12 MONTH COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF ORAL ANTIPSYCHOTIC TREATMENTS IN PATIENTS WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA IN THE PAN-EUROPEAN SOHO (SCHIZOPHRENIA OUTPATIENT HEALTH OUTCOMES) STUDY
Author(s)
Knapp M1, Windmeijer F2, Haro JM3, Kontodimas S4, Brown J4, Tzivelekis S4, Novick D4, Ratcliffe M41London School of Economics, London, United Kingdom; 2 University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom; 3 Sant Joan de Deu-SSM, Barcelona, Spain; 4 Eli Lilly and Company Ltd, Windlesham, Surrey, United Kingdom
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness (measured using an incremental cost-utility ratio) of treating schizophrenia patients with olanzapine versus risperidone, quetiapine, amisulpride, or oral typical antipsychotics. METHODS: European SOHO is a 3-year, prospective, outpatient, observational study associated with antipsychotic treatment in 10 European countries. Health care resource use and quality of life data (EuroQol EQ-5D and UK population utility values) were collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. UK health care costs were applied to the resource use data for the 10 countries. Pair-wise incremental costs and utilities were estimated between olanzapine-treated patients and patients treated with each of the other oral antipsychotics. Utility increments were used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Incremental cost-utility ratios were expressed as the additional cost per QALY gained. Bootstrap replications provided an estimate of uncertainty. RESULTS: 10972 patients were enrolled at baseline, 80% were eligible for analyses at 12 months. Treatment with olanzapine is more effective and less costly than quetiapine and amisulpride. Treatment with olanzapine is more effective compared to treatment with risperidone. The incremental cost is marginal. The incremental cost-utility ratio was £5156 per additional QALY gained. The bootstrap replications for the above comparisons showed 100% of the replications falling below a £30,000 per QALY threshold. Treatment with olanzapine is more effective compared to treatment with oral typical antipsychotics. The additional cost is marginal. The incremental cost-utility ratio for olanzapine versus oral typical treatment was £15696 per additional QALY gained. The bootstrap replications showed 97% of the replications below a $30,000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Among SOHO patients, if a funding threshold of £30 000 per QALY gained is assumed, olanzapine has a high probability of being the most cost-effective treatment compared with atypical and oral typical antipsychotic medications.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2005-11, ISPOR Europe 2005, Florence, Italy
Value in Health, Vol. 8, No.6 (November/December 2005)
Code
PMH31
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Mental Health