Long-acting medications for the hyperkinetic disorders. A note on cost-effectiveness

The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review approaches and instruments used to derive utility weights in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) within the field of mental disorders and to identify factors that may have influenced the choice of the approach.

METHODS

We searched the databases DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment), and PubMed for CUAs. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations and reported quality-adjusted life-years as the health outcome. Study characteristics and instruments used to estimate utility weights were described and a logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with the choice of either the direct (e.g. standard gamble) or the preference-based measure (PBM) approach (e.g. EQ-5D).

RESULTS

We identified 227 CUAs with a maximum in 2009, 2010, and 2012. Most CUAs were conducted in depression, dementia, or psychosis, and came from the US or the UK, with the EQ-5D being the most frequently used instrument. The application of the direct approach was significantly associated with depression, psychosis, and model-based studies. The PBM approach was more likely to be used in recent studies, dementia, Europe, and empirical studies. Utility weights used in model-based studies were derived from only a small number of studies.

LIMITATIONS

We only searched four databases and did not evaluate the quality of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct instruments and PBMs are used to elicit utility weights in CUAs with different frequencies regarding study type, mental disorder, and country.

[The health economics of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in Germany. Part 2: Therapeutic options and their cost-effectiveness]

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been associated with a continuous increase of health care utilization and thus expenditures. This raises the issue of cost-effectiveness of health care provided for patients with ADHD. Comparative health economic evaluations generate relevant insights and typically report incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of alternatives versus an established standard. Typically, results of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are reported in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). International evaluations, as well specific adaptations to Germany, indicate an acceptable to attractive cost-effectiveness--according to currently used international benchmarks--of an intense medication management strategy based on stimulants, primarily methylphenidate, with ICERs ranging from 20,000 EUR to 37,000 EUR per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Economic modeling studies also suggest cost-effectiveness of long-acting modified-release preparations of methylphenidate, owing to improved treatment compliance associated with simplified once daily administration schemes. Atomoxetine, in contrast, appears economically inferior compared to long-acting stimulants, given its higher acquisition costs and at best equal clinical effectiveness. There are currently no data supporting the cost-effectiveness of psychotherapeutic or behavioral interventions. Economic evaluations, which have been published to date, are generally limited by time horizons of up to 1 year and by their prevailing focus on ADHD core symptom improvement only. Therefore, further research into the cost-effectiveness of ADHD treatment strategies seems warranted.

A modelled economic evaluation comparing atomoxetine with methylphenidate in the treatment of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Spain

BACKGROUND

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurobehavioural disorder, affecting 3-6% of school age children and adolescents in Spain. Methylphenidate (MPH), a mild stimulant, had long been the only approved medication available for ADHD children in Spain. Atomoxetine is a non-stimulant alternative in the treatment of ADHD with once-a-day oral dosing. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of atomoxetine compared to MPH. In addition, atomoxetine is compared to 'no medication' for patient populations who are ineligible for MPH (i.e. having stimulant-failure experience or co-morbidities precluding stimulant medication).

METHODS

An economic model with Markov processes was developed to estimate the costs and benefits of atomoxetine versus either MPH or 'no medication'. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was calculated for atomoxetine relative to the comparators. The Markov process incorporated 14 health states, representing a range of outcomes associated with treatment options. Utility values were obtained from the utility valuation survey of 83 parents of children with ADHD. The clinical data were based on a thorough review of controlled clinical trials and other clinical literature, and validated by international experts. Costs and outcomes were estimated using Monte Carlo simulation over a 1-year duration, with costs estimated from the perspective of the National Health Service in Spain.

RESULTS

For stimulant-naive patients without contra-indications to stimulants, the incremental costs per QALY gained for atomoxetine were euro 34,308 (compared to an immediate-release MPH) and euro 24,310 (compared to an extended-release MPH). For those patients who have stimulant-failure experience or contra-indications to stimulants, the incremental costs per QALY gained of atomoxetine compared to 'no medication' were euro 23,820 and euro 23,323, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The economic evaluation showed that atomoxetine is an effective alternative across a range of ADHD populations and offers value-for money in the treatment of ADHD.

Change in the direct cost of treatment for children and adolescents with hyperkinetic disorder in Germany over a period of four years

BACKGROUND

In many developed countries, the treatment of hyperkinetic disorder (or ADHD) consumes a considerable amount of resources. The primary aim of this study was to determine change in the direct cost of treatment for children and adolescents with hyperkinetic disorder in Germany over time, and compare the cost with the cost of treatment for two physical disorders: epilepsy and asthma.

METHODS

The German Federal Statistical Office provided data on the direct cost of treating hyperkinetic disorder, epilepsy and asthma in Germany for 2002, 2004, and 2006. The direct costs of treatment incurred by hyperkinetic disorder in these years were compared with those incurred by epilepsy and asthma.

