Samuel Herzog1, Marian Shanahan2, Peter Grimison3, Anh Tran1, Nicole Wong1, Nicholas Lintzeris4,5, John Simes1,3, Martin Stockler1,3, Rachael L Morton6,7. 1. Sydney Medical School, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia. 2. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. 3. Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. 4. Discipline of Addiction Medicine, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia. 5. Drug and Alcohol Services, South East Sydney Local Health District, Kogarah, NSW, 2010, Australia. 6. Sydney Medical School, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia. rachael.morton@ctc.usyd.edu.au. 7. NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Medical Foundation Building, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. rachael.morton@ctc.usyd.edu.au.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) may offer relief from symptoms of disease; however, their additional cost needs to be considered alongside their effectiveness. We sought to review the economic costs and benefits of prescribed CBMs in any chronic illness, and the frameworks used for their economic evaluation. METHODS: A systematic review of eight medical and economic databases, from inception to mid-December 2016, was undertaken. MeSH headings and text words relating to economic costs and benefits, and CBMs were combined. Study quality was assessed using relevant checklists and results were synthesised in narrative form. RESULTS: Of 2514 identified records, ten studies met the eligibility criteria, all for the management of multiple sclerosis (MS). Six contained economic evaluations, four studies reported utility-based quality of life, and one was a willingness-to-pay study. Four of five industry-sponsored cost-utility analyses for MS spasticity reported nabiximols as being cost-effective from a European health system perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for these five studies were £49,257 (UK); £10,891 (Wales); €11,214 (Germany); €4968 (Italy); and dominant (Spain). Nabiximols for the management of MS spasticity was not associated with statistically significant improvements in EQ-5D scores compared with standard care. Study quality was moderate overall, with limited inclusion of both relevant societal costs and discussions of potential bias. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribed CBMs are a potentially cost-effective add-on treatment for MS spasticity; however, this evidence is uncertain. Further investment in randomised trials with in-built economic evaluations is warranted for a wider range of clinical indications. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42014006370.
INTRODUCTION: Cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) may offer relief from symptoms of disease; however, their additional cost needs to be considered alongside their effectiveness. We sought to review the economic costs and benefits of prescribed CBMs in any chronic illness, and the frameworks used for their economic evaluation. METHODS: A systematic review of eight medical and economic databases, from inception to mid-December 2016, was undertaken. MeSH headings and text words relating to economic costs and benefits, and CBMs were combined. Study quality was assessed using relevant checklists and results were synthesised in narrative form. RESULTS: Of 2514 identified records, ten studies met the eligibility criteria, all for the management of multiple sclerosis (MS). Six contained economic evaluations, four studies reported utility-based quality of life, and one was a willingness-to-pay study. Four of five industry-sponsored cost-utility analyses for MS spasticity reported nabiximols as being cost-effective from a European health system perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for these five studies were £49,257 (UK); £10,891 (Wales); €11,214 (Germany); €4968 (Italy); and dominant (Spain). Nabiximols for the management of MS spasticity was not associated with statistically significant improvements in EQ-5D scores compared with standard care. Study quality was moderate overall, with limited inclusion of both relevant societal costs and discussions of potential bias. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribed CBMs are a potentially cost-effective add-on treatment for MS spasticity; however, this evidence is uncertain. Further investment in randomised trials with in-built economic evaluations is warranted for a wider range of clinical indications. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42014006370.
Authors: Joshua J Ofman; Sean D Sullivan; Peter J Neumann; Chiun-Fang Chiou; James M Henning; Sally W Wade; Joel W Hay Journal: J Manag Care Pharm Date: 2003 Jan-Feb
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: A Novotna; J Mares; S Ratcliffe; I Novakova; M Vachova; O Zapletalova; C Gasperini; C Pozzilli; L Cefaro; G Comi; P Rossi; Z Ambler; Z Stelmasiak; A Erdmann; X Montalban; A Klimek; P Davies Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Antony J Mersiades; Annette Tognela; Paul S Haber; Martin Stockler; Nicholas Lintzeris; John Simes; Iain McGregor; Ian Olver; David J Allsop; Craig Gedye; Adrienne C Kirby; Rachael L Morton; Peter Fox; Stephen Clarke; Karen Briscoe; Morteza Aghmesheh; Nicole Wong; Anna Walsh; Carmel Hahn; Peter Grimison Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 2.692