---
title: "LB-102 in Schizophrenia: cost-effectiveness analyses and utility weights"
description: "Published cost-effectiveness analyses and health-state utility weights for LB-102 in Schizophrenia, each value quoted from the article: 14 cost-effectiveness analyses and 10 studies reporting utility weights. Analyses: Amisulpride versus olanzapine in schizophrenia, China: Yi et al. (2020); Amisulpride, aripiprazole, olanzapine, paliperidone extended release, and risperidone versus haloperidol for reducing schizophrenia relapses, Spain: García-Ruiz et al. (2012); Olanzapine versus ten other oral antipsychotics and no treatment for relapse prevention in remitted schizophrenia, Singapore: Lin et al. (2016); Aripiprazole tablets with sensor versus generic oral atypical antipsychotics in adults with schizophrenia, United States: Chopra et al. (2023); 10 further articles. Utility weights: Utility weights for acute, remission, relapse, and discontinuation states and adverse events, schizophrenia: Yi et al. (2020); Utility weights for stable and relapse states by adherence and for adverse events, schizophrenia: Furiak et al. (2011); Utility weights for stable and relapse states by adherence level and for treatment-emergent adverse events, schizophrenia: Furiak et al. (2009); Utility weights for stable schizophrenia, relapse, and treatment-emergent adverse events, schizophrenia: Ascher-Svanum et al. (2012); 6 further articles. Every value is a verbatim quote from the primary article it is shown with."
canonical: "https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia/cost-effectiveness-analyses"
published: "2026-10-22T07:49:06-04:00"
modified: "2026-10-22T07:49:06-04:00"
---
# LB-102 in Schizophrenia: cost-effectiveness analyses and utility weights
Published cost-effectiveness analyses and health-state utility weights that a model of this product could cite, adapt, or compare against, grouped by how each article relates to the product and its indication. Every value is quoted from the article it cites, and section 3 lists the searches that found the articles.
## Overview
| Item | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| Literature searched | Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, searched October 21, 2026; the queries are listed in section 3. |
| Cost-effectiveness analyses | 14 |
| Studies reporting utility weights | 10 |
## 1 Cost-effectiveness analyses
### 1.1 Analyses of LB-102
No evidence found.
### 1.2 Treatments for the same indication
#### Amisulpride versus olanzapine in schizophrenia, China: Yi et al. (2020)
Relevance: Evaluates amisulpride, the parent compound of which LB-102 is an N-methylated version, against olanzapine in schizophrenia in China.
> “A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to simulate the lifetime clinical and economic outcomes of schizophrenia treatment from the healthcare payer perspective.”
> “Treatment with amisulpride provided an effectiveness gain of 16.59 QALYs at an average cost of USD 25,884 whereas olanzapine resulted in 16.38 QALYs at a cost of USD 34,839 over a lifetime horizon.”
> “In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on a Monte Carlo simulation with a lifetime horizon, the probability of amisulpride being cost-effective was 99.8% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 9,322, the GDP per capita in China 2018.”
> “A scenario analysis with updated olanzapine unit cost suggested an ICER of 7,857 USD/QALY.”
Source: [Yi et al. (2020)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32293194/)
#### Amisulpride, aripiprazole, olanzapine, paliperidone extended release, and risperidone versus haloperidol for reducing schizophrenia relapses, Spain: García-Ruiz et al. (2012)
Relevance: Evaluates amisulpride, the parent compound of LB-102, with aripiprazole, olanzapine, paliperidone extended release, and risperidone against haloperidol for reducing schizophrenia relapses from a Spanish National Health System perspective.
> “A decision-analytic model was developed to explore the relative cost-effectiveness of five antipsychotic medications, amisulpride, aripiprazole, olanzapine, paliperidone Extended-Release (ER) and risperidone, compared to haloperidol, over a 1-year treatment period among people living in Spain with schizophrenia.”
> “The model was run from a third party payer perspective (National Health System) during a one-year timeframe.”