RESULTS

The total direct cost of treatment for the hyperkinetic disorder was euro 177 million in 2002, euro 234 million in 2004, and euro 341 million in 2006. The largest proportion of the cost was incurred by the age group < 15 years: euro 158 million in 2002, euro 205 million in 2004, and euro 287 million in 2006. The direct cost of treatment for epilepsy in this age group was a total of euro 157 million in 2002, euro 155 million in 2004, and euro 155 million in 2006. For asthma, the total direct cost of treatment in this age group was euro 266 million in 2002, euro 257 million in 2004, and euro 272 million in 2006.

CONCLUSION

The direct cost of treatment for hyperkinetic disorder in the age group < 15 years increased considerably between 2002 and 2006. Over the same period of time and for the same age group, expenditure for epilepsy and asthma was more or less constant. The increase in expenditure for the treatment of hyperkinetic disorder may be due to increasing demand for diagnostic and therapeutic services and improved availability of such services. The study is limited by the difficulty of obtaining consistent data on the direct cost of treatment for both physical and psychiatric disorders in Germany.

The NICE ADHD health technology assessment: a review and critique

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessments (HTAs) by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) enjoy high levels of international attention. The present analysis addresses NICE's appraisal of methylphenidate, atomoxetine and dexamphetamine for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents, published in March 2006.

METHODS

A qualitative study of NICE Technology Appraisal No. 98 was done focusing on the >600-page technology assessment report, which aimed at evaluating ADHD treatment strategies by a clinical effectiveness review and an economic analysis using meta-analytical techniques and a cost-effectiveness model.

RESULTS

The technology assessment was unable to differentiate between the various drugs in terms of efficacy, and its economic model was ultimately driven by cost differences. While the assessment concluded that the economic model "clearly identified an optimal treatment strategy" with first-line dexamphetamine, the NICE appraisal committee subsequently found it impossible to distinguish between the different strategies on grounds of cost-effectiveness. Analyzing the assessment reveals gaps and inconsistencies concerning data selection (ultimately relying on a small number of short-term studies only), data synthesis (pooling of heterogeneous study designs and clinical endpoints), and economic model structure (identifying double-counting of nonresponders as a likely source of bias, alongside further methodological anomalies).

CONCLUSION

Many conclusions of the NICE technology assessment rest on shaky grounds. There remains a need for a new, state-of-the-art systematic review of ADHD treatment strategies including economic evaluation, which ideally should address outcomes beyond children's health-related quality of life, such as long-term sequelae of the disorder and caregiver burden.

Impact of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) on prescription dug spending for children and adolescents: increasing relevance of health economic evidence

BACKGROUND

During the last decade, pharmaceutical spending for patients with attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been escalating internationally.

OBJECTIVES

First, to estimate future trends of ADHD-related drug expenditures from the perspectives of the statutory health insurance (SHI; Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung, GKV) in Germany and the National Health Service (NHS) in England, respectively, for children and adolescents age 6 to 18 years. Second, to evaluate the budgetary impact on individual prescribers (child and adolescent psychiatrists and pediatricians treating patients with ADHD) in Germany.

METHODS

A model was developed to predict plausible scenarios of future pharmaceutical expenditures for treatment of ADHD. Model inputs were derived from demographic and epidemiological data, a literature review of past spending trends, and an analysis of new pharmaceutical products in development for ADHD. Only products in clinical development phase III or later were considered. Uncertainty was addressed by way of scenario analysis. For each jurisdiction, five scenarios used different assumptions of future diagnosis prevalence, treatment prevalence, rates of adoption and unit costs of novel drugs, and treatment intensity.

RESULTS

Annual ADHD pharmacotherapy expenditures for children and adolescents will further increase and may exceed euro 310 m (D; E: 78 m) in 2012 (2002: approximately euro 21.8 m; approximately 7.0 m). During this period, overall drug spending by individual physicians may increase 2.3- to 9.5-fold, resulting from the multiplicative effects of four variables: increased number of diagnosed cases, growing acceptance and intensity of pharmacotherapy, and higher unit costs of novel medications.

DISCUSSION

Even for an extreme low case scenario, a more than six-fold increase of pharmaceutical spending for children and adolescents is predicted over the decade from 2002 to 2012, from the perspectives of both the NHS in England and the GKV in Germany. This budgetary impact projection represents a partial analysis only because other expenditures are likely to rise as well, for instance those associated with physician services, including diagnosis and psychosocial treatment. Further to this, by definition budgetary impact analyses have little to nothing to say about clinical appropriateness and about value of money.

CONCLUSION

Providers of care for children and adolescents with ADHD should anticipate serious challenges related to the cost-effectiveness of interventions.