Dataset Information

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lisdexamfetamine Versus Atomoxetine in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Inadequate Response to Methylphenidate.

ABSTRACT:

Background

An economic analysis from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) evaluated the cost effectiveness of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) compared with atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder who have had an inadequate response to methylphenidate.

Methods

A 1-year decision-analytic model was constructed, with the health outcomes "response", "nonresponse", and "unable to tolerate". Clinical data were taken from a head-to-head, randomized controlled trial in inadequate responders to methylphenidate. Response to treatment was defined as a score of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement subscale. Tolerability was assessed by discontinuation rates owing to adverse events. Utility weights were identified via a systematic literature review. Healthcare resource use estimates were obtained via a survey of clinicians. Daily drug costs were derived from British National Formulary 2012 costs and mean doses reported in the trial. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed.

Results

The comparison of LDX with atomoxetine resulted in an estimate of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1802 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The result was robust in a wide range of sensitivity analyses; results were most sensitive to changes in drug costs and efficacy. In the PSA, assuming a maximum willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY, LDX versus atomoxetine had an 86 % probability of being cost effective. In 38 % of PSA runs, LDX was more effective and less costly than atomoxetine.

Conclusions

From the perspective of the UK NHS, LDX provides a cost-effective treatment option for children and adolescents who are inadequate responders to methylphenidate.

SUBMITTER: Zimovetz EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5035654 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lisdexamfetamine Versus Atomoxetine in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Inadequate Response to Methylphenidate.

Zimovetz Evelina A EA Beard Stephen M SM Hodgkins Paul P Bischof Matthias M Mauskopf Josephine A JA Setyawan Juliana J

CNS drugs 20161001 10

<h4>Background</h4>An economic analysis from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) evaluated the cost effectiveness of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) compared with atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder who have had an inadequate response to methylphenidate.<h4>Methods</h4>A 1-year decision-analytic model was constructed, with the health outcomes "response", "nonresponse", and "unable to tolerate". Clinical data were taken from ...[more]

PMID: 27530525

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aim: To compare long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate) and atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), respectively, in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). Patients & methods: Patient-level data from a centanafadine trial (NCT03605849) and published aggregate data from a lisdexamfetamine trial (NCT00337285), a methylphenidate trial (NCT00326300) and an atomoxetine trial (NCT00190736) were used. Patient characteristics were matched in each comparison using propensity score weighting. Study outcomes were assessed up to 52 weeks and included safety (rates of adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale [AISRS] or ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] score). Results: In all comparisons of matched populations, risks of AEs were statistically significantly lower with centanafadine or non-different between centanafadine and comparator; the largest differences in AE rates included upper respiratory tract infection (risk difference in percentage points: 18.75), insomnia (12.47) and dry mouth (12.33) versus lisdexamfetamine; decreased appetite (20.25), headache (18.53) and insomnia (12.65) versus methylphenidate; and nausea (26.18), dry mouth (25.07) and fatigue (13.95) versus atomoxetine (all p < 0.05). Centanafadine had a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score versus lisdexamfetamine (6.15-point difference; p < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score versus methylphenidate (1.75-point difference; p = 0.13) and versus atomoxetine (1.60-point difference; p = 0.21). Conclusion: At up to 52 weeks, centanafadine showed significantly lower incidence of several AEs than lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine; efficacy was lower than lisdexamfetamine and non-different from methylphenidate and atomoxetine.

Project description:BackgroundAttention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is often comorbid with cocaine abuse. Controversy exists regarding long-term consequences of ADHD medications on cocaine abuse liability. Whereas childhood methylphenidate treatment may be preventative, methylphenidate in teens appears to further increase later cocaine abuse risk. In rodents, adolescent methylphenidate treatment further increases adult cocaine self-administration in the Spontaneously Hypertensive Rat (SHR) model of ADHD, whereas adolescent atomoxetine treatment does not. Effects of ADHD medications on cocaine cue reactivity, a critical component of addiction, are unknown.MethodsTo investigate this, SHR, Wistar-Kyoto (inbred control) and Wistar (outbred control) rats received therapeutically relevant doses of methylphenidate (1.5 mg/kg, oral) and atomoxetine (0.3 mg/kg, intraperitoneal), or respective vehicles from post-natal day 28-55. Cocaine seeking, reflecting cue reactivity, was measured in adulthood during self-administration maintenance and cue-induced reinstatement tests conducted under a second-order schedule.ResultsCompared to control strains, SHR earned more cocaine infusions, emitted more cocaine-seeking responses during maintenance and reinstatement testing, and required more sessions to reach the extinction criterion. Compared to vehicle, adolescent methylphenidate, but not atomoxetine, further increased cocaine intake during maintenance testing in SHR. Adolescent atomoxetine, but not methylphenidate, decreased cocaine seeking during reinstatement testing in SHR. Neither medication had effects on cocaine intake or cue reactivity in control strains.ConclusionsThe SHR successfully model ADHD and cocaine abuse comorbidity and show differential effects of adolescent ADHD medications on cocaine intake and cue reactivity during adulthood. Thus, SHR have heuristic value for assessing neurobiology underlying the ADHD phenotype and for evaluating pharmacotherapeutics for ADHD.

Dataset Information

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lisdexamfetamine Versus Atomoxetine in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Inadequate Response to Methylphenidate.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lisdexamfetamine Versus Atomoxetine in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Inadequate Response to Methylphenidate.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets