Jesse Elliott1, Bláthnaid McCoy2,3, Tammy Clifford4,5, George A Wells4,6, Doug Coyle4. 1. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. jcrai065@uottawa.ca. 2. Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Division of Neurology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 5. CADTH, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 6. Cardiovascular Research Methods Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dravet syndrome is a catastrophic form of pediatric treatment-resistant epilepsy with few effective treatment options. Stiripentol is approved for use in Canada for treatment of Dravet syndrome, but the associated long-term costs and benefits have not been well-studied and its cost effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of stiripentol as an adjunctive treatment to clobazam and valproate for treatment of Dravet syndrome from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare payer. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with adjunctive stiripentol treatment compared with clobazam and valproate alone in children with Dravet syndrome. Transition probabilities, drug efficacy, utility weights, and costs were obtained from a review of the literature. Probabilistic analyses were conducted using a Markov model with health states related to seizure frequency. A 10-year horizon was used. The incremental cost per QALY gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) for adjunctive use of stiripentol was calculated, and assumptions were explored in scenario analyses. All costs are expressed in 2017 Canadian dollars ($Can). RESULTS: Compared with clobazam and valproate alone, the adjunctive use of stiripentol is associated with an ICER of $Can151,310. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $Can50,000, the probability that stiripentol was the optimal treatment was 5.2%. The cost of stiripentol would need to be reduced by 61.4% for stiripentol to be cost effective. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare payer, stiripentol is not cost effective at its current price at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $Can50,000. Funding stiripentol will be associated with important opportunity costs that bear consideration.
BACKGROUND:Dravet syndrome is a catastrophic form of pediatric treatment-resistant epilepsy with few effective treatment options. Stiripentol is approved for use in Canada for treatment of Dravet syndrome, but the associated long-term costs and benefits have not been well-studied and its cost effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of stiripentol as an adjunctive treatment to clobazam and valproate for treatment of Dravet syndrome from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare payer. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with adjunctive stiripentol treatment compared with clobazam and valproate alone in children with Dravet syndrome. Transition probabilities, drug efficacy, utility weights, and costs were obtained from a review of the literature. Probabilistic analyses were conducted using a Markov model with health states related to seizure frequency. A 10-year horizon was used. The incremental cost per QALY gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) for adjunctive use of stiripentol was calculated, and assumptions were explored in scenario analyses. All costs are expressed in 2017 Canadian dollars ($Can). RESULTS: Compared with clobazam and valproate alone, the adjunctive use of stiripentol is associated with an ICER of $Can151,310. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $Can50,000, the probability that stiripentol was the optimal treatment was 5.2%. The cost of stiripentol would need to be reduced by 61.4% for stiripentol to be cost effective. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare payer, stiripentol is not cost effective at its current price at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $Can50,000. Funding stiripentol will be associated with important opportunity costs that bear consideration.
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: Yvonne W Wu; Joseph Sullivan; Sharon S McDaniel; Miriam H Meisler; Eileen M Walsh; Sherian Xu Li; Michael W Kuzniewicz Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Monica S Cooper; Anne Mcintosh; Douglas E Crompton; Jacinta M McMahon; Amy Schneider; Kevin Farrell; Vijeya Ganesan; Deepak Gill; Sara Kivity; Tally Lerman-Sagie; Ailsa McLellan; James Pelekanos; Venkateswaran Ramesh; Lynette Sadleir; Elaine Wirrell; Ingrid E Scheffer Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 3.045