预测帕利哌酮棕榈酸酯对埃及成年精神分裂症患者的潜在预算影响分析。

IF 2.3 Q2 ECONOMICS
Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2023-08-17 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.36469/001c.83240
Gihan Elsisi, Mohamed Ezzat, Mohamed Ramadan
{"title":"预测帕利哌酮棕榈酸酯对埃及成年精神分裂症患者的潜在预算影响分析。","authors":"Gihan Elsisi, Mohamed Ezzat, Mohamed Ramadan","doi":"10.36469/001c.83240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Schizophrenia is a serious mental disorder that has greater negative consequences on role functioning than many other severe chronic diseases. <b>Objective:</b> We evaluated the economic impact of long-acting injections of paliperidone palmitate (PP) vs daily oral antipsychotics to treat chronic schizophrenia from a societal perspective over a 2-year period. <b>Methods:</b> A static budget impact model was developed to compare PP with daily oral antipsychotics (risperidone, olanzapine, and aripiprazole) in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia. Our study included treatments used during relapse and hospitalization, validated by an expert panel. The clinical parameters were extracted from the PRIDE trial. Direct medical costs and indirect costs were measured. The unit cost of drug acquisition for all medications was extracted from the public sector. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. <b>Results:</b> The target population in our model was estimated to be 142 incident patients. In the first year, the total drug costs in Egyptian pounds (EGP) for PP and oral antipsychotics were £2.7 million and £724 004, respectively, while the total medical costs for PP and oral antipsychotics were £3 million and £5.6 million, respectively. In the second year, the total drug costs for PP and oral antipsychotics were £2.7 million and £724 004, respectively, while the total medical costs for PP and oral antipsychotics were £3 million and £5 million, respectively. The total costs for PP (£11.6 million) over 2 years were less than those of oral antipsychotics without PP (£12.7 million). PP produced an estimated budget savings of £1 046 561 (budget savings per patient per year, £3667). In addition, PP resulted in the avoidance of 18 hospitalizations per year compared with the without-PP arm. Sensitivity analyses showed that the percent of hospitalizations for both oral antipsychotics and PP had the greatest impact on the results. <b>Conclusion:</b> The lower hospitalization rates associated with PP offset the increase in drug costs. PP may potentially be cost-saving compared with the standard of care in chronic schizophrenia in Egyptian representative healthcare settings. Policy makers may consider this approach to improve patient outcomes and budget sustainability.</p>","PeriodicalId":16012,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","volume":"10 2","pages":"23-29"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10439680/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Projecting the Potential Budget Impact Analysis of Paliperidone Palmitate in Egyptian Adult Patients with Schizophrenia.\",\"authors\":\"Gihan Elsisi, Mohamed Ezzat, Mohamed Ramadan\",\"doi\":\"10.36469/001c.83240\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Schizophrenia is a serious mental disorder that has greater negative consequences on role functioning than many other severe chronic diseases. <b>Objective:</b> We evaluated the economic impact of long-acting injections of paliperidone palmitate (PP) vs daily oral antipsychotics to treat chronic schizophrenia from a societal perspective over a 2-year period. <b>Methods:</b> A static budget impact model was developed to compare PP with daily oral antipsychotics (risperidone, olanzapine, and aripiprazole) in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia. Our study included treatments used during relapse and hospitalization, validated by an expert panel. The clinical parameters were extracted from the PRIDE trial. Direct medical costs and indirect costs were measured. The unit cost of drug acquisition for all medications was extracted from the public sector. