advertisement
Home » News » New Anti-Psychotic Drugs Not Worth the Cost?

New Anti-Psychotic Drugs Not Worth the Cost?

A study led by University of Manchester scientist has found that schizophrenia patients respond just as well – and perhaps even better – to older psychiatric drugs as compared to newer, costlier alternatives.

According to researchers, patients with schizophrenia whose medication is being changed gain little benefit from being put on the newer drugs – despite their much larger market share. This runs contrary to the widely-held view that second-generation anti-psychotics are safer and more effective than the less expensive first-generation.

New Anti-Psychotic Drugs Not Worth the Cost?One second generation drug did perform better in clinical trials as clozapine stood out from the others in terms of effectiveness for people with severe schizophrenia. “This drug improved quality of life and symptoms better than the other newer drugs, and patients preferred it,” said study leader Professor Shôn Lewis said.

The Manchester study is found in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

Another study analyzing the economic implications of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) also concluded that an older (first generation) antipsychotic medication, perphenazine, was less expensive and no less effective than the newer (second generation) medications used in the trial during initial treatment. This study was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry on December 1, 2006, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).

Antipsychotic medication is the main method of treating schizophrenia, with most UK patients currently receiving second-generation drugs through the NHS which cost at least 10 times more than their predecessors. Previous, industry-sponsored trials reported these newer drugs to be more effective and better tolerated, leading most experts to currently recommend using them first despite their additional cost.

Professor Lewis said: “The development of second-generation anti-psychotics was thought to be a major advance, as the first trials seemed to show they reduced side effects. Claims that they were also more effective than first-generation drugs shifted treatment patterns away from these medications, even though previous research comparing the drug classes has had mixed results.”

The NHS commissioned the study – the first ever to compare treatment results in this area – to assess whether the additional costs of second-generation anti-psychotics were off-set by improvements in patients’ quality of life or reductions in the use of health and social care services.

“We undertook the study thinking that we would show the NHS that their misgivings about the previous data were unfounded,” Professor Lewis said.

The team, which includes colleagues at the University of Cambridge, Institute of Psychiatry and Imperial College London, studied 227 schizophrenia patients for whom a change in drug treatment was being considered (because of ineffectiveness or harmful side effects). The participants were randomly assigned to receive one class of drug or the other, with doctors determining which of the first- or second-generation medications would be best for each patient. They were assessed before and 12, 26 and 52 weeks after the change in treatment using a quality of life scale, and symptoms, side effects, treatment costs and satisfaction with the drug were also measured. The results failed to reveal the advantage in side effects or effectiveness predicted for the second generation drugs; instead there was a trend towards the older drugs working better.

Professor Lewis said: “We estimated that the second-generation anti-psychotics would produce a five-point improvement in quality of life scores, compared with first-generation anti-psychotics. But after 12 weeks, the quality of life scores averaged 49.2 for the first-generation group and 46.6 for the second-generation group.” After 26 weeks, the first-generation group score averaged 49.2, compared with and 50.4 for second-generation, but after a year it was 53.2 for first-generation users and 51.3 for second-generation.

Participants in the first-generation group also showed a trend toward greater improvements in symptoms. “We were so certain we would find exactly the opposite that we went back and checked the data,” Professor Lewis continued. “But it all suggested that careful prescribing of first-generation anti-psychotics, at least in the context of a trial, is not associated with poorer efficacy or a greater adverse effect.

“However, our research suggests that, despite modern prescribing patterns, second-generation anti-psychotics are not the great breakthrough they were once thought to be – and certainly may not justify their ten-times higher price tag. Further trials to evaluate both the role of second-generation anti-psychotics in the management of schizophrenia and the usefulness of cheaper, older drugs could save the NHS millions of pounds.”

Source: University of Manchester

New Anti-Psychotic Drugs Not Worth the Cost?

Rick Nauert PhD

Rick Nauert, PhDDr. Rick Nauert has over 25 years experience in clinical, administrative and academic healthcare. He is currently an associate professor for Rocky Mountain University of Health Professionals doctoral program in health promotion and wellness. Dr. Nauert began his career as a clinical physical therapist and served as a regional manager for a publicly traded multidisciplinary rehabilitation agency for 12 years. He has masters degrees in health-fitness management and healthcare administration and a doctoral degree from The University of Texas at Austin focused on health care informatics, health administration, health education and health policy. His research efforts included the area of telehealth with a specialty in disease management.

APA Reference
Nauert PhD, R. (2015). New Anti-Psychotic Drugs Not Worth the Cost?. Psych Central. Retrieved on September 25, 2018, from https://psychcentral.com/news/2006/12/06/new-anti-psychotic-drugs-not-worth-the-cost/456.html

 

Scientifically Reviewed
Last updated: 6 Oct 2015
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 6 Oct 2015
Published on PsychCentral.com. All rights reserved.