Real-World Effectiveness, Economic, and Humanistic Outcomes of Selected Oral Antipsychotics in Patients with Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review Evaluating Global Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keyuri Adhikari,1,* Khalid M Kamal,1,* Ki Jin Jeun,1 David A Nolfi,2 Mohammed Najeeb Ashraf,3 Christopher Zacker4 1Department of Pharmaceutical Systems and Policy, West Virginia University School of Pharmacy, Morgantown, WV, USA; 2Gumberg Library, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; 3Medical Affairs, SciVoc Consulting Inc, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 4Global Value & Access, Cerevel Therapeutics, Cambridge, MA, USA*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Khalid M Kamal, Department of Pharmaceutical Systems and Policy, West Virginia University School of Pharmacy, Email kkamal@hsc.wvu.eduBackground: Schizophrenia is a complex, chronic mental health disorder that confers a substantial disease burden globally. Oral antipsychotic treatments (OATs) are the mainstay for treating early and advanced stages of schizophrenia. Our systematic review aimed to synthesize literature describing real-world effectiveness, economic, and humanistic outcomes of OATs (asenapine, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, iloperidone, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine/samidorphan, paliperidone, and quetiapine) for successful management of the disease.Methods: PubMed, American Psychological Association PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies reporting real-world effectiveness, costs, humanistic, behavioral (eg, interpersonal relations, suicide ideation), medication adherence, and product-switching outcomes for selected OATs published in English from January 2010 to March 2022 were identified and evaluated qualitatively.Results: We included 48 studies with different designs providing extensive evidence on schizophrenia. All studies were conducted in countries outside of the United States. In most studies, antipsychotic medications were more effective than placebo, suggesting their value in the management of schizophrenia. Sixteen studies measured the economic outcomes of OATs. Eight studies assessed humanistic outcomes, while one reported behavioral outcomes in three second-generation antipsychotics. Medication adherence was described in two studies, while five studies evaluated product switching. Non-adherence was commonly reported for OATs. Medication non-adherence and treatment discontinuation were predominant factors contributing to the economic burden of schizophrenia.Conclusion: Our research showcased a significant knowledge gap across OATs spanning the humanistic and behavioral outcomes and medication adherence and switching, suggesting a need for robust evidence generation to help clinicians and payers make informed decisions regarding treatment opportunities and cost-effective strategies for patients with schizophrenia.Keywords: schizophrenia, behavioral outcomes, cost-effectiveness, humanistic outcomes, medication adherence, product switching
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".