BACKGROUND: Levodopa is the most effective treatment for the symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD). However, after an initial period of benefit, several limitations become apparent, including motor complications such as dyskinesia. Dyskinesia can severely affect patients' quality of life and increases healthcare resource use. Thus, delaying the need for levodopa, and therefore the onset of levodopa-induced dyskinesia, is important. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness, from a UK healthcare payer perspective, of two antiparkinsonian treatment strategies in early PD: first-line monotherapy with rasagiline, a novel monoamine oxidase B inhibitor; and the non-ergoline dopamine receptor agonist pramipexole. METHODS: An economic Markov model was developed as a pragmatic tool to derive comparative information on the effectiveness, utility and costs of these two strategies over a 5-year period. Model input data were obtained from the TEMPO study for rasagiline and from a study by the Parkinson Study Group for pramipexole. Effectiveness outcomes were time to levodopa and time to levodopa-induced dyskinesia. Cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) data were derived from published sources. RESULTS: Rasagiline was the dominant strategy. Compared with pramipexole, use of the rasagiline strategy was estimated to reduce costs by 18% per patient over 5 years and was associated with an additional 10% delay in dyskinesia onset (0.41 years; 95% CI 0.27, 0.55). This strategy was also found to prolong the time to levodopa initiation by 25% through a gain of 0.83 levodopa-free years (95% CI 0.56, 1.1). In addition, use of the rasagiline strategy was found to generate a 5% gain in QALYs over 5 years compared with the pramipexole strategy (3.7 +/- 0.02 vs 3.51 +/- 0.03). Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the model was robust. CONCLUSIONS: Rasagiline represents a cost-effective alternative to pramipexole in the treatment of early PD in the UK.
BACKGROUND:Levodopa is the most effective treatment for the symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD). However, after an initial period of benefit, several limitations become apparent, including motor complications such as dyskinesia. Dyskinesia can severely affect patients' quality of life and increases healthcare resource use. Thus, delaying the need for levodopa, and therefore the onset of levodopa-induced dyskinesia, is important. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness, from a UK healthcare payer perspective, of two antiparkinsonian treatment strategies in early PD: first-line monotherapy with rasagiline, a novel monoamine oxidase B inhibitor; and the non-ergolinedopamine receptor agonist pramipexole. METHODS: An economic Markov model was developed as a pragmatic tool to derive comparative information on the effectiveness, utility and costs of these two strategies over a 5-year period. Model input data were obtained from the TEMPO study for rasagiline and from a study by the Parkinson Study Group for pramipexole. Effectiveness outcomes were time to levodopa and time to levodopa-induced dyskinesia. Cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) data were derived from published sources. RESULTS:Rasagiline was the dominant strategy. Compared with pramipexole, use of the rasagiline strategy was estimated to reduce costs by 18% per patient over 5 years and was associated with an additional 10% delay in dyskinesia onset (0.41 years; 95% CI 0.27, 0.55). This strategy was also found to prolong the time to levodopa initiation by 25% through a gain of 0.83 levodopa-free years (95% CI 0.56, 1.1). In addition, use of the rasagiline strategy was found to generate a 5% gain in QALYs over 5 years compared with the pramipexole strategy (3.7 +/- 0.02 vs 3.51 +/- 0.03). Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the model was robust. CONCLUSIONS:Rasagiline represents a cost-effective alternative to pramipexole in the treatment of early PD in the UK.
Authors: M Péchevis; C E Clarke; P Vieregge; B Khoshnood; C Deschaseaux-Voinet; G Berdeaux; M Ziegler Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: A M Damiano; M M McGrath; M K Willian; C F Snyder; P A LeWitt; P F Reyes; R R Richter; E D Means Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Honglei Chen; Shumin M Zhang; Michael A Schwarzschild; Miguel A Hernán; Alberto Ascherio Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Judith Dams; Bernhard Bornschein; Jens Peter Reese; Annette Conrads-Frank; Wolfgang H Oertel; Uwe Siebert; Richard Dodel Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Job F M van Boven; Annoesjka Novak; Maurice T Driessen; Cornelis Boersma; Maarten M Boomsma; Maarten J Postma Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Jean-François Daneault; Benoit Carignan; Abbas F Sadikot; Michel Panisset; Christian Duval Journal: BMC Med Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 8.775