Assessing cost-effectiveness of drug interventions for schizophrenia

Objective: To assess from a health sector perspective the incremental cost-effectiveness of eight drug treatment scenarios for established schizophrenia. Method: Using a standardized methodology, costs and outcomes are modelled over the lifetime of prevalent cases of schizophrenia in Australia in 2000. A two-stage approach to assessment of health benefit is used. The first stage involves a quantitative analysis based on disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, using best available evidence. The robustness of results is tested using probabilistic uncertainty analysis. The second stage involves application of 'second filter' criteria (equity, strength of evidence, feasibility and acceptability) to allow broader concepts of benefit to be considered. Results: Replacing oral typicals with risperidone or olanzapine has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of A$48 000 and A$92 000/DALY respectively. Switching from low-dose typicals to risperidone has an ICER of A$80 000. Giving risperidone to people experiencing side-effects on typicals is more cost-effective at A$20 000. Giving clozapine to people taking typicals, with the worst course of the disorder and either little or clear deterioration, is cost-effective at A$42 000 or A$23 000/DALY respectively. The least cost-effective intervention is to replace risperidone with olanzapine at A$160 000/DALY. Conclusions: Based on an A$50 000/DALY threshold, low-dose typical neuroleptics are indicated as the treatment of choice for established schizophrenia, with risperidone being reserved for those experiencing moderate to severe side-effects on typicals. The more expensive olanzapine should only be prescribed when risperidone is not clinically indicated. The high cost of risperidone and olanzapine relative to modest health gains underlie this conclusion. Earlier introduction of clozapine however, would be cost-effective. This work is limited by weaknesses in trials (lack of long-term efficacy data, quality of life and consumer satisfaction evidence) and the translation of effect size into a DALY change. Some stakeholders, including SANE Australia, argue the modest health gains reported in the literature do not adequately reflect perceptions by patients, clinicians and carers, of improved quality of life with these atypicals.

Incremental cost-effectiveness of exercise echocardiography vs. SPECT imaging for the evaluation of stable chest pain

Aims Technological advances in cardiac imaging have led to dramatic increases in test utilization and consumption of a growing proportion of cardiovascular healthcare costs. The opportunity costs of strategies favouring exercise echocardiography or SPECT imaging have been incompletely evaluated. Methods and results We examined prognosis and cost-effectiveness of exercise echocardiography (n=4884) vs. SPECT (n=4637) imaging in stable, intermediate risk, chest pain patients. Ischaemia extent was defined as the number of vascular territories with echocardiographic wall motion or SPECT perfusion abnormalities. Cox proportional hazard models were employed to assess time to cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI). Total cardiovascular costs were summed (discounted and inflation-corrected) throughout follow-up. A cost-effectiveness ratio = 2% annual event risk), SPECT ischaemia was associated with earlier and greater utilization of coronary revascularization (P < 0.0001) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $32 381/LYS. Conclusion Health care policies aimed at allocating limited resources can be effectively guided by applying clinical and economic outcomes evidence. A strategy aimed at cost-effective testing would support using echocardiography in low-risk patients with suspected coronary disease, whereas those higher risk patients benefit from referral to SPECT imaging.