↓ Skip to main content

Cost-Minimisation Analysis of Paliperidone Palmitate Long-Acting Treatment versus Risperidone Long-Acting Treatment for Schizophrenia in Spain

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Drug Investigation, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Cost-Minimisation Analysis of Paliperidone Palmitate Long-Acting Treatment versus Risperidone Long-Acting Treatment for Schizophrenia in Spain
Published in
Clinical Drug Investigation, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40261-016-0393-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Javier Quintero, Itziar Oyagüez, Beatriz González, Ignacio Cuervo-Arango, Ignacio García, Miguel Angel Casado

Abstract

Long-acting formulations for paliperidone (PPLAT) and risperidone (RLAT) are effective second-generation antipsychotics. This study aimed to compare treatment costs between PPLAT and RLAT in schizophrenia patients. A cost-minimization analysis was performed from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System (NHS), in line with the approach accepted by the Scottish Medicine Consortium evaluation. Only direct health costs (€, 2015) were included, i.e. medication (including oral antipsychotic drug supplementation), hospitalization and cost of administration in the community. Two time horizons were used: 1 year (to compare initiation treatment) and 2 years (to compare maintenance treatment). Base-case considered the following assumptions: setting for treatment initiation (50 % hospital and 50 % community); 50 % of patients initiating from a long-acting treatment and 50 % from an oral antipsychotic; no reduction in the length of stay. One-way sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed. The estimated costs/patient were €7698 (PPLAT) and €8168 (RLAT) for the first year, and €4314 (PPLAT) and €5003 (RLAT) for the second year. Cost savings related to PPLAT therapy were €470 and €689 for first and second year, respectively. SA results confirmed the robustness of the model results, even in the most conservative scenarios: (1) if 100 % of patients initiate treatment in hospital, the savings could be €454 per patient; (2) if 100 % of patients initiate treatment from an oral antipsychotic, the savings could be €277 per patient/year; and (3) if PPLAT could not reduce the length of stay by approximately one-third, as some studies indicate, the savings could be €470 per patient/year. The use of PPLAT instead of RLAT could be a cost-saving strategy for the Spanish NHS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 23%
Other 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2016.
All research outputs
#17,795,140
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Drug Investigation
#778
of 962 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,098
of 299,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Drug Investigation
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 962 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,501 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.