Is adjunctive pharmacotherapy in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder cost-effective in Canada: a cost-effectiveness assessment of guanfacine extended-release as an adjunctive therapy to a long-acting stimulant for the treatment of ADHD

BMC Psychiatry

Research Article

Jean Lachaine¹  Karine Mathurin¹  Vanja Sikirica² 

[1] Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Montreal, P.O. Box 6128, Station Centre-ville, H3C 3J7, Montreal, Quebec, Canada;Shire, 725 Chesterbrook Boulevard, 19087, Wayne, PA, USA;

关键词: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder;    Guanfacine extended-release;    Stimulants;    Adjunctive therapy;    Pediatrics;    Canada;    Cost-effectiveness;    Cost-utility;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12888-016-0708-x

 received in 2015-02-06, accepted in 2016-01-05,  发布年份 2016

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundAttention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder in children, with worldwide prevalence of ADHD varying from 5.9 to 7.1 %, depending on the reporter. In case of inadequate response to stimulants, combination therapy of stimulants and an adjunctive medication may improve the control of ADHD symptoms, reduce the dose-limiting adverse events, and help control comorbidities. To date, the only medication to be used for adjunctive therapy to psychostimulants is guanfacine extended release (GXR). The aim of this study was to assess the economic impact of GXR as an adjunct therapy with long-acting stimulants (GXR + stimulant) compared to long-acting stimulant monotherapy (stimulant alone) in the treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD in Canada.MethodA Markov model was developed using health states defined based on the clinician-reported Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) score (normal, mild, moderate, severe). Transition probabilities were calculated based on patient-level data from a published study. Long-acting stimulants available in Canada were considered in the base-case model: amphetamine mixed salts, methylphenidate HCl formulations, and lisdexamfetamine dimesylate. Analyses were conducted from a Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH; Ontario) and a societal perspective over a 1-year time horizon with weekly cycles.ResultsOver a 1-year time horizon, GXR + stimulant was associated with 0.655 quality-adjusted life year (QALY), compared to 0.627 QALY with stimulant alone, for a gain of 0.028 QALY. From a MoH perspective, GXR+ stimulant and stimulant alone were associated with total costs of $CA1,617 and $CA949, respectively (difference of $CA668), which resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $CA23,720/QALY. From a societal perspective, GXR + stimulant and stimulant alone were associated with total costs of $CA3,915 and $CA3,582, respectively (difference of $CA334), which resulted in an ICER of $CA11,845/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) of GXR + stimulant showed that it remains a cost-effective strategy in 100 % of the simulations from both perspectives in numerous PSA and one-way sensitivity analyses, relative to a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY.ConclusionsThis economic evaluation demonstrates that GXR + stimulant is cost-effective compared to stimulant alone in the treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD in Canada.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Lachaine et al. 2016