4 research outputs found

    The Cost Effectiveness of Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel in the Treatment of Advanced Parkinson’s Disease in England

    Get PDF
    Background: Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disease, which significantly impacts patients’ quality of life and is associated with high treatment and direct healthcare costs. In England, levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) is indicated for the treatment of levodopa-responsive advanced Parkinson’s disease with troublesome motor fluctuations when available combinations of medicinal products are unsatisfactory. Objective: We aimed to determine the cost effectiveness of LCIG compared to the standard of care for patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease in England, using real-world data. Methods: A Markov model was adapted from previous published studies, using the perspective of the English National Health System and Personal and Social Services to evaluate the cost effectiveness of LCIG compared to standard of care in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease over a 20-year time horizon. The model comprised 25 health states, defined by a combination of the Hoehn and Yahr scale, and waking time spent in OFF-time. The base case considered an initial cohort of patients with an Hoehn and Yahr score of ≥ 3, and > 4 h OFF-time. Standard of care comprised standard oral therapies, and a proportion of patients were assumed to be treated with subcutaneous apomorphine infusion or injection in addition to oral therapies. Efficacy inputs were based on LCIG clinical trials where possible. Resource use and utility values were based on results of a large-scale observational study, and costs were derived from the latest published UK data, valued at 2017 prices. The EuroQol five-dimensions-3-level (EQ-5D-3L) instrument was used to measure utilities. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were discounted at 3.5%. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Total costs and quality-adjusted life-years gained for LCIG vs standard of care were £586,832 vs £554,022, and 2.82 vs 1.43, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for LCIG compared to standard of care was £23,649/quality-adjusted life-year. Results were sensitive to the healthcare resource utilisation based on real-world data, and long-term efficacy of LCIG. Conclusions: The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated to be within the acceptable thresholds for cost effectiveness considered for England

    Systematic review and comparison of pharmacologic therapies for neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury

    No full text
    Sonya J Snedecor,1 Lavanya Sudharshan,1 Joseph C Cappelleri,2 Alesia Sadosky,3 Pooja Desai,4 Yash J Jalundhwala,5 Marc Botteman1 1Pharmerit International, Bethesda, MD, USA; 2Global Research and Development, Pfizer, Groton, CT, USA; 3Biostatistics, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA; 4College of Pharmacy, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA; 5Pharmacy Administration, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Background: Management of neuropathic pain (NeP) associated with spinal cord injury (SCI) is difficult. This report presents a systematic literature review and comparison of the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic therapies for treating SCI-associated NeP. Methods: Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched through December 2011 for randomized, blinded, and controlled clinical trials of SCI-associated NeP meeting predefined inclusion criteria. Efficacy outcomes of interest were pain reduction on the 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) or 100 mm visual analog scale and proportion of patients achieving &ge;30% or &ge;50% pain reduction. Discontinuations and adverse events (AEs) were also assessed, for which Bayesian meta-analytic indirect comparisons were performed. Results: Of the nine studies included in the analysis, samples were <100 patients, except for one pregabalin study (n = 136). Standard errors for the NRS outcome were often not reported, precluding quantitative comparisons across treatments. Estimated 11-point NRS pain reduction relative to placebo was &ndash;1.72 for pregabalin, &ndash;1.65 for amitriptyline, &ndash;1.0 for duloxetine, &ndash;1 (median) for levetiracetam, &ndash;0.27 for gabapentin, 1 (median) for lamotrigine, and 2 for dronabinol. Risk ratios relative to placebo for 30% improvement were 0.71 for levetiracetam and 2.56 for pregabalin, and 0.94 and 2.91, respectively, for 50% improvement. Meta-analytic comparisons showed significantly more AEs with pregabalin and tramadol compared with placebo, and no differences between placebo and any treatment for discontinuations. Conclusions: Studies of SCI-associated NeP were few, small, and reported insufficient data for quantitative comparisons of efficacy. However, available data suggested pregabalin was associated with more favorable efficacy for all outcome measures examined, and that the risks of AEs and discontinuations were found to be similar among the therapies. Keywords: neuropathic pain, spinal cord injury, systematic review, indirect comparison, pharmacologic managemen

    Ăśber die (aseptische) Harnstauungsniere

    No full text
    corecore