Cost effectiveness of guanfacine extended-release versus atomoxetine for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: application of a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

BACKGROUND: About 7% of children and adolescents are diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the US. Patients with ADHD who are intolerant of or do not have an optimal response to stimulants often use non-stimulants as alternative therapies. Guanfacine extended-release (GXR) and atomoxetine (ATX) are the only non-stimulants approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for once-daily use in the treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD in the US. ATX has been on the market since 2002 while GXR was recently approved in 2009. To date, there is no comparative effectiveness or cost-effectiveness study comparing the two drugs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of GXR versus ATX for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents, using the comparative efficacy results from a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). METHODS: The MAIC method was used to compare the efficacy between GXR (target dose and lower doses) and ATX (target dose) in the absence of head-to-head clinical trials. Individual patients in the GXR trials were weighted such that the summary baseline characteristics and the efficacy of the placebo arm of the GXR trials matched exactly with those from published ATX trials. After weighting, the efficacy (i.e. change in the ADHD rating scale, fourth edition [ADHD-RS-IV] total score from baseline) was compared between each GXR dosing group and the ATX group. The results from the MAIC analyses were used to populate a 1-year Markov model that is used to compare the cost effectiveness of GXR versus ATX from a US third-party payer perspective. Effectiveness outcomes for each treatment group were estimated as the proportion of responders, defined as patients with ≥25% reduction in ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline, and average quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Utilities associated with response/non-response and disutilities due to adverse events were applied in the model. Costs included drug and medical service costs and were inflated to 2011 US dollars ($US). Incremental cost/QALY and incremental cost/responder were estimated. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying all model parameters, including costs, utilities, and response rate. RESULTS: The target dose of GXR was 0.12 mg/kg/day. In match-adjusted populations with balanced baseline characteristics, patients receiving GXR at the dose of 0.09-0.12(p = 0.0016) [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] and 0.075-0.09 mg/kg/day (p = 0.0248) had better efficacy, while those receiving GXR at the dose of 0.046-0.075 mg/kg/day had comparable efficacy (p = 0.0699), compared with patients receiving ATX at the target dose of 1.2 mg/kg/day. In the base case of the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), GXR had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $US10 637/QALY and $US853/responder, compared with ATX (incremental costs: $US74; incremental effectiveness: 0.007 QALYs and 86 responders per 1000 patients treated). Results of all univariate sensitivity analyses showed that the model results were robust to changes in model inputs. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first application of the novel comparative efficacy method of MAIC to a CEA model. The MAIC results indicate that GXR (0.075-0.12 mg/kg/day) was more effective than ATX (1.2 mg/kg/day) in the trial population. The CEA results indicate that GXR is cost effective compared with ATX for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents.

Treatment choice, duration, and cost in patients with interstitial cystitis and painful bladder syndrome.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: In order to better understand provider treatment patterns for interstitial cystitis (IC)/painful bladder syndrome, we sought to document the therapies utilized and their associated expenditures using a national dataset. METHODS: A cohort was created by applying the ICD-9 diagnosis of IC (595.1) to INGENIX claims for the year 1999. Subjects were followed for 5 years, and patterns of care and related expenditures were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 553,910 adults insured in 1999, 89 subjects had a diagnosis of IC with 5-year follow-up data. All subjects were treated with oral medication(s), 26% received intravesical treatments, and 22% underwent hydrodistension. Total expenditures per subject were $2,808. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of IC expenditures were attributable to oral medical therapy. Hydrodistension and intravesical instillations were utilized in less than 25% of patients. Hydrodistension was used more frequently among subjects with a new diagnosis; this may reflect its utilization as part of a diagnostic algorithm.

Systematic review and economic modelling of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) through systematic review and economic modelling. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, electronic databases and the websites of relevant professional organisations and manufacturers, and the following databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the UKCRN Portfolio Database. STUDY SELECTION: The study comprised three distinct elements. (1) A survey of 188 women with SUI to identify outcomes of importance to them (activities of daily living; sex, hygiene and lifestyle issues; emotional health; and the availability of services). (2) A systematic review and meta-analysis of non-surgical treatments for SUI to find out which are most effective by comparing results of trials (direct pairwise comparisons) and by modelling results (mixed-treatment comparisons - MTCs). A total of 88 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs reporting data from 9721 women were identified, considering five generic interventions [pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), electrical stimulation (ES), vaginal cones (VCs), bladder training (BT) and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) medications], in many variations and combinations. Data were available for 37 interventions and 68 treatment comparisons by direct pairwise assessment. Mixed-treatment comparison models compared 14 interventions, using data from 55 trials (6608 women). (3) Economic modelling, using a Markov model, to find out which combinations of treatments (treatment pathways) are most cost-effective for SUI. DATA EXTRACTION: Titles and abstracts identified were assessed by one reviewer and full-text copies of all potentially relevant reports independently assessed by two reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus or arbitration by a third person. RESULTS: Direct pairwise comparison and MTC analysis showed that the treatments were more effective than no treatment. Delivering PFMT in a more intense fashion, either through extra sessions or with biofeedback (BF), appeared to be the most effective treatment [PFMT extra sessions vs no treatment (NT) odds ratio (OR) 10.7, 95% credible interval (CrI) 5.03 to 26.2; PFMT + BF vs NT OR 12.3, 95% CrI 5.35 to 32.7]. Only when success was measured in terms of improvement was there evidence that basic PFMT was better than no treatment (PFMT basic vs NT OR 4.47, 95% CrI 2.03 to 11.9). Analysis of cost-effectiveness showed that for cure rates, the strategy using lifestyle changes and PFMT with extra sessions followed by tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) (lifestyle advice-PFMT extra sessions-TVT) had a probability of greater than 70% of being considered cost-effective for all threshold values for willingness to pay for a QALY up to 50,000 pounds. For improvement rates, lifestyle advice-PFMT extra sessions-TVT had a probability of greater than 50% of being considered cost-effective when society's willingness to pay for an additional QALY was more than 10,000 pounds. The results were most sensitive to changes in the long-term performance of PFMT and also in the relative effectiveness of basic PFMT and PFMT with extra sessions. LIMITATIONS: Although a large number of studies were identified, few data were available for most comparisons and long-term data were sparse. Challenges for evidence synthesis were the lack of consensus on the most appropriate method for assessing incontinence and intervention protocols that were complex and varied considerably across studies. CONCLUSIONS: More intensive forms of PFMT appear worthwhile, but further research is required to define an optimal form of more intensive therapy that is feasible and efficient for the NHS to provide, along with further definitive evidence from large, well-designed studies.

