Cost effectiveness of guanfacine extended-release versus atomoxetine for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: application of a matching-adjusted indirect comparison

The cost-effectiveness of treatments for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review

Economic evaluations can help decision makers identify what services for children with neurodevelopmental disorders provide best value-for-money. The aim of this paper is to review the best available economic evidence to support decision making for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children and adolescents. We conducted a systematic review of economic evaluations of ADHD and ASD interventions including studies published 2010-2020, identified through Econlit, Medline, PsychINFO, and ERIC databases. Only full economic evaluations comparing two or more options, considering both costs and consequences were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Drummond checklist. We identified ten studies of moderate-to-good quality on the cost-effectiveness of treatments for ADHD and two studies of good quality of interventions for ASD. The majority of ADHD studies evaluated pharmacotherapy (n = 8), and two investigated the economic value of psychosocial/behavioral interventions. Both economic evaluations for ASD investigated early and communication interventions. Included studies support the cost-effectiveness of behavioral parenting interventions for younger children with ADHD. Among pharmacotherapies for ADHD, different combinations of stimulant/non-stimulant medications for children were cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds reported in the original papers. Early intervention for children with suspected ASD was cost-effective, but communication-focused therapy for preschool children with ASD was not. Prioritizing more studies in this area would allow decision makers to promote cost-effective and clinically effective interventions for this target group.

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.

Comparative effectiveness of improvement in pain and physical function for baricitinib versus adalimumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib monotherapies in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are naïve to treatment with biologic or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Objective

To compare improvement in pain and physical function for patients treated with baricitinib, adalimumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib monotherapy from randomised, methotrexate (MTX)-controlled trials in conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs)/biologic (bDMARD)-naïve RA patients using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs).

Methods

Data were from Phase III trials on patients receiving monotherapy baricitinib, tocilizumab, adalimumab, tofacitinib or MTX. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (0–100 mm) and physical function using the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). An MAIC based on treatment-arm matching, an MAIC with study-level matching and Bucher’s method without matching compared change in outcomes between therapies. Matching variables included age, gender, baseline disease activity and baseline value of outcome measure.

Results

With all methods, greater improvements were observed in pain and HAQ-DI at 6 months for baricitinib compared with adalimumab and tocilizumab (p<0.05). Differences in treatment effects (TEs) favouring baricitinib for pain VAS for treatment-arm matching, study-level matching and Bucher’s method, respectively, were −12, −12 and −12 for baricitinib versus adalimumab and −7, −7 and −9 for baricitinib versus tocilizumab; the difference in TEs for HAQ-DI was −0.28, −0.28 and −0.30 for adalimumab and −0.23, −0.23 and −0.26 for tocilizumab. For baricitinib versus tofacitinib, no statistically significant differences for pain improvement were observed except with one of the three methods (Bucher method) and none for HAQ-DI.

Conclusions

Results suggest greater pain reduction and improved physical function for baricitinib monotherapy compared with tocilizumab and adalimumab monotherapy. No statistically significant differences in pain reduction and improved physical function were observed between baricitinib and tofacitinib with the MAIC analyses.

Healthcare utilization and costs of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder initiating atomoxetine versus extended-release guanfacine

OBJECTIVES

To compare 1-year direct healthcare costs and utilization among children and adolescents initiating non-stimulant medications atomoxetine (ATX) or extended-release guanfacine (GXR).

METHODS

In this retrospective, observational cohort study, children and adolescents aged 6-17 years with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who had ≥1 prescription claim for ATX or GXR between December 31, 2009 and January 1, 2011 were identified in the MarketScan Commercial or Multi-State Medicaid claims databases. The first claim was set as the index. Patients with no claims for other ADHD medications that overlapped with the days' supply for the index therapy during the post-period were classified as initiating monotherapy. All-cause and ADHD-related utilization and costs (2011 US$) and treatment patterns (adherence and persistence) were evaluated during the 12 months following index. Propensity score adjustment accounted for differences in patient characteristics, and bootstrapping was used for comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 13,239 children and adolescents with ADHD met the study criteria (4,411 ATX initiators and 8,828 GXR initiators). There were 2,699 ATX monotherapy patients. In propensity-score-adjusted analyses, mean all-cause total costs were significantly less for monotherapy ATX initiators than for GXR initiators ($7,553 vs $10,639; difference = -$3,086, p < .0001), as were mean ADHD-related total costs ($3,213 vs $4,544; difference = -$1,330, p < .0001). Monotherapy ATX initiators had significantly fewer all-cause and ADHD-related total medical visits and ∼22 days shorter persistence to index therapy (p < .0001). Results were similar for secondary analyses comparing all ATX with all GXR initiators, regardless of monotherapy or combination regimen, and comparing only monotherapy initiators.

CONCLUSIONS

Children and adolescents with ADHD who initiated ATX monotherapy incurred lower all-cause and ADHD-related total healthcare costs than patients who initiated GXR. This was due in part to less healthcare resource utilization and slightly shorter persistence for ATX patients. These findings may aid decision-making and inform future studies, but must be tempered due to inherent observational research limitations.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis treated with ixekizumab vs. secukinumab

BACKGROUND

Head-to-head randomized studies comparing ixekizumab and secukinumab in the treatment of psoriasis are not available.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and quality of life using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons for treatment with ixekizumab vs. secukinumab.

METHODS

Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) improvement of at least 75%, 90% and 100% and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) 0/1 response rates for approved dosages of ixekizumab (160 mg at Week 0, then 80 mg every two weeks for the first 12 weeks) and secukinumab (300 mg at Weeks 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4, then 300 mg every 4 weeks) treatment were compared using data from active (etanercept and ustekinumab) and placebo-controlled studies. Comparisons were made using the Bucher (BU) method and two modified versions of the Signorovitch (SG) method (SG total and SG separate). Subsequently, results based on active treatment common comparators were combined using generic inverse-variance meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In the meta-analysis of studies with active comparators, PASI 90 response rates were 12·7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 5·5-19·8, P = 0·0005], 10·0% (95% CI 2·1-18·0, P = 0·01) and 11·2% (95% CI 3·2-19·1, P = 0·006) higher and PASI 100 response rates were 11·7% (95% CI 5·9-17·5, P < 0·001), 12·7% (95% CI 6·0-19·4, P < 0·001) and 13·1% (95% CI 6·3-19·9, P < 0·001) higher for ixekizumab compared with secukinumab using BU, SG total and SG separate methods. PASI 75 results were comparable when SG methods were used and favoured ixekizumab when the BU method was used. Week 12 DLQI 0/1 response rates did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Ixekizumab had higher PASI 90 and PASI 100 responses at week 12 compared with secukinumab using adjusted indirect comparisons.

Evaluating Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons in Practice: A Case Study of Patients with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Differences in patient characteristics across trials may bias efficacy estimates from indirect treatment comparisons. To address this issue, matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) measures treatment efficacy after weighting individual patient data to match patient characteristics across trials. To date, however, there is no consensus on how best to implement MAIC. To address this issue, we applied MAIC to measure how two attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments (guanfacine extended release and atomoxetine hydrochloride) affect patients' ADHD symptoms, as measured by the ADHD Rating Scale IV score. We tested MAIC sensitivity to: matched patient characteristics, matched statistical moments, weighting matrix, and placebo-arm matching (i.e., matching on outcomes in the placebo arm). After applying MAIC, guanfacine and atomoxetine had similar reductions in ADHD symptoms (Δ: 0.4, p < 0.737). The results were similar for three of four sensitivity analyses. When we applied MAIC with placebo-arm matching, however, guanfacine reduced symptoms more than atomoxetine (Δ: -3.9, p < 0.004). We discuss the implication of this finding and advise MAIC practitioners to carefully consider the use of placebo-arm matching, depending on the presence of residual confounding across trials. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of efficacy of BAY 81-8973 vs two recombinant factor VIII for the prophylactic treatment of severe hemophilia A

BACKGROUND

No head-to-head trials comparing recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) products currently exist. This was a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) study of efficacy of BAY 81-8973 with antihemophilic factor (recombinant) plasma/albumin-free method (rAHF-PFM) and turoctocog alfa for the prophylaxis of severe hemophilia A.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify trials of rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa. Comparisons were conducted using BAY 81-8973 individual patient data (IPD) from LEOPOLD trials and published data from rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa trials. Differences in outcome reporting were reconciled using transformation of BAY 81-8973 IPD. Patients in pooled LEOPOLD trials were weighted to match baseline characteristics for rAHF-PFM or turoctocog alfa trials using MAICs. After matching, annualized bleed rates (ABRs) were compared using weighted t-tests.

RESULTS

Two rAHF-PFM trials and one turoctocog alfa trial were identified. In these trials, rFVIIIs were dosed thrice weekly or every other day; in LEOPOLD trials, BAY 81-8973 was dosed twice- or thrice weekly. Three MAICs were conducted because the two rAHF-PFM trials calculated ABRs differently, matching for age, race, and weight (turoctocog alfa only). BAY 81-8973 had similar ABR of all bleeds vs rAHF-PFM (two trials: 4.8 vs 6.3, 1.9 vs 1.8 [square root transform]) and lower ABR of spontaneous bleeds and trauma bleeds (2.6 vs 4.1, 2.1 vs 4.7; both P<0.05). BAY 81-8973 showed lower ABR of all bleeds and spontaneous bleeds vs turoctocog alfa (4.3 vs 6.5, 2.8 vs 4.3; both P<0.05) and similar ABR of trauma bleeds (1.5 vs 1.6). In subgroup analysis, twice-weekly BAY 81-8973 had similar ABRs of all bleeds, spontaneous bleeds, and trauma bleeds compared to rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa.

CONCLUSION

This indirect comparison found that prophylaxis with BAY 81-8973, even including the lower frequency of two times a week and lower factor VIII consumption, has efficacy comparable to rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa, which were dosed thrice weekly or every other day. The use of IPD enabled adjustments for differences in calculation of ABRs and population characteristics between trials.

Pharmacological treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: assessing outcomes

A substantial body of evidence has supported the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatment available for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). There is increasing agreement that the important treatment outcomes for ADHD extend beyond improvement in core symptoms and that a more generic (or global) concept of remission is the overarching goal of treatment. However, there is no consensus on the best definition of remission or on how best to conceptualize and measure broader treatment outcomes. In this article, we provide an overview of the various methods and approaches to measuring treatment outcomes for ADHD with respect to symptoms, impairment, quality of life, adverse events and safety as well as cognition. We will describe the ways that they may be used within routine clinical practice and think ahead about the kinds of studies that are required to move the field forward.

Daclatasvir + sofosbuvir versus standard of care for hepatitis C genotype 3: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of daclatasvir and sofosbuvir (DCV + SOF) versus SOF and ribavirin (SOF + R) and versus peginterferon-alfa plus ribavirin (A/R) in patients infected with hepatitis C genotype 3.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Clinical trials of SOF + R or A/R were identified in systematic literature reviews. The DCV+SOF population was adjusted via propensity score weighting to match average baseline characteristics to those reported for the comparator regimens.

RESULTS

The SVR12 rate was similar between DCV + SOF and SOF + R, and significantly higher with DCV + SOF than A/R. Rates of discontinuation due to AEs were similar or significantly lower in patients treated with DCV + SOF than SOF + R or A/R.

CONCLUSION

With its high efficacy and improved tolerability, DCV + SOF is an important treatment for hepatitis C genotype 3.

One-year and long-term molecular response to nilotinib and dasatinib for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison

BACKGROUND

Nilotinib and dasatinib have shown superior rates of molecular response (MR) compared to imatinib for the treatment of newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase (CP). This study indirectly compares MR in patients taking nilotinib 300 mg bid with that in those taking dasatinib 100 mg qd by 12 months and through 48 months.

METHODS

Patients in ENESTnd were re-weighted to match published baseline characteristics reported for DASISION using a propensity score model. After matching, differences in rates of major MR (MMR, measured as a 3 log reduction on the International Scale [IS]), MR(4.0) (4 log reduction on IS), and MR(4.5) (4.5 log reduction on IS) relative to imatinib were indirectly compared between nilotinib and dasatinib. Hazard ratios (HRs) were used to indirectly compare MR outcomes between nilotinib and dasatinib through 48 months of follow-up, while rate differences were used to compare progression to AP/BC between nilotinib and dasatinib by 48 months.

RESULTS

After matching, rates of MR by 12 months were higher with nilotinib vs dasatinib by 11.7% for MMR (p = 0.045), 8.2% for MR(4.0) (p = 0.029), and 8.5% for MR(4.5) (p < 0.001). Higher rates of MMR (HR = 1.44, p = 0.018) and MR(4.0) (HR = 1.58, p = 0.013) achievement were maintained with nilotinib compared to dasatinib through 48 months of follow-up. No statistically significant differences were observed for MR(4.5) through 48 months or progression to AP/BC by 48 months.

LIMITATIONS

LIMITATIONS include comparisons based solely on indirect evidence and HRs for MR(4.0) and MR(4.5) from the DASISION trial being extracted from cumulative incidence curves.

CONCLUSIONS

This indirect comparison suggests that nilotinib is associated with higher rates of achieving MMR, MR(4.0), and MR(4.5) by 12 months compared to dasatinib for the treatment of newly diagnosed CML-CP. In addition, higher rates of MR achievement with nilotinib were also maintained through 48 months of follow-up.

Profile of guanfacine extended release and its potential in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

The α2-adrenergic receptor agonist guanfacine, in its extended-release formulation (GXR), is the most recent nonstimulant medication approved in several countries for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as monotherapy and as adjunctive pharmacotherapy to stimulants in children and adolescents. The present paper aims to review comprehensively and critically the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics and the published evidence on the efficacy and safety profile of GXR in the treatment of ADHD. A comprehensive search of relevant databases (PubMed, Embase, and PsycInfo) was conducted to identify studies published in peer-reviewed journals until January 15, 2015. Though the precise mechanism of action of guanfacine in the treatment of ADHD is not fully understood, it is thought to act directly by enhancing noradrenaline functioning via α2A-adrenoceptors in the prefrontal cortex. Weight-adjusted doses should be used, with a dosing regime on a milligram per kilogram basis, starting at doses in the range 0.05-0.08 mg/kg/day, up to 0.12 mg/kg/day. As evidenced in short-term randomized controlled trials and in long-term open-label extension studies, GXR has been shown to be effective as monotherapy in the treatment of ADHD. Furthermore, GXR has also been found to be effective as adjunctive therapy to stimulant medications in patients with suboptimal responses to stimulants. Many of the adverse reactions associated with GXR, particularly sedation-related effects, were dose-related, transient, mild to moderate in severity, and did not interfere with attention or overall efficacy. There are no reports of serious cardiovascular adverse events associated with GXR alone or in combination with psychostimulants.

The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review approaches and instruments used to derive utility weights in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) within the field of mental disorders and to identify factors that may have influenced the choice of the approach.

METHODS

We searched the databases DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment), and PubMed for CUAs. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations and reported quality-adjusted life-years as the health outcome. Study characteristics and instruments used to estimate utility weights were described and a logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with the choice of either the direct (e.g. standard gamble) or the preference-based measure (PBM) approach (e.g. EQ-5D).

RESULTS

We identified 227 CUAs with a maximum in 2009, 2010, and 2012. Most CUAs were conducted in depression, dementia, or psychosis, and came from the US or the UK, with the EQ-5D being the most frequently used instrument. The application of the direct approach was significantly associated with depression, psychosis, and model-based studies. The PBM approach was more likely to be used in recent studies, dementia, Europe, and empirical studies. Utility weights used in model-based studies were derived from only a small number of studies.

LIMITATIONS

We only searched four databases and did not evaluate the quality of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct instruments and PBMs are used to elicit utility weights in CUAs with different frequencies regarding study type, mental disorder, and country.