Comparative cost-effectiveness of 11 oral antipsychotics for relapse prevention in XXXX within Singapore using effectiveness estimates from a network meta-analysis.

@entity1 @entity7302 @entity146 @entity1280 @entity6105 @entity3216 @entity2644 @entity161 @entity1767 @entity14867 @entity1037 @entity1770 @entity1089 @entity1090
UNASSIGNED: This study modelled the cost-effectiveness of 11 oral antipsychotics for relapse prevention among @entity1 with remitted @entity161 in Singapore. A network meta-analysis determined the relative efficacy and tolerability of 11 oral antipsychotics ( @entity14867 , @entity1770 , @entity2644 , @entity1767 , @entity1037 , @entity7302 , @entity1089 , @entity1090 , @entity3216 , @entity6105 and @entity1280 ). The clinical estimates were applied in a Markov model to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years gained. Quality-of-life data were obtained from published literature. Resource utilization and cost data were retrieved from local hospital databases. The annual direct cost of healthcare services for a @entity1 experiencing a relapse episode was three-fold that of a @entity1 not in relapse of @entity161 . The most favourable pharmacological treatment for relapse prevention was @entity1037 with an annual probability of relapse of 0.24 (0.13-0.38) with placebo as a reference of 0.75 (0.73-0.78). @entity1037 emerged as the dominant treatment with the highest quality-adjusted life-years gained and lowest lifetime costs. @entity1280 , @entity1770 and @entity7302 incurred higher lifetime costs compared with no treatment. Probability and cost of relapse were key drivers of cost-effectiveness in sensitivity analyses. The data can help prescribers in choosing appropriate treatment and payers in allocating resources for the clinical management of this serious @entity146 .
