The work was done while Dr. Tunis was an employee of Eli Lilly and Company.
Cost-Effectiveness of Olanzapine as First-Line Treatment for Schizophrenia: Results from a Randomized, Open-Label, 1-Year Trial
Article first published online: 19 DEC 2005
Value in Health
Volume 9, Issue 2, pages 77–89, March 2006
How to Cite
Tunis, S. L., Faries, D. E., Nyhuis, A. W., Kinon, B. J., Ascher-Svanum, H. and Aquila, R. (2006), Cost-Effectiveness of Olanzapine as First-Line Treatment for Schizophrenia: Results from a Randomized, Open-Label, 1-Year Trial. Value in Health, 9: 77–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00083.x
- Issue published online: 19 DEC 2005
- Article first published online: 19 DEC 2005
- practical clinical trial;
Objectives: This randomized, open-label trial was designed to help inform antipsychotic treatment policies. It compared the 1-year cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with olanzapine (OLZ) (n = 229) versus a “fail-first” algorithm on conventional antipsychotics (then olanzapine if indicated) (CON) (n = 214); and versus initial treatment with risperidone (RIS) (n = 221).
Methods: Individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were recruited from May 1998 to September 2001. Clinical, functioning, and resource utilization data were collected at baseline and five postbaseline visits. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores defined “clinical effectiveness;” Lehman Quality of Life Scale social relations scores defined “social effectiveness.”
Results: Requiring failure on less expensive antipsychotics before use of olanzapine did not result in total cost savings, despite significantly higher antipsychotic costs with OLZ. Total 1-year mean costs were $21,283 for CON; $20,891 for OLZ; and $21,347 for RIS (pair-wise comparisons nonsignificant). Intent-to-treat effectiveness comparisons (nonsignificant) were augmented by analyses that adjusted for duration on initial antipsychotic treatment, and by comparisons of patients remaining on initial antipsychotic treatment versus those who required switching. When accounting for differential switching rates (OLZ 0.14 vs. CON 0.53, P < 0.0001; vs. RIS 0.31, P < 0.0001), OLZ was significantly more effective than CON on clinical (P = 0.025) and social (P = 0.043) measures, and significantly more effective than RIS on the social (P = 0.002) measure. Further, patients initiated on an antipsychotic from which they needed to switch required additional resources for hospitalization (P = 0.036) and crisis services (P = 0.029).
Conclusions: Approaches that integrate costs, effectiveness, and treatment patterns are important for providing optimal information regarding the value of first-line antipsychotic options for schizophrenia.