> “The time horizon is less than one year thus no annual discount rate was applied”
> “Acquisition costs of antipsychotic medications (€, 2009)”
> “Paliperidone ER was the option that yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient (0.7573).”
> “In addition, paliperidone ER was the least costly strategy (€3,062), followed by risperidone (€3,194), haloperidol (€3,322), olanzapine (€3,893), amisulpride (€4,247) and aripiprazole (€4,712).”
> “In the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICE) analysis of the assessed antipsychotics compared to haloperidol, paliperidone ER and risperidone were dominant options.”
> “ICE ratios for other medications were €23,621/QALY gained, €91,584/QALY gained and €94,558/QALY gained for olanzapine, amisulpride and aripiprazole, respectively.”
Source: [García-Ruiz et al. (2012)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3402933/)
#### Olanzapine versus ten other oral antipsychotics and no treatment for relapse prevention in remitted schizophrenia, Singapore: Lin et al. (2016)
Relevance: Compares oral antipsychotics, including amisulpride, the parent compound of LB-102, for relapse prevention in remitted schizophrenia in Singapore, using relative efficacy from a network meta-analysis.
> “This study modelled the cost-effectiveness of 11 oral antipsychotics for relapse prevention among patients with remitted schizophrenia in Singapore.”
> “A network meta-analysis determined the relative efficacy and tolerability of 11 oral antipsychotics (amisulpride, aripiprazole, chlorpromazine, haloperidol, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, sulpiride, trifluoperazine and ziprasidone).”
> “The clinical estimates were applied in a Markov model to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years gained.”
> “Olanzapine emerged as the dominant treatment with the highest quality-adjusted life-years gained and lowest lifetime costs.”
> “Ziprasidone, aripiprazole and paliperidone incurred higher lifetime costs compared with no treatment.”
Source: [Lin et al. (2016)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26619182/)
#### Aripiprazole tablets with sensor versus generic oral atypical antipsychotics in adults with schizophrenia, United States: Chopra et al. (2023)
Relevance: Evaluates aripiprazole tablets with sensor against oral atypical antipsychotics, the oral second-generation class section 2 lists as standard of care, in schizophrenia in the United States from payer and societal perspectives.
> “This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole tablets with sensor (AS; Abilify MyCite ® ) versus generic oral atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) in schizophrenia from the United States payer and societal perspectives over 12 months.”
> “An individual-level microsimulation was developed to generate individual trajectories using data from a phase 3b multicenter, open-label, mirror-image trial in adults with schizophrenia”
> “Unless otherwise specified, all costs are reported in 2021 United States Dollars (USD).”
> “Over 12 months, AS had an incremental cost of $2168 and incremental cost savings of $22,343 from the payer and societal perspectives, respectively, with an incremental QALY gain of 0.0298 versus oral AAPs”
> “This resulted in an ICER of $72,752 per QALY compared to oral AAPs from the payer perspective.”
> “Over 6 months, the results were similar to those over 12 months; the use of AS incurred costs from the payer perspective but showed cost savings from the societal perspective compared to oral AAPs.”
> “At a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY, the net monetary benefit over 12 months was $25,323 from the payer perspective.”
Source: [Chopra et al. (2023)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10218468/)
#### Sequences of olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone followed by clozapine in schizophrenia, United States: Park and Kuntz (2014)
Relevance: Compares treatment sequences of the second-generation antipsychotics olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone followed by clozapine in schizophrenia in the United States.
> “We developed a Markov model to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for different sequences of treatments for 40-year-old patients with schizophrenia.”
> “We considered first-line treatment with one of the four SGAs: olanzapine (OLZ), risperidone (RSP), quetiapine (QTP), and ziprasidone (ZSD).”
> “Patients could switch to another of these antipsychotics as second-line therapy, and only clozapine (CLZ) was allowed as third-line treatment.”
> “The ZSD-QTP strategy (first-line treatment with ZSD, change to QTP if ZSD is discontinued, and switch to CLZ if QTP is discontinued) was most costly while yielding the greatest QALYs, with an incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) of $542,500 per QALY gained compared with the ZSD-RSP strategy.”
> “However, the ZSD-RSP strategy had an ICER of $5,200/QALY gained versus the RSP-ZSD strategy and had the greatest probability of being cost-effective given a willingness-to-pay threshold between $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY.”
> “All other treatment strategies were more costly and less effective than another strategy or combination of other strategies.”
Source: [Park and Kuntz (2014)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24968989/)
#### Olanzapine versus generic risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole in schizophrenia, United States: Furiak et al. (2009)
Relevance: Compares olanzapine with generic risperidone and other oral atypical antipsychotics in schizophrenia in the United States, with health states for relapse setting and adherence.
> “This study compares the cost-effectiveness of oral olanzapine, oral risperidone (at generic cost, primary comparator), quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia from the perspective of third-party payers in the U.S. health care system.”
> “A 1-year microsimulation economic decision model, with quarterly cycles, was developed to simulate the dynamic nature of usual care of schizophrenia patients who switch, continue, discontinue, and restart their medications.”
> “Costs are expressed in U.S. dollars based on 2007 values.”
> “The results of the microsimulation model indicated that olanzapine had the lowest mean annual direct health care cost ($8,544) followed by generic risperidone ($9,080).”
> “In addition, olanzapine resulted in more QALYs than risperidone (0.733 vs. 0.719).”
> “The base case and multiple sensitivity analyses found olanzapine to be the dominant choice in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness per QALY gained.”
Source: [Furiak et al. (2009)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2679720/)
#### Olanzapine long-acting injection versus paliperidone, risperidone, and haloperidol long-acting injections and oral olanzapine in non-adherent or partially adherent schizophrenia, United States: Furiak et al. (2011)
Relevance: Compares olanzapine, paliperidone, risperidone, and haloperidol long-acting injectables and oral olanzapine in schizophrenia in the United States, the long-acting injectable class section 2 lists.
Access: Not open access
> “To compare, from the perspective of third-party payers in the United States health care system, the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI, depot) with alternative antipsychotic agents including risperidone-LAI, paliperidone-LAI, haloperidol-LAI, and oral olanzapine, in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia who have been non-adherent or partially adherent with oral antipsychotics.”
> “A 1-year micro-simulation economic decision model was developed to simulate the dynamics of usual care of patients with schizophrenia who continue, discontinue, switch, or restart their medication.”
> “Model results found that the olanzapine-LAI treatment strategy was more effective (greater QALYs) and less costly than risperidone-LAI, paliperidone-LAI, and haloperidol-LAI.”
> “In addition, olanzapine-LAI was both more effective and more costly, with an estimated incremental cost/QALY of $26,824 compared to oral olanzapine.”
Source: [Furiak et al. (2011)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21265593/)
#### Paliperidone palmitate versus haloperidol decanoate long-acting injections in maintenance treatment of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, United States: Rosenheck et al. (2016)
Relevance: Evaluates long-acting injectable paliperidone palmitate against haloperidol decanoate in maintenance treatment of schizophrenia in the United States.
> “A multisite, double-blind, randomized 18-month clinical trial conducted at 22 clinical research U.S. sites with adults diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (n=311) clinically assessed to benefit from a LAI antipsychotic.”
> “Quality Adjusted Life Years was measured by a schizophrenia-specific algorithm based on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and side effect assessments; and total health care costs from the perspective of the health system.”
> “Mixed model analysis of QALYs showed PP with .027 greater QALYs over 18 months (p=.03) but also greater average quarterly inpatient, outpatient and medication costs of $2,100/quarter (p<.0001).”
> “Bootstrap analysis with 5,000 replications showed an Incremental Cost effectiveness ratio for PP of $508,241/QALY (95% CI of $122,390–$1,582,711).”
> “Net Health Benefits analysis showed a 0.98 probability of greater cost-effectiveness for HD over PP at an estimated valuation of health of $150,000/QALY and only 0.50 greater at $500,000/QALY.”
