Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 189–197 | Cite as

A Pharmacoeconomic analysis of compliance gains on antipsychotic medications

  • Joep Damen
  • Per-Olof Thuresson
  • Bart Heeg
  • Mickael Lothgren
Original Research Article



Compliance among patients with schizophrenia is typically poor. Consequently, treatments that are equally efficacious under trial-based conditions but face different compliance rates in clinical practice (e.g. due to adverse-effect profile, ease of use, reputation) may have differences in effectiveness not observed during trials. This study analyses the impact of differences in compliance with atypical antipsychotics using a pharmacoeconomic discrete-event simulation (DES) model, adapted to the Swedish treatment setting.


An existing 5-year DES model was adapted to reflect a Swedish setting; the analysis was conducted from a third-party payer perspective, with only direct costs included.

The two treatment arms were identical except for percentage of compliant patients. Non-compliant patients experienced shorter time between relapses and had inferior symptom control than their compliant counterparts. The difference in compliance rates was varied from 0% to 15%, and incremental costs and effects were recorded and analysed.


With a 5%, 10% and 15% difference in compliance rate, incremental effects increased to 0.021, 0.037 and 0.062, respectively, while generating cost savings of Swedish kronor (SEK)31 500, SEK62 000 and SEK104 500, respectively (SEK9.25 = €1, year 2007 values). Hence, each percentage point of compliance gain is predicted to roughly result in a cost saving of SEK6000 and a QALY gain of 0.004. On average, the model predicts that, with a 15% increase in compliance, 0.5 relapses are prevented, the average Positive And Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score decreases by 3.3 points and patients spend 22 fewer days in hospital over 5 years.


The DES model predicts that increases in compliance may lead to considerable cost savings and health improvements. Therefore, when determining the cost effectiveness of a new antipsychotic, efficacy rates from clinical trials should not be taken at face value, but should be interpreted in tandem with expectations concerning compliance, in light of product characteristics such as adverse effects. These results further suggest that efforts to improve compliance among patients with schizophrenia are expected to prove cost effective if compliance gains and the resulting health improvements and cost savings are in balance with the additional costs.


Schizophrenia Atypical Antipsychotic Compliance Rate Medication Possession Ratio Compliant Patient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Joep Damen and Bart Heeg worked as consultants for Janssen-Cilag for the purpose of this study. Mickael Lothgren is an employee of Janssen-Cilag. Funding for this study was provided by Janssen-Cilag.


