Comparing the Cost Effectiveness of Risperidone and Olanzapine in the Treatment of Schizophrenia Using the Net-Benefit Regression Approach
Objective: To estimate the cost effectiveness of olanzapine and risperidone for the treatment of schizophrenia in Belgium. Methods: Data were retrieved from a prospective, observational, non-randomized, follow-up survey. Clinical investigators assigned 265 patients with schizophrenia to either olanzapine (n - 136) or risperidone (n - 129). Patients were followed up for 2 years. Total healthcare costs were determined from the public payer perspective and calculated by multiplying resource use with official tariffs; effectiveness of the drugs was measured with the EQ-5D. This study uses a net-benefit regression approach to accommodate for baseline differences between treatment groups and uncertainty. Results: Total 2-year costs were very similar for patients receiving risperidone and olanzapine (€20 915.33 and €20 569.69, respectively; p - 0.925) [year 2002 values]. The health condition of the patients receiving risperidone was better than that of patients receiving olanzapine but not significantly so (1.46 and 1.41, respectively; p - 0.191). Simple ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions indicated that, for λ - €40 000, we could not reject the null hypothesis that the drugs provide similar net monetary benefits to the patient (risperidone vs olanzapine €2046.95; p - 0.656). When we controlled for several patient characteristics, risperidone moved further away from olanzapine but the difference did not reach statistical significance (risperidone vs olanzapine €3198.07; p - 0.595). Numerous sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Conclusion: Results of this study suggest that it is important to control for baseline patient characteristics when performing a cost-effectiveness analysis. No significant difference in net monetary benefit was found between risperidone and olanzapine.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:27:y:2009:i:1:p:69-80. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.