Source: [Rosenheck et al. (2016)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5048499/)
#### Clozapine as first-line versus third-line treatment in schizophrenia, United States: Wang et al. (2004)
Relevance: Evaluates the position of clozapine, which section 2 lists for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, as first-line or third-line treatment in the United States.
> “We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of allowing clozapine to be a first-line treatment versus the current policy of restricting clozapine to third-line status.”
> “We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using published data from randomized controlled trials and epidemiologic studies.”
> “The target population was patients with schizophrenia in an acute psychotic episode, with a lifetime time horizon and societal perspective.”
> “Using clozapine as a first agent would lead to modest gains in life-expectancy as well as quality-adjusted life expectancy, relative to restricting its use to patients who failed 2 conventional antipsychotics.”
> “The cost-effectiveness ratio of using clozapine first vs. using clozapine third would be $24,100 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).”
Source: [Wang et al. (2004)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15208468/)
#### Lurasidone versus aripiprazole in adults with schizophrenia, Scotland and Wales: Rajagopalan et al. (2016)
Relevance: Evaluates lurasidone against aripiprazole, the comparator of the ICER model of xanomeline-trospium quoted in section 4.1, in adults with schizophrenia in the United Kingdom.
> “We conducted a cost-utility analysis of lurasidone versus aripiprazole from the perspective of healthcare services, using Scotland and Wales as specific case studies.”
> “A 10-year Markov model, incorporating a 6-week acute phase and a maintenance phase across three health states (discontinuation, relapse, death) was constructed.”
> “Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5 %.”
> “When this was not possible, all costs were adjusted to the 2013/14 price year using the Hospital Pay and Price index.”
> “Lurasidone yielded a cost saving of £3383 and an improvement of 0.005 QALYs versus aripiprazole, in Scotland.”
> “The probability that lurasidone was a cost-effective treatment strategy was approximately 75 % at all willingness-to-pay thresholds, with similar results being obtained for the Welsh analysis.”
Source: [Rajagopalan et al. (2016)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4901121/)
#### Lurasidone versus olanzapine and risperidone as first-line treatment in schizophrenia, China: Liu et al. (2022)
Relevance: Evaluates lurasidone against olanzapine and risperidone as first-line treatment of schizophrenia from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.
> “To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lurasidone compared with olanzapine and risperidone in the first-line treatment of patients with schizophrenia from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.”
> “A Markov model with 6-week cycle was constructed to reflect the disease progression of schizophrenia patients in the acute and maintenance phase.”
> “Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed over 15 years with a discount rate of 5% per year.”
> “All costs were expressed in 2020 Chinese Yuan (CN¥) and US$”
> “Over a 15-year time horizon, lurasidone yielded an improvement of 0.197 QALYs with a cost saving of CN¥12,093 (US$1,753) vs. olanzapine and an improvement of 0.116 QALYs with a cost saving of CN¥6,781 (US$983) vs. risperidone.”
> “Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that lurasidone had 99.7, 99.9, and 100% probability of being cost-effective vs. olanzapine and risperidone at the conventional decision thresholds of 1, 2, and 3 times the Chinese per capita gross domestic product”
Source: [Liu et al. (2022)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9521600/)
#### Sequences of aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone followed by clozapine in stable schizophrenia, United Kingdom: Davies et al. (2008)
Relevance: Compares treatment sequences built from aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone and followed by clozapine in stable schizophrenia in the United Kingdom, with relapse, discontinuation, adverse events, and diabetes in the model.
Access: Not open access
> “A Markov model was developed to assess the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from 12 alternative treatment sequences each containing two of four atypical antipsychotics (aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone), followed by clozapine.”
> “Patients enter the model with stable schizophrenia and may relapse, discontinue or continue and experience adverse events (AEs), or develop diabetes.”
> “A time horizon of 10 years was adopted.”
> “Aripiprazole followed by risperidone produced the greatest number of QALYs, an additional 0.03 compared with risperidone followed by olanzapine, at an incremental cost of £257 (incremental cost/QALY: £9,440).”
> “Aripiprazole followed by risperidone had the greatest probability among evaluated sequences of being cost-effective at a threshold of >£10,000/QALY.”
