Economic outcomes associated with the use of risperidone in a naturalistic group practice setting

The purpose of this cohort pilot study was to compare the resource utilization and economic outcomes associated with the use of risperidone versus haloperidol in a naturalistic setting. Patient charts from a large psychiatric group practice were reviewed, and hospital billing data were obtained. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria were placed into one of two cohorts depending on their medication history. Thirty patients treated with risperidone met the selection criteria, and a random quota sampling technique was used to allow for a matched control cohort of 30 patients treated with haloperidol. In the haloperidol and risperidone cohorts, 24 and 28 patients, respectively, were evaluated statistically. Mean utilization rates and costs per patient per month for each service were estimated by using regression analysis. Patients in the risperidone cohort had significantly fewer hospitalizations than did those in the haloperidol cohort (P = 0.004). Likewise, risperidone patients had significantly lower hospitalization costs than haloperidol patients (P = 0.005). Conversely, patients treated with risperidone visited the physician more frequently than did those treated with haloperidol (P = 0.0005). Estimated mean total monthly costs were $123.34 lower (95% confidence interval = $464, $217) per patient in the risperidone cohort than in the haloperidol cohort ($1,636.11 vs $1759.45; P = 0.4693). Significant reductions in hospital costs in the risperidone cohort offset higher medication and physician costs. Overall, total monthly costs were similar for the two cohorts.