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. <b>Results:</b> The target population in our model was estimated to be 142 incident patients. In the first year, the total drug costs in Egyptian pounds (EGP) for PP and oral antipsychotics were £2.7 million and £724 004, respectively, while the total medical costs for PP and oral antipsychotics were £3 million and £5.6 million, respectively. In the second year, the total drug costs for PP and oral antipsychotics were £2.7 million and £724 004, respectively, while the total medical costs for PP and oral antipsychotics were £3 million and £5 million, respectively. The total costs for PP (£11.6 million) over 2 years were less than those of oral antipsychotics without PP (£12.7 million). PP produced an estimated budget savings of £1 046 561 (budget savings per patient per year, £3667). In addition, PP resulted in the avoidance of 18 hospitalizations per year compared with the without-PP arm. Sensitivity analyses showed that the percent of hospitalizations for both oral antipsychotics and PP had the greatest impact on the results. <b>Conclusion:</b> The lower hospitalization rates associated with PP offset the increase in drug costs. PP may potentially be cost-saving compared with the standard of care in chronic schizophrenia in Egyptian representative healthcare settings. Policy makers may consider this approach to improve patient outcomes and budget sustainability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\"10 2\",\"pages\":\"23-29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10439680/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36469/001c.83240\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36469/001c.83240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:精神分裂症是一种严重的精神障碍,与许多其他严重的慢性疾病相比,它对角色功能的负面影响更大。目的:我们从社会角度评估了长效注射棕榈酸帕利哌酮(PP)与每日口服抗精神病药物在2年内治疗慢性精神分裂症的经济影响。方法:建立静态预算影响模型,比较PP与每日口服抗精神病药物(利培酮、奥氮平和阿立哌唑)治疗慢性精神分裂症的疗效。我们的研究包括复发和住院期间使用的治疗方法,并经专家小组验证。临床参数从PRIDE试验中提取。对直接医疗费用和间接费用进行了计量。所有药物的药品采购单位成本都是从公共部门提取的。进行了单向敏感性分析。结果:我们模型中的目标人群估计为142名事件患者。第一年,PP和口服抗精神病药物的总药物成本(以埃及镑计)分别为270万英镑和724英镑 004,而PP和口服抗精神病药物的总医疗费用分别为300万英镑和560万英镑。第二年,PP和口服抗精神病药物的总药物成本分别为270万英镑和724英镑 004,而PP和口服抗精神病药物的总医疗费用分别为300万英镑和500万英镑。PP在2年内的总成本(1160万英镑)低于不含PP的口服抗精神病药物(1270万美元)。PP预计可节省1英镑的预算 046 561(每位患者每年节省预算3667英镑)。此外,与无PP组相比,PP组每年避免了18例住院。敏感性分析显示,口服抗精神病药物和PP的住院率对结果的影响最大。结论:与PP相关的较低住院率抵消了药物成本的增加。与埃及代表性医疗机构的慢性精神分裂症护理标准相比,PP可能会节省成本。政策制定者可能会考虑采用这种方法来改善患者的治疗效果和预算的可持续性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Projecting the Potential Budget Impact Analysis of Paliperidone Palmitate in Egyptian Adult Patients with Schizophrenia.

Background: Schizophrenia is a serious mental disorder that has greater negative consequences on role functioning than many other severe chronic diseases. Objective: We evaluated the economic impact of long-acting injections of paliperidone palmitate (PP) vs daily oral antipsychotics to treat chronic schizophrenia from a societal perspective over a 2-year period. Methods: A static budget impact model was developed to compare PP with daily oral antipsychotics (risperidone, olanzapine, and aripiprazole) in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia. Our study included treatments used during relapse and hospitalization, validated by an expert panel. The clinical parameters were extracted from the PRIDE trial. Direct medical costs and indirect costs were measured. The unit cost of drug acquisition for all medications was extracted from the public sector. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: The target population in our model was estimated to be 142 incident patients. In the first year, the total drug costs in Egyptian pounds (EGP) for PP and oral antipsychotics were £2.7 million and £724 004, respectively, while the total medical costs for PP and oral antipsychotics were £3 million and £5.6 million, respectively. In the second year, the total drug costs for PP and oral antipsychotics were £2.7 million and £724 004, respectively, while the total medical costs for PP and oral antipsychotics were £3 million and £5 million, respectively. The total costs for PP (£11.6 million) over 2 years were less than those of oral antipsychotics without PP (£12.7 million). PP produced an estimated budget savings of £1 046 561 (budget savings per patient per year, £3667). In addition, PP resulted in the avoidance of 18 hospitalizations per year compared with the without-PP arm. Sensitivity analyses showed that the percent of hospitalizations for both oral antipsychotics and PP had the greatest impact on the results. Conclusion: The lower hospitalization rates associated with PP offset the increase in drug costs. PP may potentially be cost-saving compared with the standard of care in chronic schizophrenia in Egyptian representative healthcare settings. Policy makers may consider this approach to improve patient outcomes and budget sustainability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信