Cited by 13Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePharmaceutical studies and practices

A cost-effectiveness analysis of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in the treatment of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the UK

Open access
Zimovetz, Evelina A., Joseph, Alain, Ayyagari, Rajeev, Mauskopf, Josephine A.·2018·The European Journal of Health Economics

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10198-016-0864-4

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [7]Barkley RA Murphy KR Fischer M ADHD in Adults: What the Science Says 2010 New York Guilford Press
  2. [14]DuPaul GJ Power TJ Anastopoulos AD Reid R ADHD Rating Scale-IV: Checklists, Norms, and Clinical Interpretation 1998 New York Guilford Press
  3. [22]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Process and methods guides. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 (2013). https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword. Accessed 23 June 2015 27905712
  4. [25]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit (DSU), Technical support document. A general linear modelling framework for pair-wise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (2014). http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/TSD2%20General%20meta%20analysis%20corrected%202Sep2016v2.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2014 27466657
  5. [32]British National Formulary eBNF-July 2016 Joint Formulary Committee 2016 London BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zimovetz, E. A., Joseph, A., Ayyagari, R., & Mauskopf, J. A.
Affiliations
  • RTI Health Solutions (US)
  • Shire (Switzerland) (CH)
  • Analysis Group (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Zimovetz, Evelina A.
Venue
The European Journal of Health Economics
Published
2017-01-16
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
21-35
ISSN
  • 1439-3972 (ISSN-L)
  • 1618-7598
  • 1618-7601
OpenAlex
W2575483126
Cited by
13
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The European Journal of Health Economics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Shire (NA)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
Keywords
lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, adult ADHD, cost-effectiveness, atomoxetine, stimulant medication, network meta-analysis, quality-adjusted life years, treatment response, drug tolerability, National Health Service
MeSH terms
Atomoxetine Hydrochloride, Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate, Adult, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Cost-Benefit Analysis, United Kingdom, Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review