> “All other strategies were dominated by at least one of these strategies.”
Source: [Davies et al. (2008)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18947458/)
#### Aripiprazole once-monthly versus paliperidone palmitate once-monthly long-acting injections in adults with schizophrenia, China: An et al. (2025)
Relevance: Evaluates once-monthly long-acting injectable aripiprazole against once-monthly paliperidone palmitate in adults with schizophrenia from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.
> “From the perspective of Chinese healthcare system, this study compared the cost-utility of aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM) and paliperidone palmitate once-monthly injectable (PP1M) in the treatment of adult patients with schizophrenia in China.”
> “A 5-state Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility of 10 years of long-acting injections (LAI) treatment for schizophrenia.”
> “The annual discount rate was set at 5%.”
> “To assess its cost-effectiveness in the context of potential price negotiations with China Healthcare Security Administration (CHS) for inclusion in the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), we simulated a 40% price reduction (US$257.619).”
> “At a CET of 0.51 times GDP per capita (US$6,394.536), the base-case analysis showed that the incremental costs of AOM relative to PP1M after 10 years of treatment were US$1,926.373 with an incremental gain of 0.306 QALYs.”
> “The ICER for AOM was US$6,285.303 per QALY, which is below the CET, indicating that AOM is cost-effective.”
> “Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that with a 40% price reduction, the probability of AOM being cost-effective is only 41.70%.”
Source: [An et al. (2025)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12200646/)
### 1.3 The same disease in other populations or settings
#### Early intervention services versus standard care in first-episode psychosis, United States: Sediqzadah et al. (2022)
Relevance: Evaluates early intervention services against standard care for first-episode psychosis in the United States, an earlier disease stage than the acute schizophrenia studied in NOVA-1 and NOVA-2.
> “The authors aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programs compared with standard care for the treatment of first-episode psychosis in the United States.”
> “A decision-analytic model integrating published data on clinical efficacy, costs, and health utilities was developed to evaluate early intervention versus standard care over the lifetime of patients after their first psychotic episode.”
> “From a health care perspective, early intervention had an ICER of approximately $51,600 per QALY.”
> “From a societal perspective, early intervention saved costs (i.e., yielded greater health benefits and had lower costs compared with standard care).”
> “A scenario analysis that excluded the effect (i.e., hazard ratio) of early intervention on suicide yielded an ICER of approximately $197,000 per QALY.”
Source: [Sediqzadah et al. (2022)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35193372/)
### 1.4 Related diseases and analogous treatments
No evidence found.
## 2 Utility weights
### 2.1 Utility weights from analyses of LB-102
No evidence found.
### 2.2 Utility weights for the same indication
#### Utility weights for acute, remission, relapse, and discontinuation states and adverse events, schizophrenia: Yi et al. (2020)
Relevance: Utilities for acute, remission, relapse, and discontinuation states and adverse events of schizophrenia, from a model of amisulpride, the parent compound of LB-102.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which this page does not quote.
> “The long-term costs and QALYs were estimated.”
Source: [Yi et al. (2020)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32293194/)
#### Utility weights for stable and relapse states by adherence and for adverse events, schizophrenia: Furiak et al. (2011)
Relevance: Utilities for stable schizophrenia and for relapse with and without hospitalization by adherence level, and for treatment-emergent adverse events, used in a United States model of long-acting injectable and oral antipsychotics.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which this page does not quote.
> “The model uses a range of clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, relapse with and without hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment discontinuation rates by reason, treatment-emergent adverse events, suicide, health care resource utilization, and direct health care costs.”
Source: [Furiak et al. (2011)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21265593/)
#### Utility weights for stable and relapse states by adherence level and for treatment-emergent adverse events, schizophrenia: Furiak et al. (2009)
Relevance: Utilities for stable schizophrenia and for outpatient and inpatient relapse by adherence level, with adverse event states, used in a United States model of oral atypical antipsychotics.
> “Disease-specific utility values for 8 schizophrenia disease states have been reported by Lenert and colleagues [ 76 ] using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale.”
