Is adjunctive pharmacotherapy in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder cost-effective in Canada: a cost-effectiveness assessment of guanfacine extended-release as an adjunctive therapy to a long-acting stimulant for the treatment of ADHD

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.

Descriptive Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Counseling and Coordination Model in Psychosocial Care. Integration of Health Care and Social Rehabilitation

INTRODUCTION

A psychosocial outreach clinic was established to offer counseling and coordination of healthcare and complementary services for persons with psychosocial and mental problems. The cost-effectiveness of these services was measured based on a pre-post comparison.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted with clients of the outreach clinic. Data on resource consumption and quality of life were collected at baseline and follow-up after 3, 6, and 12 months using the Client Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory to assess service utilization, and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey to assess quality of life. The objective of the present analysis was to estimate the relation between monetary expenditure and QALYs (quality-adjusted life-years), before and after the outreach clinic was established, descriptively. The analysis was constructed from payer's perspective and was supplemented by a sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 85 participants were included. Total annual expenditures before the intervention were 5,832 € per client for all service segments. During the 12-months study duration expenditures decreased to 4,350 € including the costs associated with outreach clinic services. QALYs for the 12-month study period were 0.6618 and increased about 0.0568 compared to the period before.

DISCUSSION

Despite methodological limitations due to small sample size, a pre-post comparison and the retrospective cost data collection, this study suggests acceptability of the outreach clinic as cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

The activities of the outreach clinic as an integrated care model seem to be cost-effective regarding the relation between monetary expenditures and clients' quality of life.

Treatment Patterns, Health Care Resource Utilization, and Health Care Cost Associated with Atypical Antipsychotics or Guanfacine Extended Release in Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Quebec, Canada

Objective: To assess treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and health care costs associated with use of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) or the nonstimulant guanfacine extended release (GXR) after stimulant therapy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In Canada, GXR is approved as a monotherapy for children and adolescents with ADHD or as an adjunct to stimulants, and AAPs are commonly used off-label as an adjunct to stimulants. Methods: Health care claims data (January 1, 2007 to March 31, 2016) from Quebec's provincial health plan were assessed for individuals with ADHD, 6-17 years of age, who received ≥1 stimulant followed by a first AAP or GXR prescription (index medication), without a diagnosis for which AAPs are indicated. Results: Overall, 1327 individuals were included (AAPs, 1098; GXR, 229). Rates of discontinuation, augmentation, or switching of the index medication did not differ between AAPs and GXR during the first follow-up year. Discontinuation rates were significantly lower with GXR than with AAPs during the second year (22.0% vs. 35.9%; p = 0.03). GXR and AAPs resulted in similar increases in total health care cost. In GXR users, the increase in prescription drug cost after 6 months was higher than in AAP users, whereas the increase in overall medical cost was higher with AAPs than GXR, owing to more psychiatric department visits. Conclusions: In children and adolescents with ADHD who used AAPs or GXR after stimulants, secondary treatment changes were similar with both treatments after 1 year, but discontinuation rates were significantly lower with GXR than with AAPs in the second year. The greater increase in prescription cost with GXR was balanced by a greater increase in overall medical costs with AAPs, resulting in no overall difference in total health care cost between the two treatments.

The impact of adjunctive guanfacine extended release on stimulant adherence in children/adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Aim: To assess stimulant adherence among children/adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) augmenting stimulants with guanfacine extended-release (GXR). Patients & methods: Inclusion criteria: 6–17 years, ≥1 ADHD diagnosis, ≥1 long-acting and/or short-acting stimulant with GXR augmentation. Modified medication possession ratio (mMPR; days medication available/days in period, excluding medication holidays) was assessed; mMPR <0.80 nonadherent. Regression models assessed change in mMPR adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Among patients nonadherent to stimulants pre-augmentation (n = 165), unadjusted mean (SD) pre- and post-stimulant mMPRs were 0.68 (0.11) and 0.87 (0.16). Adjusted mean change in mMPR was 0.20 for long-acting versus 0.18 for short-acting stimulants (p = 0.34). Conclusion: Among patients nonadherent to stimulants, GXR augmentation was associated with increased stimulant adherence.