Health care costs of adults treated for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder who received alternative drug therapies.

BACKGROUND: Many therapies exist for treating adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), also referred to as attention-deficit disorder (ADD), but there is no research regarding cost differences associated with initiating alternative ADD/ADHD drug therapies in adults. OBJECTIVE: To compare from the perspective of a large self-insured employer the risk-adjusted direct health care costs associated with 3 alternative drug therapies for ADD in newly treated patients: extended-release methylphenidate (osmotic release oral system-MPH), mixed amphetamine salts extended release (MAS-XR), or atomoxetine. METHODS: We analyzed data from a US claims database of 5 million beneficiaries from 31 large self-insured employers (1999-2004). Analysis was restricted to adults aged 18 to 64 years with at least 1 diagnosis of ADD/ADHD (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] codes 314.0x--attention deficit disorder; 314.00--attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity; or 314.01--attention-deficit disorder with hyperactivity) and at least 1 pharmacy claim for OROS-MPH, MAS-XR, or atomoxetine identified using National Drug Codes. In preliminary analysis, we calculated the duration of index ADHD drug therapy as time from index therapy initiation to a minimum 60-day gap. Because the median duration of index ADHD drug therapy was found to be approximately 90 days, the primary measures were total direct medical plus drug costs and medical-only costs computed over 6 months following therapy initiation. Adults were required to have continuous eligibility 6 months before and 6 months after their latest drug therapy initiation and no ADHD therapy during the previous 6 months. Cost was measured as the payment amount made by the health plan to the provider rather than billed charges, and it excluded patient copayments and deductibles. Medical costs included costs incurred for all-cause inpatient and outpatient/other services. Costs were adjusted for inflation to 2004 U.S. dollars using the consumer price index for medical care. T tests were used for descriptive cost comparisons. Generalized linear models (GLMs) were used to compare costs of adults receiving alternative therapies, adjusting for demographic characteristics, substance abuse, depression, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: Of the 4,569 patients who received 1 of these 3 drug therapies for ADHD, 31.8% received OROS-MPH for a median duration of 99 days of therapy, 34.0% received MAS-XR for a median 128 days, and 34.2% received atomoxetine for a median 86 days. In the 6-month follow-up period, the mean (standard deviation) total medical and drug costs were $2,008 ($3,231) for OROS-MPH, $2,169 ($4,828) for MAS-XR, and $2,540 ($4,269) for atomoxetine-treated adults. The GLM for patient characteristics suggested that 6-month, risk-adjusted mean medical costs, excluding drug costs, for adults treated with OROS-MPH were $142 less (10.4%, $1,220 vs. $1,362) compared with MAS-XR (P =0.022) and $132 less (9.8%, $1,220 vs. $1,352) compared with atomoxetine (P =0.033); risk-adjusted mean medical costs were not significantly different between MAS-XR and atomoxetine. The GLM comparison of risk-adjusted total direct costs, including drug cost, was on average $156 less (8.0%, $1,782 vs. $1,938) for OROS-MPH compared with MAS-XR (P = 0.017) and $226 less (11.3%, $1,782 vs. $2,008) compared with atomoxetine (P <0.001); the risk-adjusted total direct costs were not significantly different between MAS-XR and atomoxetine. Two high-cost outliers (greater than 99.96th percentile, 1 each for OROS-MPH and atomoxetine) accounted for $47 (30%) of the $156 cost difference between OROS-MPH and MAS-XR and $11 (5%) of the $226 cost difference between OROS-MPH and atomoxetine, and the medical diagnoses for the highest-cost claims for these 2 outlier patients were unrelated to ADHD. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for patient characteristics including substance abuse, depression, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index, adults treated with OROS-MPH had, on average, slightly lower medical and total medical and drug costs than those treated with MAS-XR or atomoxetine over the 6-month period after drug therapy initiation. Approximately 30% of the cost difference compared with MAS-XR was attributable to 1 high-cost outlier with medical diagnoses for the highest-cost claim that were unrelated to ADHD.