18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Real-World Evidence of the Clinical and Economic Impact of Long-Acting Injectable Versus Oral Antipsychotics Among Patients with Schizophrenia in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics, compared with oral antipsychotics (OA), have been found to significantly improve patient outcomes, including reduced hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) admissions and increased medication adherence among adult patients with schizophrenia. In turn, the clinical benefits achieved may translate into lower economic burden. Real-world evidence of the comparative effectiveness of LAI is needed to understand the potential benefits of LAI outside of the context of clinical trials. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive synthesis of recent published real-world studies comparing healthcare utilization, costs, and adherence between patients with schizophrenia treated with LAI versus OA in the United States.

          Methods

          In this systematic literature review, MEDLINE ® was searched for peer-reviewed, real-world studies (i.e., retrospective or pragmatic designs) published in English between January 1, 2010 and February 10, 2020. Comparative studies reporting hospitalizations, ER admissions, healthcare costs, or medication adherence (measured by proportion of days covered [PDC]) in adults with schizophrenia treated with LAI versus OA (or pre- vs post-LAI initiation) in the United States were retained. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted among eligible studies to evaluate the association of LAI versus OA use on hospitalizations, ER admissions, healthcare costs, and treatment adherence. A sensitivity analysis among the subset of studies that compared OA with paliperidone palmitate once monthly (PP1M), specifically, was conducted.

          Results

          A total of 1083 articles were identified by the electronic literature search, and two publications were manually added subsequently. Among the 57 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, 25 provided sufficient information for inclusion in the meta-analyses. Compared with patients treated with OA, patients initiated on LAI had lower odds of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54–0.71, n = 7), fewer hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% CI] 0.75 [0.65–0.88], n = 9), and fewer ER admissions (IRR [95% CI] 0.86 [0.77–0.97], n = 6). The initiation of LAI was associated with higher per-patient-per-year (PPPY) pharmacy costs (mean difference [MD] [95% CI] $5603 [3799–7407], n = 6), which was offset by lower PPPY medical costs (MD [95% CI] − $5404 [− 7745 to − 3064], n = 6), resulting in no significant net difference in PPPY total all-cause healthcare costs between patients treated with LAI and those treated with OA (MD [95% CI] $327 [− 1565 to 2219], n = 7). Patients initiated on LAI also had higher odds of being adherent to their medication (PDC ≥ 80%; OR [95% CI] 1.89 [1.52–2.35], n = 9). A sensitivity analysis on a subset of publications evaluating PP1M found results similar to those of the main analysis conducted at the LAI class level.

          Conclusions

          Based on multiple studies with varying sub-types of patient populations with schizophrenia in the United States published in the last decade, this meta-analysis demonstrated that LAI antipsychotics were associated with improved medication adherence and significant clinical benefit such as reduced hospitalizations and ER admissions compared with OA. The lower medical costs offset the higher pharmacy costs, resulting in a non-significant difference in total healthcare costs. Taken together, these findings provide strong evidence on the clinical and economic benefits of LAI compared with OA for the treatment of schizophrenia in the real world.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40263-021-00815-y.

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

            Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Schizophrenia

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Philippe.Thompson-Leduc@analysisgroup.com
                Journal
                CNS Drugs
                CNS Drugs
                CNS Drugs
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1172-7047
                1179-1934
                28 April 2021
                28 April 2021
                2021
                : 35
                : 5
                : 469-481
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.497530.c, ISNI 0000 0004 0389 4927, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, ; Titusville, NJ USA
                [2 ]Analysis Group, Inc., Montreal, QC Canada
                [3 ]GRID grid.417986.5, ISNI 0000 0004 4660 9516, Analysis Group, Inc, ; Boston, MA USA
                Article
                815
                10.1007/s40263-021-00815-y
                8144083
                33909272
                8c55315f-e5b6-462c-99bc-ea392542259b
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 29 March 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004331, Johnson and Johnson;
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content272

                Cited by35

                Most referenced authors882