ArticleThe British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science2025
Cost-effectiveness of ten commonly used antipsychotics in first-episode schizophrenia in the UK: economic evaluation based on a
Article in The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toolkit for multistate disease progression simulation and treatment decision-making aid.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment strategies initiating with second-generation antipsychotic long-acting injectables in patients with schizophrenia in the United States.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Models for Predicting Antipsychotic Effectiveness and Separate Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Hospitalized Schizophrenia Patients.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2026Article
- Long-acting injectable antipsychotics for patients with first-episode and early-phase schizophrenia: still not considered often enough.CNS spectrums · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious economic evidence about interventions for schizophrenia is outdated, non-transparent and/or limited to a specific clinical context.
aimsWe developed a
methodThe DES model was developed based on the structure of previous models, populated with demographic, clinical and cost data from the UK, and antipsychotics' effects from recent network meta-analyses. We simulated treatment pathways for patients with first-episode schizophrenia including events such as relapse, remission, treatment discontinuation, cardiovascular disease and death and estimated costs (2020£) taking the National Health Service perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over ten years. Using the model, we ranked ten first-line antipsychotics based on their QALYs and cost-effectiveness.
resultsAmisulpride was associated with the highest QALYs, followed by risperidone long-acting injection (LAI), aripiprazole-LAI (6.121, 6.084, 6.070, respectively) and others (5.947-6.058). The most cost-effective antipsychotics were amisulpride, olanzapine and risperidone-LAI, with total probability of rankings of 1, ≤2, ≤3, that is, 95%, 89%, 80%, respectively; meanwhile, the least cost-effective were cariprazine, lurasidone and quetiapine, with total probability of rankings of 10, ≥9, ≥8, that is, 96%, 92%, 81%, respectively. Results were robust across sensitivity analyses and influenced primarily by relapse relevant parameters.
conclusionsOur findings suggest amisulpride (or risperidone-LAI where oral treatment is inappropriate) as the best overall first-line option based on QALYs and cost-effectiveness. Our ranking may be used to guide decision-making between antipsychotics. Our model is open source and could be applied to the other settings.
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.