2001The Journal of Clinical PsychiatryRequires access

Service Use and Costs of Treating Schizophrenia With Atypical Antipsychotics

Michael C. Lewis, Paul McCrone, Sophia Frangou

Open publisher page 30 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The high acquisition cost of the atypical antipsychotics has prompted their closer clinical and economic evaluation. This study aims to examine the financial implications of using atypical antipsychotics in a defined catchment area sample of patients with schizophrenia. METHOD: Service costs over a 10-month period were compared between groups of patients fulfilling DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia who were taking different atypical antipsychotic agents. RESULTS: All patients studied were taking clozapine (N = 31). risperidone (N = 19), or olanzapine (N = 41). Clozapine was used in more chronic patients, while risperidone and olanzapine were prescribed in both chronic and recently diagnosed cases. After background group differences were controlled for, patients on risperidone treatment incurred the lowest costs. The monthly costs for the clozapine and olanzapine groups were higher than for risperidone by US $246 and US $566, respectively. CONCLUSION: Clozapine was reserved for more severe forms of schizophrenia, but its cost impact was relatively low. Risperidone, as prescribed in ordinary practice, may be more cost-effective than olanzapine.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: The high acquisition cost of the atypical antipsychotics has prompted their closer clinical and economic evaluation. This study aims to examine the financial implications of using atypical antipsychotics in a defined catchment area sample of patients with schizophrenia. METHOD: Service costs over a 10-month period were compared between groups of patients fulfilling DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia who were taking different atypical antipsychotic agents. RESULTS: All patients studied were taking clozapine (N = 31). risperidone (N = 19), or olanzapine (N = 41). Clozapine was used in more chronic patients, while risperidone and olanzapine were prescribed in both chronic and recently diagnosed cases. After background group differences were controlled for, patients on risperidone treatment incurred the lowest costs. The monthly costs for the clozapine and olanzapine groups were higher than for risperidone by US $246 and US $566, respectively. CONCLUSION: Clozapine was reserved for more severe forms of schizophrenia, but its cost impact was relatively low. Risperidone, as prescribed in ordinary practice, may be more cost-effective than olanzapine.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 30 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: The high acquisition cost of the atypical antipsychotics has prompted their closer clinical and economic evaluation. This study aims to examine the financial implications of using atypical antipsychotics in a defined catchment area sample of patients with schizophrenia. METHOD: Service costs over a 10-month period were compared between groups of patients fulfilling DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia who were taking different atypical antipsychotic agents. RESULTS: All patients studied were taking clozapine (N = 31). risperidone (N = 19), or olanzapine (N = 41). Clozapine was used in more chronic patients, while risperidone and olanzapine were prescribed in both chronic and recently diagnosed cases. After background group differences were controlled for, patients on risperidone treatment incurred the lowest costs. The monthly costs for the clozapine and olanzapine groups were higher than for risperidone by US $246 and US $566, respectively. CONCLUSION: Clozapine was reserved for more severe forms of schizophrenia, but its cost impact was relatively low. Risperidone, as prescribed in ordinary practice, may be more cost-effective than olanzapine.

Key concepts: Risperidone, Olanzapine, Clozapine, Schizophrenia (object-oriented programming), Atypical antipsychotic, Psychiatry, Antipsychotic, Medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Service Use and Costs of Treating Schizophrenia With Atypical Antipsychotics — Research Paper | ScholarLens