RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
A cost-effectiveness analysis of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in the treatment of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the UK
Zimovetz, E. A., Joseph, A., Ayyagari, R., & Mauskopf, J. A. (2018). A cost-effectiveness analysis of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in the treatment of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the UK. European Journal of Health Economics, 19(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0864-4
BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a chronic neurobehavioral disorder in children that may persist into adulthood. Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is approved in many countries for ADHD treatment in children, adolescents, and adults.
OBJECTIVES: Estimate the cost-effectiveness of LDX as a first- or second-line treatment for adults with ADHD from the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective compared with methylphenidate extended release (MPH-ER) and atomoxetine (ATX).
METHODS: A 1-year decision-analytic model was developed. Health outcomes included response, non-response and inability to tolerate. Efficacy data were obtained from a mixed-treatment comparison (MTC). Response was a score of 1 or 2 on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale. Tolerability was assessed by discontinuation rates due to adverse events. Utilities were identified via a systematic literature review. Health care resource use estimates were obtained via a survey of clinicians. Daily drug costs were estimated from mean doses reported in the trials used in the MTC. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed.
RESULTS: LDX dominated MPH-ER and ATX; reducing mean per-patient annual cost by £5 and £200, and increasing mean quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.005 and 0.009, respectively. In the PSA, the probability of cost-effectiveness for LDX vs. MPH-ER and ATX at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY was 61% and 80%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the UK NHS, LDX is likely to provide a cost-effective treatment for adults with ADHD. This conclusion may be drawn with more certainty in comparison with ATX than with MPH-ER.
