Citation

Prasad S, Arellano J, Steer C, Libretto SE. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2009; 63(7): 1031-1040.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02090.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation of healthcare technologies is becoming increasingly relevant, enabling decision makers to assess and compare treatments within the context of costs and outcomes. Moreover, it is increasingly important for clinicians and prescribers to have some understanding of economic evaluation. For attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), economic evaluations have largely focused on pharmacotherapy, and results indicate that such treatments are cost-effective compared with other interventions. Aims: This review provides an overview of ADHD, its consequences and pharmacotherapy; describes the principles of health economic analysis, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and a cost-effectiveness model of atomoxetine for ADHD treatment; and outlines guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence on ADHD pharmacotherapy.

METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of atomoxetine for children with ADHD in the UK was compared with treatment alternatives using an economic model with Markov processes. The model evaluated atomoxetine in five patient subgroups according to treatment history and comorbidities precluding stimulants. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was calculated and compared between treatment algorithms. The Markov process incorporated 18 health states, representing a range of outcomes across the treatments. Utility values were derived from a survey of 83 parents of children with ADHD, and treatment efficacy and safety were based on a review of controlled clinical trials and literature, and validated by international experts. Costs and outcomes were estimated using Monte Carlo simulation over 1-year.

RESULTS: Atomoxetine was a cost-effective treatment across the whole ADHD population, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from £11,500 to £15,900 per QALY, compared with alternative pharmacotherapies, which are within UK and rest of Europe acceptability limits. Higher utility values achieved treating ADHD with atomoxetine, compensate for the relatively higher acquisition cost compared with stimulants.

CONCLUSIONS: Atomoxetine is cost-effective and may have advantages over stimulants, including benefits to HRQL and no abuse liability and is the only treatment in the UK licensed for continued treatment into adulthood in adolescents who have shown a response from treatment. © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Language: en

Keywords

Humans; adolescent; Child; human; Adolescent; child; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Europe; Cost-Benefit Analysis; quality of life; insomnia; Quality of Life; United Kingdom; suicidal ideation; suicide attempt; clinical trial; comorbidity; parent; article; weight reduction; amfebutamone; tricyclic antidepressant agent; high risk population; priority journal; disease course; groups by age; practice guideline; clonidine; health status; economics; Great Britain; drug safety; placebo; drug efficacy; risperidone; weight gain; cost effectiveness analysis; drug withdrawal; irritability; algorithm; side effect; cost benefit analysis; attention deficit disorder; methylphenidate; liver toxicity; quality adjusted life year; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; dexamphetamine; dyspepsia; dizziness; treatment response; atomoxetine; tic; mood change; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; validity; propylamine; Propylamines; drug induced headache; outcome assessment; jaundice; clinical assessment; arousal; economic evaluation; Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors; decreased appetite; adrenergic receptor affecting agent; randomized controlled trial (topic); Monte Carlo method; drug dose escalation