Systematic review of pharmacoeconomic models for schizophrenia

Background: Economic models are broadly used in the economic evaluation of antipsychotics in schizophrenia. Our objective was to summarize the structure of these models. Methods: Model-based economic evaluations of antipsychotics in schizophrenia were identified through Medline and Embase. General i...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Junwen Zhou, Aurélie Millier, Mondher Toumi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2018-01-01
Series:Journal of Market Access & Health Policy
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2018.1508272
_version_ 1797228497280696320
author Junwen Zhou
Aurélie Millier
Mondher Toumi
author_facet Junwen Zhou
Aurélie Millier
Mondher Toumi
author_sort Junwen Zhou
collection DOAJ
description Background: Economic models are broadly used in the economic evaluation of antipsychotics in schizophrenia. Our objective was to summarize the structure of these models. Methods: Model-based economic evaluations of antipsychotics in schizophrenia were identified through Medline and Embase. General information was extracted including analysis type, model type, perspective, population, comparator, outcome, and timeframe. Model-specific structures for decision tree (DT), cohort- and patient-level Markov model (CLMM, PLMM), and discrete-event simulation (DES) models were extracted. Results: A screen of 1870 records identified 79 studies. These were mostly cost-utility analyses (n = 48) with CLMM (n = 32) or DT models (n = 29). They mostly applied payer perspective (n = 68), focused on general schizophrenia for relapse prevention (n = 73), compared pharmacotherapies as first-line (n = 71), and evaluated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (n = 40) with a 1-year (n = 32) or 5-year (n = 26) projection. DT models progressed with the branching points of response, relapse, discontinuation, and adherence. CLMM models transitioned between disease states, whereas PLMM models transitioned between adverse event states with/without disease state. DES models moved forward with times to remission, relapse, psychiatrist visit, and death. Conclusions: A pattern of pharmacoeconomic models for schizophrenia was identified. More subtle structures and patient-level models are suggested for a future modelling exercise.
first_indexed 2024-04-24T14:57:38Z
format Article
id doaj.art-4c663068323b4819889ec3e785a999ca
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2001-6689
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-24T14:57:38Z
publishDate 2018-01-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Journal of Market Access & Health Policy
spelling doaj.art-4c663068323b4819889ec3e785a999ca2024-04-02T17:10:04ZengMDPI AGJournal of Market Access & Health Policy2001-66892018-01-016110.1080/20016689.2018.15082721508272Systematic review of pharmacoeconomic models for schizophreniaJunwen Zhou0Aurélie Millier1Mondher Toumi2Aix-Marseille UniversityCreativ-CeuticalAix-Marseille UniversityBackground: Economic models are broadly used in the economic evaluation of antipsychotics in schizophrenia. Our objective was to summarize the structure of these models. Methods: Model-based economic evaluations of antipsychotics in schizophrenia were identified through Medline and Embase. General information was extracted including analysis type, model type, perspective, population, comparator, outcome, and timeframe. Model-specific structures for decision tree (DT), cohort- and patient-level Markov model (CLMM, PLMM), and discrete-event simulation (DES) models were extracted. Results: A screen of 1870 records identified 79 studies. These were mostly cost-utility analyses (n = 48) with CLMM (n = 32) or DT models (n = 29). They mostly applied payer perspective (n = 68), focused on general schizophrenia for relapse prevention (n = 73), compared pharmacotherapies as first-line (n = 71), and evaluated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (n = 40) with a 1-year (n = 32) or 5-year (n = 26) projection. DT models progressed with the branching points of response, relapse, discontinuation, and adherence. CLMM models transitioned between disease states, whereas PLMM models transitioned between adverse event states with/without disease state. DES models moved forward with times to remission, relapse, psychiatrist visit, and death. Conclusions: A pattern of pharmacoeconomic models for schizophrenia was identified. More subtle structures and patient-level models are suggested for a future modelling exercise.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2018.1508272Schizophreniapharmacotherapyantipsychoticspharmacoeconomicseconomic modelmodel structure
spellingShingle Junwen Zhou
Aurélie Millier
Mondher Toumi
Systematic review of pharmacoeconomic models for schizophrenia
Journal of Market Access & Health Policy
Schizophrenia
pharmacotherapy
antipsychotics
pharmacoeconomics
economic model
model structure
title Systematic review of pharmacoeconomic models for schizophrenia
title_full Systematic review of pharmacoeconomic models for schizophrenia
title_fullStr Systematic review of pharmacoeconomic models for schizophrenia
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review of pharmacoeconomic models for schizophrenia
title_short Systematic review of pharmacoeconomic models for schizophrenia
title_sort systematic review of pharmacoeconomic models for schizophrenia
topic Schizophrenia
pharmacotherapy
antipsychotics
pharmacoeconomics
economic model
model structure
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2018.1508272
work_keys_str_mv AT junwenzhou systematicreviewofpharmacoeconomicmodelsforschizophrenia
AT aureliemillier systematicreviewofpharmacoeconomicmodelsforschizophrenia
AT mondhertoumi systematicreviewofpharmacoeconomicmodelsforschizophrenia