Schizophrenia treatment in the developing world: an interregional and multinational cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Schizophrenia is a highly disabling disease and is costly to treat. We set out to establish what are the most cost-effective interventions applicable to developing regions and countries. METHODS: Analysis was undertaken at the level of three WHO subregions spanning the Americas, Africa an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Bulletin of the World Health Organization Vol. 86; no. 7; pp. 542 - 552
Autores principales: Chisholm D, Gureje O, Saldivia S, Villalon Calderon M, Wickremasinghe R, Mendis N, Ayuso-Mateos J, Saxena S
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: World Health Organization Jul2008
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: Schizophrenia is a highly disabling disease and is costly to treat. We set out to establish what are the most cost-effective interventions applicable to developing regions and countries. METHODS: Analysis was undertaken at the level of three WHO subregions spanning the Americas, Africa and South-East Asia, and subsequently in three member states (Chile, Nigeria and Sri Lanka). A state transition model was used to estimate the population-level health impact of older and newer antipsychotic drugs, alone or in combination with psychosocial intervention. Total population-level costs (in international dollars or local currencies) and effectiveness (measured in disability-adjusted life years averted) were combined to form cost-effectiveness ratios. FINDINGS: The most cost-effective interventions were those using older antipsychotic drugs combined with psychosocial treatment, delivered via a community-based service model (I$ 2350-7158 per disability-adjusted life year averted across the three subregions, I$ 1670-3400 following country-level contextualisation within each of these subregions). The relative cost-effectiveness of interventions making use of newer, 'atypical' antipsychotic drugs is estimated to be much less favourable. CONCLUSION: By moving to a community-based service model and selecting efficient treatment options, the cost of substantially increasing treatment coverage is not high (less than I$ 1 investment per capita). Taken together with other priority-setting criteria such as disease severity, vulnerability and human rights protection, this study suggests that a great deal more could be done for persons and families living under the spectre of this disorder.