  1. 1.
    Valenstein M, Ganoczy D, McCarthy JF, et al. Antipsychotic adherence over time among patients receiving treatment for schizophrenia: a retrospective review. J Clin Psychiatry 2006; 67(10): 1542–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eaddy M, Grogg A, Locklear J. Assessment of compliance with antipsychotic treatment and resource utilization in a Medicaid population. Clin Ther 2005; 27(2): 263–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weiden P, Kozma C, Grogg A, et al. Partial compliance and risk of rehospitalization among California Medicaid patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatr Serv 2004; 55: 886–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gilmer TP, Dolder CR, Lacro JP, et al. Adherence to treatment with antipsychotic medication and health care costs among medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161: 692–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lindstrom E, Bingefors K. Patient compliance with drug therapy in schizophrenia: economic and clinical issues. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18(2): 105–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fleischhacker W, Oehl M, Hummer M. Factors influencing compliance in schizophrenia patients. J Clin Psychiatry 2003; 64: S3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Citrome L, Volavka J. The promise of atypical antipsychotics: fewer side effects mean enhanced compliance and improved functioning. Postgrad Med 2004; 116(4): 49–9, 63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mortimer A, Williams P, Meddis D. Impact of side-effects of atypical antipsychotics on non-compliance, relapse and cost. J Int Med Res 2003; 31(3): 188–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gianfrancesco FD, Rajagopalan K, Sajatovic M, et al. Treatment adherence among patients with schizophrenia treated with atypical and typical antipsychotics. Psychiatry Res 2006; 144(2-3): 177–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lambert M, Conus P, Eide P, et al. Impact of present and past antipsychotic side effects on attitude toward typical antipsychotic treatment and adherence. Eur Psychiatry 2004; 19: 415–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marder SR. Overview of partial compliance. J Clin Psychiatry 2003; 64 Suppl. 16: 3–9Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fleischhacker WW, Meise U, Gunther V, et al. Compliance with antipsychotic drug treatment: influence of side effects. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 1994; 382: 11–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buckley PF, Wirshing DA, Bhushan P, et al. Lack of insight in schizophrenia: impact on treatment adherence. CNS Drugs 2007; 21(2): 129–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heeg BMS, Buskens E, Knapp M, et al. Modelling the treated course of schizophrenia: development of a discrete event simulation model. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 Suppl. 1: 17–33Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karnon J, Brown J. Selecting a decision model for economic evaluation: a case study and review. Health Care Manag Sci 1998; 1: 133–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keks N, Ingham M, Khan A, et al. Long-acting injectable risperidone v. olanzapine tablets for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 191: 131–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Csernansky J, Schuchart EK. Relapse and rehospitalisation rates in patients with schizophrenia: effects of second generation antipsychotics. CNS Drugs 2002; 16: 473–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Travis MJ, Peters E, Kerwin R. Managing relapse in schizophrenia. Institute of psychiatry. London: Science Press, 2001Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lenert L, Sturley A, Rapaport M, et al. Public preferences for health states with schizophrenia and a mapping function to estimate utilities from positive and negative symptom scale scores. Schizophr Res 2004; 71: 155–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heeg B, Buskens E, Botteman M, et al. The cost-effectiveness of atypicals in the UK. Value Health. Epub 2008 May 15Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thieda P, Beard S, Richter A, et al. An economic review of compliance therapy with medication in the treatment of schizophrenia. Psychiatr Serv 2003; 54: 508–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olfson M, Mechanic D, Hansell S, et al. Predicting medication non-compliance after hospitalization discharge among patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatr Serv 2000; 51: 216–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Remington G, Adams M. Depot neuroleptic therapy: clinical considerations. Can J Psychiatry 1995; 40: S5–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gerlach J. Depot neuroleptics in relapse prevention: advantages and disadvantages. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1995; 9: S17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Csernansky JG, Mahmoud R, Brenner R. A comparison of risperidone and haloperidol for the prevention of relapse in patients with schizophrenia. N Engl J Med 2002; 346(1): 16–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hunt GE, Bergen J, Bashir M. Medication compliance and comorbid substance abuse in schizophrenia: impact on community survival 4 years after a relapse. Schizophr Res 2002; 54: 253–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Health Care Insurance Board. Pharmacopoeia the Netherlands. Amstelveen: Health Care Insurance Board, 2002Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hogarty GE. Depot neuroleptics: the relevance of psychosocial factors: a United States perspective. J Clin Psychiatry 1984; 45: 36–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Geddes J, Freemantle N, Harrison P, et al. Atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: systematic overview and meta-regression analysis. BMJ 2000; 321: 1371–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lindenmayer JP, Czobor P, Volavka J, et al. Effects of atypical antipsychotics on the syndromal profile in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. J Clin Psychiatry 2004; 4: 551–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rubio G, Martinez I, Ponce G, et al. Long-acting injectable risperidone compared with zuclopenthixol in the treatment of schizophrenia with substance abuse comorbidity. Can J Psychiatry 2006; 51(8): 531–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mahmoud R, Engelhart L, Janagap C, et al. Risperidone versus conventional antipsychotics for schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder: symptoms, quality of life and resource use under customary clinical care. Clin Drug Invest 2004; 24: 275–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Regionsjukvårdsnämnden. Prices and reimbursement of healthcare in the South East region 2007. Regional Board of Healthcare [in Swedish online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2009 Mar 24]
  34. 34.
    Socialstyrelsen och Statistiska centralbyrån. Comparative number for the social service year 2005. National Board of Health 2006 [in Swedish online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2009 Mar 24]Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Statistics Sweden. CPI: indices for main groups, annual averages. March 2008 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2009 Mar 24]
  36. 36.
    Pharmaceutical Benefits Board Sweden. General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFNAR 2003: 2) [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2009 Mar 24]
  37. 37.
    FXCM Active Trader [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2007 Aug 2]
  38. 38.
    Lindgren P, Stenestrand U, Malmberg K, et al. The long-term cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel plus aspirin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Sweden. Clin Ther 2005; 27: 100–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McEvoy JP, Lieberman JA, Perkins DO, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in the treatment of early psychosis: a randomized, double-blind 52-week comparison. Am J Psychiatry 2007; 164(7): 1050–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Glick ID, Berg Ph. Time to study discontinuation, relapse, and compliance with atypical or conventional antipsychotics in schizophrenia and related disorders. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2002; 17(2): 65–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ascher-Svanum H, Zhu B, Faries D, et al. Time to discontinuation of atypical versus typical antipsychotics in the naturalistic treatment of schizophrenia. BMC Psychiatry 2006; 6: 8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lieberman J, Stroup S, McEvoy P, et al. Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in patients with chronic schizophrenia. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1209–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tunis S, Faries D, Nyhuis AW, et al. Cost-effectiveness of olanzapine as first-line treatment for chizophrenia: results from a randomized, open-label, 1-year trial. Value Health 2006; 9: 77–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Guest J, Cookson R. Cost of schizophrenia to UK society: an incident based cost-of-illness model for the first 5 years following diagnosis. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15(6): 597–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Arvidsson H, Ericson BG. The development of psychiatric care after the mental health care reform in Sweden: a case register study. Nord J Psychiatry 2005; 59(3): 186–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mason P, Harrison G, Glazebrook C, et al. The course of schizophrenia over 13 years: a report from the international study on schizophrenia (ISos) coordinated by the World Health Organisation. Br J Psychiatr 1996; 169: 580–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    McIntosh AM, Conlon L, Lawrie SM, et al. Compliance therapy for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 3: CD003442PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    de Millas W, Lambert M, Naber D. The impact of subjective well-being under neuroleptic treatment on compliance and remission. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2006; 8(1): 131–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Naber D, Karow A, Lambert M. Subjective well-being under the neuroleptic treatment and its relevance for compliance. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 2005; 427: 29–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Karow A, Czekalla J, Dittmann RW, et al. Association of subjective well-being, symptoms, and side effects with compliance after 12 months of treatment in schizophrenia. J Clin Psychiatry 2007; 68(1): 75–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mutsatsa SH, Joyce EM, Hutton SB, et al. Clinical correlates of early medication adherence: West London first episode schizophrenia study. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2003; 108(6): 439–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joep Damen
    • 1
  • Per-Olof Thuresson
    • 1
  • Bart Heeg
    • 1
  • Mickael Lothgren
    • 2
  1. 1.PharMerit BVRotterdamthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Janssen-CilagStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations