Cost-Effectiveness and Cost Utility of Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review.

Objectives: This systematic review provides an overview of full economic evaluations of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments, evaluates their outcomes, and highlights gaps in the literature. Data Sources: Electronic databases were searched for full economic evaluations of ADHD treatments for children, adolescents, or adults published in English or Dutch. Results: Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Almost all studies that compared medication or psychosocial treatment to no treatment, placebo, or care as usual indicated that medication and psychosocial treatment were cost-effective compared to the control group. Stimulant treatment appeared to be cost-effective for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents. Only few studies focus on treatments in adults and psychosocial treatments and the number of studies with long time horizons and without industry funding is limited. Conclusions: Despite the rising interest in cost-effectiveness, this systematic review shows that more cost-effectiveness research of higher quality is warranted to aid in the optimal use of available treatments and resources for individuals with ADHD. Specifically, more studies should focus on treatments in adults and psychosocial treatments, and more studies with long time horizons and without industry funding are warranted. Nevertheless, we can conclude that treating ADHD is generally cost-effective compared to no treatment. PROSPERO: CRD42017060074. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=60074.

Cost-Effectiveness of Initiating Pharmacological Treatment in Stage One Hypertension Based on 10-Year Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Markov Modeling Study.

Antihypertensive drug treatment is cost-effective for adults at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, the cost-effectiveness in people with stage 1 hypertension (140-159 mm Hg systolic blood pressure) at lower CVD risk remains unclear. The objective was to establish the 10-year CVD risk threshold where initiating antihypertensive drug treatment for primary prevention in adults, with stage 1 hypertension, becomes cost-effective. A lifetime horizon Markov model compared antihypertensive drug versus no treatment, using a UK National Health Service perspective. Analyses were conducted for groups ranging between 5% and 20% 10-year CVD risk. Health states included no CVD event, CVD and non-CVD death, and 6 nonfatal CVD morbidities. Interventions were compared using cost-per-quality-adjusted life-years. The base-case age was 60, with analyses repeated between ages 40 and 75. The model was run separately for men and women, and threshold CVD risk assessed against the minimum plausible risk for each group. Treatment was cost-effective at 10% CVD risk for both sexes (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £10 017/quality-adjusted life-year [$14 542] men, £8635/QALY [$12 536] women) in the base-case. The result was robust in probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses but was sensitive to treatment effects. Treatment was cost-effective for men regardless of age and women aged >60. Initiating treatment in stage 1 hypertension for people aged 60 is cost-effective regardless of 10-year CVD risk. For other age groups, it is also cost-effective to treat regardless of risk, except in younger women.

Options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model.

The 2011 NICE hypertension guideline (CG127) undertook a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of different blood pressure (BP) assessment methods to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension. The guideline also undertook a cost-utility analysis exploring the cost-effectiveness of the monitoring methods. A new systematic review was undertaken as part of the 2019 NICE hypertension guideline update (NG136). BP monitoring methods compared included Ambulatory BP, Clinic BP and Home BP. Ambulatory BP was the reference standard. The economic model from the 2011 guideline was updated with this new accuracy data. Home BP was more sensitive and specific than Clinic BP. Specificity improved more than sensitivity since the 2011 review. A higher specificity translates into fewer people requiring unnecessary treatment. A key interest was to compare Home BP and Ambulatory BP, and whether any improvement in Home BP accuracy would change the model results. Ambulatory BP remained the most cost-effective option in all age and sex subgroups. In all subgroups, Ambulatory BP was associated with lower costs than Clinic BP and Home BP. In all except one subgroup (females aged 40), Ambulatory BP was dominant. However, Ambulatory BP remained the most cost-effective option in 40-year-old females as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for Home BP versus Ambulatory BP was above the NICE £20,000 threshold. The new systematic review showed that the accuracy of both Clinic BP and Home BP has increased. However, Ambulatory BP remains the most cost-effective option to confirm a diagnosis of hypertension in all subgroups evaluated.

Cost analysis of ureteroscopy (URS) vs extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the management of ureteric stones <10 mm in adults: a UK perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the total cost of a treatment strategy starting with ureteroscopy (URS) vs a strategy starting with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). METHODS: For ureteric stones of <10 mm, URS or ESWL are the main treatment options that are considered. Although the interventions differ, the goal of the interventions is to achieve a stone-free status. A systematic review and meta-analysis undertaken as part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline on 'Renal and ureteric stones: assessment and management' identified URS as more effective, in terms of getting people stone free, but has a higher probability of re-admission and adverse events (AEs) that contributes to downstream resource use. ESWL is initially less costly, but lower effectiveness means a greater need for repeat or ancillary procedures in order to get a patient stone free. Given these trade-offs between benefits and costs, a cost analysis of URS and ESWL was undertaken as part of the NICE guideline, using evidence from the literature of effectiveness, re-admission and AEs. The NICE guideline meta-analysis showed a lot of heterogeneity and differences in how outcomes were reported between studies. The costing analysis, therefore only used studies where: (i) patients were rendered stone free, and (ii) where effectiveness, was based on the first-line (initial) procedures. Exploratory quality adjusted life year (QALY) work was also undertaken to identify the QALY and quality of life (QoL) differences required for the most expensive intervention to be cost effective, based on the assumption that the difference in effectiveness between the initial procedures would be the main source of the QALY gain between the two strategies. RESULTS: The URS strategy was more costly overall than the ESWL strategy (incremental cost of £2387 [pounds sterling]). Sensitivity analysis varying the initial effectiveness of ESWL treatment (between the base case value of 82% and 40%) showed that URS would still be a more costly strategy even if the initial session of ESWL only had a success probability of 40%. A two-way sensitivity analysis as part of the exploratory QALY work showed that ESWL would have to have very low effectiveness and people would have to wait for further treatment for many weeks (following a failed ESWL treatment) for there to be feasible QoL gains to justify the additional cost of the URS strategy. CONCLUSIONS: ESWL is less effective at initial stone clearance and therefore requires more ancillary interventions than URS. However, the magnitude of the difference in costs means URS is unlikely to be cost effective intervention at a population level for first-line treatment, implying ESWL should be the first choice treatment.

Paracetamol: not as safe as we thought? A systematic literature review of observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic literature review to assess the adverse event (AE) profile of paracetamol. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase from database inception to 1 May 2013. We screened for observational studies in English, which reported mortality, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal (GI) or renal AEs in the general adult population at standard analgesic doses of paracetamol. Study quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Pooled or adjusted summary statistics were presented for each outcome. RESULTS: Of 1888 studies retrieved, 8 met inclusion criteria, and all were cohort studies. Comparing paracetamol use versus no use, of two studies reporting mortality one showed a dose-response and reported an increased relative rate of mortality from 0.95 (0.92 to 0.98) to 1.63 (1.58 to 1.68). Of four studies reporting cardiovascular AEs, all showed a dose-response with one reporting an increased risk ratio of all cardiovascular AEs from 1.19 (0.81 to 1.75) to 1.68 (1.10 to 2.57). One study reporting GI AEs reported a dose-response with increased relative rate of GI AEs or bleeds from 1.11 (1.04 to 1.18) to 1.49 (1.34 to 1.66). Of four studies reporting renal AEs, three reported a dose-response with one reporting an increasing OR of ≥30% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate from 1.40 (0.79 to 2.48) to 2.19 (1.4 to 3.43). DISCUSSION: Given the observational nature of the data, channelling bias may have had an important impact. However, the dose-response seen for most endpoints suggests a considerable degree of paracetamol toxicity especially at the upper end of standard analgesic doses.