Cost and Outcome Implications of Using Typical and Atypical Antipsychotics in Ordinary Practice in Italy
J Clin Psychiatry 2003;64(11):1293-1299
© Copyright 2016 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
Purchase This PDF for $40.00
If you are not a paid subscriber, you may purchase the PDF.
(You'll need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
Receive immediate full-text access to JCP. You can subscribe to JCP online-only ($86) or print + online ($156 individual).
With your subscription, receive a free PDF collection of the NCDEU Festschrift articles. Hurry! This offer ends December 31, 2011.
If you are a paid subscriber to JCP and do not yet have a username and password, activate your subscription now.
As a paid subscriber who has activated your subscription, you have access to the HTML and PDF versions of this item.
Click here to login.
Did you forget your password?
Still can't log in? Contact the Circulation Department at 1-800-489-1001 x4 or send email
Background: It is uncertain whether
atypical antipsychotic agents, as prescribed in ordinary
practice, are a cost-effective alternative to conventional
agents. This study examined the financial and clinical
implications of using atypical antipsychotics in the context of
community psychiatric care in Italy.
Method: Service costs and outcome data over a
24-month period (June-November 1999 to June-November 2001) were
compared between 2 cohorts of ICD-10-diagnosed subjects, the
first including patients receiving atypical and the second
typical antipsychotics, according to the type of treatment
received at the beginning of the study.
Results: At baseline, 183 subjects were under
treatment with antipsychotic drugs, of whom 73 were treated with
atypical agents. Most patients had a diagnosis of schizophrenia
and only a minority were first-contact patients. Conventional
antipsychotics were used in more chronic and elderly patients,
while atypicals were prescribed in more severe and recently
diagnosed cases. After background group differences were
controlled for, the use of atypical agents was neither predictive
of higher total health care costs nor of better patient outcome.
Predictors of higher costs and better outcome were severity of
illness at baseline and first-contact patients.
Conclusions: The introduction of atypical agents
had a small impact in terms of total health care costs and
outcome, and more important than the agent prescribed was the
severity of illness.