METHODS: A hybrid model of a decision tree and Markov model was developed to evaluate 3 strategies for treating newly diagnosed epilepsy among adults: (i) CBZ initiation without HLA-B*15:02 screening (current practice); (ii) universal HLA-B*15:02 screening prior to CBZ initiation; and (iii) alternative prescribing without HLA-B*15:02 screening. The model was populated with real-world inputs derived from the Malaysian population. From a societal perspective, base-case analysis and sensitivity analyses estimated the costs and outcomes over a lifetime. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.
RESULTS: In the base-cases analysis, universal HLA-B*15:02 screening yielded the lowest total costs and the highest total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Compared with current practice, universal screening was less costly by USD100 and more effective by QALYs increase of 0.1306, while alternative prescribing resulted in 0.1383 QALYs loss at additional costs of USD332. The highest seizure remission rate (56%) was estimated for universal HLA-B*15:02 screening vs. current practice (54%) and alternative prescribing (48%).
CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that universal HLA-B*15:02 screening is a cost-effective intervention in Malaysia. With the demonstrated value of real-world evidence in economic evaluations, more relevant standardization efforts should be emphasized to better inform decision-making.
METHODS: This was an open-label, prospective, observational study involving 339 patients from Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Clinical Global Impression Severity scale (CGI-S), and safety parameters were assessed.
RESULTS: 62% of patients responded to olanzapine treatment, defined a priori as a reduction in BPRS of > 40% from baseline. Following the 8-week treatment period, the BPRS total, BPRS positive, BPRS negative, and CGI-S scores decreased by 18.7 (95% CI: 17.4, 20.2), 6.1 (5.6, 6.6), 2.9 (2.6, 3.2), and 1.5 points (median 1.0), respectively (p < 0.0001). In total, 31 of the 339 patients (9.1%) failed to complete the study according to the study description. Loss to follow-up and personal conflict were the most common reasons for discontinuation. There were 30 treatment-emergent adverse events with six serious cases, assessed as unrelated to study drug, reported.
CONCLUSION: This study further demonstrates the effectiveness and safety of olanzapine in actual clinical practice settings, in reducing the severity of psychopathological symptoms in Asian patients with schizophrenia.
METHODS: This cross-sectional survey across 15 Asian countries/territories collected socio-demographic and clinical data with standardized procedures between March and May 2016. The socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients were recorded with a standardized questionnaire.
RESULTS: Altogether 3,537 adult patients with schizophrenia were consecutively screened and enrolled in the survey. The mean age was 38.66 ± 11.55 years and 59.7% of the sample were male. The mean dose of antipsychotics in chlorpromazine equivalents (CPZeq) was 424 ± 376 mg/day; 31.3% and 80.8% received first- and second- generation antipsychotics, respectively and 42.6% had antipsychotic polypharmacy, 11.7% had antidepressants, 13.7% had mood stabilizers, 27.8% had benzodiazepines, and 45.6% had anticholinergics.
CONCLUSIONS: Psychotropic prescription patterns in Asian adult patients with schizophrenia varied across countries. Regular surveys on psychotropic medications for schizophrenia are important to monitor pharmacotherapy practice in Asia.