ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Cost-utility analysis of lurasidone for the first-line treatment of schizophrenia in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-utility analysis of using paliperidone palmitate in schizophrenia in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of selexipag for the combined treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lurasidone compared with olanzapine and risperidone in the first-line treatment of patients with schizophrenia from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A Markov model with 6-week cycle was constructed to reflect the disease progression of schizophrenia patients in the acute and maintenance phase. Probabilities of treatment discontinuation and adverse events in the acute phase were derived from the 6-week lurasidone clinical trial and a published network meta-analysis; long-term risks of relapse and discontinuation were estimated based on the 12-month lurasidone clinical trial and other treatment comparison studies. Cost inputs were derived from published literature and Chinese official documents, supplemented by expert opinions when necessary. Utility values were taken from published literature. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed over 15 years with a discount rate of 5% per year. Results: Over a 15-year time horizon, lurasidone yielded an improvement of 0.197 QALYs with a cost saving of CN¥12,093 (US$1,753) vs. olanzapine and an improvement of 0.116 QALYs with a cost saving of CN¥6,781 (US$983) vs. risperidone. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated robust base-case results since all analyses yielded net monetary benefits >0 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of CN¥72,447.00 (US$10,499.57)/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that lurasidone had 99.7, 99.9, and 100% probability of being cost-effective vs. olanzapine and risperidone at the conventional decision thresholds of 1, 2, and 3 times the Chinese per capita gross domestic product [namely CN¥72,447.00 (US$10,499.57)/QALY, CN¥1,44,894.00 (US$20,999.13)/QALY, and CN¥2,17,341.00 (US$31,498.70)/QALY in 2020], respectively. Conclusion: Treatment with lurasidone was predicted to improve health outcomes and be a dominant strategy for patients with schizophrenia, compared with olanzapine and risperidone, in China.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.