> “A panel of 12 independent schizophrenia experts was used to develop these values as follows.”
Source: [Furiak et al. (2009)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2679720/)
| Health state | Full adherence | Partial adherence | Non-adherence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| “While Stable” | “0.88” | “0.75” | “0.75” |
| “Outpatient Relapse” | “0.74” | “0.65” | “0.65” |
| “Inpatient Psychiatric Relapse” | “0.53” | “0.53” | “0.42” |
Source: [Furiak et al. (2009)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2679720/)
| Treatment-emergent adverse event | Utility |
| --- | --- |
| “EPS” | “0.888” |
| “Clinically Significant Weight Gain” | “0.959” |
| “Diabetes” | “0.888” |
| “Hyperlipidemia” | “0.888” |
Source: [Furiak et al. (2009)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2679720/)
#### Utility weights for stable schizophrenia, relapse, and treatment-emergent adverse events, schizophrenia: Ascher-Svanum et al. (2012)
Relevance: Utilities for stable schizophrenia, relapse with and without inpatient hospitalization, and treatment-emergent adverse events, used in a Monte Carlo microsimulation model.
Access: Free full text
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in Table 10 of the full text, which the publisher's page shows only in a pop-up table that this page does not quote.
> “Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to populate a 1-year Monte Carlo Micro-simulation model.”
> “The model captures clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, treatment discontinuation by reason, relapse with and without inpatient hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment-emergent adverse events, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs.”
Source: [Ascher-Svanum et al. (2012)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22304338/)
#### Utility for stable schizophrenia and decrements for relapse, adverse events, and diabetes, schizophrenia: Davies et al. (2008)
Relevance: Utility for stable schizophrenia and decrements for relapse, treatment-related adverse events, and diabetes, taken from a United Kingdom utility elicitation study.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which this page does not quote.
> “Utility decrements applied to stable schizophrenia, relapse, diabetes and treatment-related AEs were taken from a direct UK utility elicitation study.”
Source: [Davies et al. (2008)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18947458/)
#### Utility weights for stable schizophrenia and relapse with and without hospitalisation, schizophrenia: Druais et al. (2016)
Relevance: Utilities for stable schizophrenia and for relapse with and without hospitalisation, with decrements for extrapyramidal symptoms, tardive dyskinesia, weight gain, and diabetes, derived from a British time trade-off study.
> “Utility data were derived from a British study based on a time trade-off technique conducted in 49 stable patients with schizophrenia and 75 lay persons [ 41 ].”
Source: [Druais et al. (2016)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4796324/)
| Health state | Utility |
| --- | --- |
| “Stable (no side effects)” | “0.919” |
| “Relapse (not requiring hospitalisation)” | “0.762” |
| “Relapse (requiring hospitalisation)” | “0.604” |
| “Extrapyramidal symptom” | “−0.197” |
| “Tardive dyskinesia” | “−0.197” |
| “Weight gain” | “−0.094” |
| “Diabetes” | “−0.150” |
Source: [Druais et al. (2016)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4796324/)
#### Utility weights for mild, moderate, and severe symptom states, chronic schizophrenia: Chouinard and Albright (1997)
Relevance: Utilities for mild, moderate, and severe schizophrenic symptoms, states by symptom severity of the kind the PANSS total score used in NOVA-1 and NOVA-2 measures.
> “A narrative health state profile was written for each cluster, and 100 psychiatric nurses from Washington, DC, were asked to assign preference ratings to each one using linear analog and standard gamble (SG) methods.”
> “Mean utility values (confidence interval 95%) obtained from the SG ratings for the three health state profiles were 0.61 +/- 0.069 (mild); 0.36 +/- 0.073 (moderate); and 0.29 +/- 0.071 (severe).”
Source: [Chouinard and Albright (1997)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9241010/)
#### Utility weights for active psychosis, recovery, agranulocytosis, and tardive dyskinesia, schizophrenia: Wang et al. (2004)
Relevance: Utilities for active psychosis, recovery from psychosis, tardive dyskinesia, and agranulocytosis in a model of antipsychotic treatment sequencing.
