journal.pone.0234996.pdf (1.18 MB)

Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia

Download (1.18 MB)
journal contribution
posted on 02.09.2020, 08:54 by Huajie Jin, Paul Tappenden, Stewart Robinson, Evanthia Achilla, David Aceituno, Sarah Byford
BACKGROUND: Numerous economic models have assessed the cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic medications in schizophrenia. It is important to understand what key impacts of antipsychotic medications were considered in the existing models and limitations of existing models in order to inform the development of future models. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aims to identify which clinical benefits, clinical harms, costs and cost savings of antipsychotic medication have been considered by existing models, to assess quality of existing models and to suggest good practice recommendations for future economic models of antipsychotic medications. METHODS: An electronic search was performed on multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, The NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database) to identify economic models of schizophrenia published between 2005-2020. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) checklist and the Cooper hierarchy. Key impacts of antipsychotic medications considered by exiting models were descriptively summarised. RESULTS: Sixty models were included. Existing models varied greatly in key impacts of antipsychotic medication included in the model, especially in clinical outcomes used for assessing reduction in psychotic symptoms and types of adverse events considered in the model. Quality of existing models was generally low due to failure to capture the health and cost impact of adverse events of antipsychotic medications and input data not obtained from best available source. Good practices for modelling antipsychotic medications are suggested. DISCUSSIONS: This review highlights inconsistency in key impacts considered by different models, and limitations of the existing models. Recommendations on future research are provided.

Funding

Medical Research Council, UK, Grant number MR/L011794/1.

History

School

  • Business and Economics

Department

  • Business

Published in

PLoS ONE

Volume

15

Issue

7

Publisher

Public Library of Science

Version

VoR (Version of Record)

Rights holder

© The Authors

Publisher statement

This is an Open Access Article. It is published by Public Library of Science under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY). Full details of this licence are available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Acceptance date

05/06/2020

Publication date

2020-07-10

Copyright date

2020

eISSN

1932-6203

Language

en

Depositor

Prof Stewart Robinson. Deposit date: 31 August 2020

Article number

e0234996

Licence

Exports

Logo branding

Categories

Licence

Exports