact of asenapine compared to olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprazidone, aripiprazole. METHODS: A combined decision tree and Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-utility of asenapine compared with other atypical antipsychotics. The decision tree takes into account the occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), the probability of switching to a different antipsychotic, and the probability of gaining weight. The Markov model comprises the following states: long-term metabolic complications (diabetes, hypertension, CHDs, and stroke), fatal stroke, fatal CHD, and death by suicide or other causes. In the base-case analysis, asenapine was compared to olanzapine. Asenapine was also compared with atypical antipsychotics commonly used in Canada. Analyses were conducted from both a Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH) and a societal perspective over a five-year time horizon with yearly cycles. RESULTS: In the treatment of SCZ, asenapine is a dominant strategy over olanzapine from both an MoH and a societal perspective, and this result is robust to the many sensitivity analyses performed. Compared to quetiapine, asenapine is also a dominant strategy. Furthermore, asenapine has a favourable economic impact compared to ziprazidone and aripripazole, as these antipsychotics are not cost effective compared to asenapine, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $63,204/QALY and $1,485,625/QALY from a MoH perspective and $62,432/QALY and $1,485,623/QALY from a societal perspective, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This economic evaluation demonstrates that asenapine is a cost-effective strategy compared to olanzapine and to most atypical antipsychotics used in Canada.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2012-06, ISPOR 2012, Washington, D.C., USA
Value in Health, Vol. 15, No. 4 (June 2012)
Code
PMH38
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Mental Health