Background: Schizophrenia is often a persistent and costly illness that requires continued treatment with antipsychotics. Differences among antipsychotics on efficacy, safety, tolerability, adherence, and cost have cost-effectiveness implications for treating schizophrenia. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of oral olanzapine, oral risperidone (at generic cost, primary comparator), quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia from the perspective of third-party payers in the U.S. health care system.

This micro-simulation found that the utilization of olanzapine ODT for the treatment of schizophrenia is predicted to be more cost-effective than any other ODT or SOT formulations of the studied atypical antipsychotic medications.

This micro-simulation model finds the olanzapine-LAI treatment strategy to result in better effectiveness and to be a cost-effective alternative compared to oral olanzapine and the LAI formulations of risperidone, paliperidone, and haloperidol in the treatment of non-adherent and partially adherent patients with schizophrenia in the United States. A key limitation is the assumption how LAI therapies compare to oral counterparts due to sparse head-to-head data. Further research is needed to verify baseline assumptions.

BackgroundThis paper presents the model and results to evaluate the use of teriparatide as a first-line treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) and Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). The study’s objective was to determine if teriparatide is cost effective against oral bisphosphonates for two large and high risk cohorts.MethodsA computer simulation model was created to model treatment, osteoporosis related fractures, and the remaining life of PMO and GIOP patients. Natural mortality and additional mortality from osteoporosis related fractures were included in the model. Costs for treatment with both teriparatide and oral bisphosphonates were included. Drug efficacy was modeled as a reduction to the relative fracture risk for subsequent osteoporosis related fractures. Patient health utilities associated with age, gender, and osteoporosis related fractures were included in the model. Patient costs and utilities were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for teriparatide versus oral bisphosphonates and teriparatide versus no treatment were estimated.For each of the PMO and GIOP populations, two cohorts differentiated by fracture history were simulated. The first contained patients with both a historical vertebral fracture and an incident vertebral fracture. The second contained patients with only an incident vertebral fracture. The PMO cohorts simulated had an initial Bone Mineral Density (BMD) T-Score of −3.0. The GIOP cohorts simulated had an initial BMD T-Score of −2.5.ResultsThe ICERs for teriparatide versus bisphosphonate use for the one and two fracture PMO cohorts were €36,995 per QALY and €19,371 per QALY. The ICERs for teriparatide versus bisphosphonate use for the one and two fracture GIOP cohorts were €20,826 per QALY and €15,155 per QALY, respectively.ConclusionsThe selection of teriparatide versus oral bisphosphonates as a first-line treatment for the high risk PMO and GIOP cohorts evaluated is justified at a cost per QALY threshold of €50,000.

Treatment with rosuvastatin 20 mg daily, is a cost-effective treatment alternative to no treatment in patients at a higher risk (Framingham risk≥10%) of CVD.