“
“Objective: To estimate the cost effectiveness of olanzapine and risperidone for the treatment of schizophrenia in Belgium.

Methods: Data were retrieved from a prospective, observational, non-randomized,

follow-up survey. Clinical investigators assigned 265 patients with schizophrenia to either olanzapine (n = 136) or risperidone (n = 129). Patients were followed up for 2 years. Total healthcare costs were determined from the public payer perspective and calculated by multiplying resource use with official tariffs; effectiveness of the drugs was measured with the EQ-5D. This study uses a net-benefit regression approach to accommodate for baseline differences between treatment groups and uncertainty.

Results: Total Selleckchem Bcl2 inhibitor 2-year costs were very similar for patients receiving risperidone and olanzapine ((sic)20 915.33 and (sic)20 569.69, respectively; p = 0.925) [year 2002 values]. The health condition of the patients receiving risperidone was better than that of patients receiving olanzapine but not significantly so (1.46 and 1.41, respectively; p=0.191). Simple ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions indicated that, for lambda = (sic)40 000, we could not reject the null hypothesis that the drugs provide similar net monetary benefits to the patient (risperidone vs olanzapine (sic)2046.95; p = 0.656). When we controlled for several patient characteristics, risperidone moved further away from olanzapine

but the difference did not reach statistical significance (risperidone vs olanzapine (sic)3198.07; learn more p = 0.595). Numerous sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of www.selleckchem.com/products/cilengitide-emd-121974-nsc-707544.html the results.

Conclusion: Results of this study suggest that it is important to control for baseline patient characteristics when performing a cost-effectiveness analysis. No significant difference in net monetary benefit was found between risperidone and olanzapine.”
“BACKGROUND

Adverse reactions to injectable filler may be challenging to treat. The spectrum of treatment options ranges from immunomodulatory drugs (e.g., glucocorticosteroids) to antibiotics to laser therapy and surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess how adverse reactions were treated and how they processed

over time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants from the Injectable Filler Safety (IFS) Study were reinterviewed to obtain data on the course of adverse reactions and the therapy.

RESULTS

Forty-one participants from the IFS Study were reinterviewed; 35 (85%) received treatment, 17 (41%) with a combination of drug therapy and surgery, 14 (34%) with drug therapy only, and four (10%) with a surgical intervention. Six (15%) did not receive any treatment. Fifty-one percent of all of the treated participants reported treatment-related adverse reactions. Participants with more severe adverse reactions were more likely to be treated with a combination of drugs and surgery. In all participants, adverse reactions improved.

CONCLUSION

We certainly need more evidence.