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which this page does not quote.
> “Outcome measures included life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, costs, and cost-effectiveness ratios.”
Source: [Wang et al. (2004)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15208468/)
#### Utility for schizophrenia and disutilities for relapse and tardive dyskinesia, tardive dyskinesia: Ganz et al. (2021)
Relevance: Utility for schizophrenia and disutilities for relapse and for tardive dyskinesia, an antipsychotic adverse effect whose prevalence by antipsychotic class section 2 reports.
Access: Free full text
> “The mean utilities for the baseline psychiatric conditions of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder were 0.83, 0.80, and 0.80, respectively”
> “A utility decrement of 0.121 was applied to reflect TD, based on post hoc analyses of a recently published study that used validated health-related quality-of-life assessments (EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level questionnaire”
> “Decrements of 0.081, 0.118, and 0.118 were applied to reflect relapses in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder, respectively”
Source: [Ganz et al. (2021)](https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2020.1867443)
### 2.3 Utility weights for the same disease in other populations or settings
#### Utility weights for clinical high risk of psychosis, psychosis in remission and relapse, and adverse events, schizophrenia: Jin et al. (2020)
Relevance: Utilities for psychosis in remission and in relapse and for clinical high risk of psychosis, with disutilities for weight gain, diabetes, and extrapyramidal symptoms, from a whole-disease model of schizophrenia care.
> “This decision analytical model used a whole-disease model to simulate the entire disease and treatment pathway among a simulated cohort of 200 000 individuals at clinical high risk of psychoses or with a diagnosis of psychosis or schizophrenia being treated in primary, secondary, and tertiary care in the UK.”
Source: [Jin et al. (2020)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7254180/)
| Health state | Utility |
| --- | --- |
| “At CHR-P” | “0.71” |
| “With psychosis in remission” | “0.80” |
| “With psychosis in relapse” | “0.67” |
Source: [Jin et al. (2020)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7254180/)
| Adverse event | Disutility |
| --- | --- |
| “Weight gain” | “0.03” |
| “EPS” | “0.07” |
| “Diabetes” | “0.09” |
Source: [Jin et al. (2020)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7254180/)
### 2.4 Utility weights for related diseases and analogous treatments
No evidence found.
## 3 Search strategy
| Dataset | Query | Results |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Methods | "LB-102" OR "N-methyl amisulpride" | 0 |
| Ratios | amisulpride OR "LB-102" | 31 |
| Ratios | xanomeline OR KarXT OR Cobenfy OR "xanomeline-trospium" | 0 |
| Methods | xanomeline OR KarXT OR muscarinic | 28 |
| Ratios | schizophrenia | 556 |
| Ratios | schizophrenia AND (aripiprazole OR lurasidone OR cariprazine OR brexpiprazole OR lumateperone OR risperidone OR olanzapine) | 211 |
| Ratios | schizophrenia AND ("long-acting" OR injectable OR paliperidone OR depot OR "aripiprazole lauroxil") | 75 |
| Weights | schizophrenia OR psychosis OR antipsychotic | 394 |
## Related pages
- [LB-102: Schizophrenia](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia.md)
- [LB-102 in Schizophrenia: Terms and abbreviations](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia/terms-and-abbreviations) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia/terms-and-abbreviations.md)
- [LB-102: Schizophrenia](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia/executive-summary) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia/executive-summary.md)
- [LB-102 in Schizophrenia: Product information and disease description](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia/product-information-and-disease-description) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia/product-information-and-disease-description.md)
- [LB-102 in Schizophrenia: Clinical evidence](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia/clinical-evidence) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia/clinical-evidence.md)
- [LB-102 in Schizophrenia: Economic information and modeling report](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia/economics) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia/economics.md)
- [LB-102 in Schizophrenia: References](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia/references) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia/references.md)
- [LB-102 in Schizophrenia: prevalence by geography](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia/prevalence) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/lb-102--schizophrenia/prevalence.md)