SynthesisCNS drugs2005
Head-to-head comparison of the costs of atypical antipsychotics: a systematic review.
Synthesis in CNS drugs, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In many countries, prescribing guidelines recommend the use of atypical or second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in the first-line treatment of individuals with newly diagnosed schizophrenia. This recommendation has increased the utilisation of these agents and, consequently, produced a progressive increase in the proportion of total direct costs in schizophrenia accounted for by drug therapy. In this still-evolving context of care, it becomes relevant to critically investigate the literature base on the relative cost effectiveness of each SGA in comparison with the others, the purpose being to ascertain whether the data reveal any one agent to be truly more cost effective than the others.A systematic search of economic evaluations comparing two or more SGAs yielded 19 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 were retrospective database or chart review analyses, six were observational prospective or mirror-image studies, and two were randomised clinical trials. Olanzapine and risperidone were compared in 16 studies, two studies compared clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone, and one compared clozapine and risperidone. While experimental studies indicated an absence of differences among the SGAs in terms of total expenditure, database analyses found contrasting evidence. These latter studies, although susceptible to bias and confounding, should theoretically provide an added dimension, in that they are based on observations from 'real world' practice. However, there were too many potential threats to the validity of these analyses to draw a firm conclusion that any one agent is truly more cost effective than the others. In this uncertain situation, clinicians and policy makers should be aware that indirect evidence from independent randomised controlled trials comparing individual SGAs with haloperidol suggested similar cost effectiveness. As healthcare providers in different settings are ultimately the ones who pay for new innovations, it seems appropriate that they commission research into the cost effectiveness of SGAs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16268665What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.