Discussing edaravone with the ALS patient: an ethical framework from a U.S. perspective.

The recent approval of edaravone by the United States Food and Drug Administration has generated a mix of hope tempered by reality. The costs of the drug, both monetarily and with regard to intensity of treatment, are high. The benefits, while modest, will be viewed through a very different lens by individuals depending on their goals of care. By virtue of our training and experience, physicians are ideally suited to understand and explain new treatments to our patients. As healthcare providers with a fiduciary responsibility to our patients, we must make sure they are fully informed about both the costs and benefits of non-curative therapies such as edaravone, and be prepared to discuss these in the context of their goals of care and potential impact on quality of life. Respect for our patients' autonomy is critical when discussing these issues, but we should always be guided by the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the neuroprotective agent edaravone for noncardioembolic cerebral infarction.

BACKGROUND: The free radical scavenger edaravone has been reported useful for improvement in activities of daily living and for prevention of recurrent stroke in the edaravone versus sodium ozagrel in acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke (EDO) trial. The aim of this report was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of edaravone compared to the intravenous antiplatelet drug ozagrel sodium (ozagrel) for noncardioembolic stroke (non-CES) based on the EDO trial data. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the Markov model, which also incorporated the long-term course after the acute stage of non-CES. From the perspective of a health care payer, direct medical costs and nursing care costs were taken into account in the cost analysis. The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) served as an indicator of effectiveness. Simulation at 5 and 10 years after the onset of non-CES was carried out. The study involved 68-year-old patients with non-CES, selected against the EDO trial subject selection criteria. A 14-day treatment with edaravone 60 mg/day or ozagrel 160 mg/day was assumed as acute treatment for non-CES. RESULTS: The use of edaravone was associated with a reduction in total costs (0.51 million yen [$6,374] at 5 years and 0.64 million yen [$8,039]) at 10 years after the onset of non-CES) and improvement in QALYs (0.23 at 5 years and 0.38 at 10 years). Compared to ozagrel therapy, edaravone therapy was a cost-saving strategy for treating non-CES. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to ozagrel therapy, edaravone therapy for non-CES is not only useful from a clinical viewpoint, but also valuable from a socioeconomic perspective.