OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this retrospective study is to examine both schizophrenia‐related direct costs and total (schizophrenia plus non‐schizophrenia) direct costs among Texas Medicaid patients who have been diagnosed with a schizophrenic disorder and have been initiated on one of two atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine or risperidone). METHODS: Services and prescription utilization and cost data were retrieved for 3,072 patients with schizophrenia who were initiated on olanzapine or risperidone between 1997 and 1998. Each patient was followed for one year from initiation of therapy. Multivariate analysis was used to control for a wide range of factors (drug choice, patient demographics, pre‐utilization costs, region, health conditions, and treatment patterns) that may influence schizophrenia‐related costs and total costs. Estimation was conducted via a two‐stage instrumental variable model. RESULTS: The mean unadjusted total schizophrenia‐related cost per patient per year was $4,973, and the total unadjusted health care cost per patient per year was $7,335. Although the daily drug costs associated with olanzapine were higher than risperidone, and patients taking olanzapine on average stayed on therapy longer than those taking risperidone, when looking at total schizophrenia‐related costs (services plus prescription utilization), there was no significant difference between drug groups (olanzapine $81 lower, p = 0.7534). Additionally, when total health care costs were analyzed, there was no significant difference in drug groups (olanzapine $530 lower, p = 0.1050). Sensitivity analyses found similar results. CONCLUSION: This naturalistic study used data from a Texas Medicaid population to examine the schizophrenia‐related costs (and total costs) for patients who received olanzapine versus risperidone. No differences in direct costs were found for patients receiving olanzapine versus risperidone.
higher than self. Using DBDC questions seems to have additional benefit of refining open ended questions. These results were higher especially in parametric estimation models using only DBDC questions. This observation cautions us of selecting a specific analytic method may influence the results. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first step toward resolution of controversies around economic evaluations of healthcare in Korea and hopes to encourage more local research on this issue.
14≤ age≤ 75 years) with class I, IIa, or IIb MG according to Osserman's classification are enrolled, and are blindly separated into Chinese herb group and control group. The Chinese herb group is treated with Huangqi formula and control group with placebo, treatment duration is four weeks. Muscle weakness is assessed by Chinese Score for MG (CSMG; rang 12-60; higher scores worse weakness), and QoL is assessed by the SF-36 (rang: 0-100; higher scores better QoL); Both CSMG and SF-36 are evaluated at the enrollment and after four-week treatment. Results: Analysis is based on 248 patients (male 110, 44%; age:46±18 year), of whom 125 patients randomized into the Chinese herb group and 121 finish the treatment; 123 in the control group and 120 finish the study. There is no significant difference in demographic and clinical characteristics between two groups (P> 0.05), and no difference in CSMG (Chinese herb vs control groups: 24.1±5.9 vs 23.3±6.6) and SF-36 (55.7±16.6 vs 57.7±16.5) at the baseline either. After four-week treatment, muscle weakness declined 6.4±5.0 in Chinese herb group and 1.0±3.8 in control group (P= 0.000). However, no significant changes are found in SF-36 scores between the two groups (56.7±16.1 and 57.1±15.9). ConClusions: This study proves that Chinese herb can relieve MG patients' muscle weakness, but it is not enough to improve patients' QoL in four weeks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.