IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v25y2005i5p493-510.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of New Pharmaceuticals in Epilepsy in Adults: The Results of a Probabilistic Decision Model

Author

Listed:
  • Neil Hawkins
  • David Epstein
  • Michael Drummond
  • Jennifer Wilby
  • Anita Kainth
  • David Chadwick
  • Mark Sculpher

Abstract

Epilepsy currently affects more than 400,000 people in the United Kingdom and 2.3 million in the United States. Drug therapy is the mainstay of treatment for patients with epilepsy, but therapies vary widely in their mechanism of action and acquisition cost. This article describes a decision model developed for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom. It compares the long-term cost-effectiveness of drugs licensed in adults for use in 3 situations: monotherapy for newly diagnosed patients, monotherapy for refractory patients, and combination therapy for refractory patients. The analysis separately considers the treatment of partial and generalized seizures. The full range of pharmaceutical therapies feasibly used in the UK health system was included in the analysis. The analysis showed that, on the basis of existing evidence, for newly diagnosed patients with partial seizures, carbamazepine and valproate are likely to be the most cost-effective mono-therapies. Carbamazepine is likely to be the most cost-effective 2nd-line monotherapy for refractory patients, and oxcarbazepine would probably be the most cost-effective adjunctive therapy for refractory patients if the willingness to pay for additional health benefits is greater than £18,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). For patients with generalized seizures, valproate is most likely to be cost-effective for newly diagnosed patients. For refractory patients, adjunctive topiramate is more cost-effective than monotherapy alone if the willingness to pay for additional health benefits is greater than £35,000 per QALY. There is, however, considerable uncertainty regarding these results. Some of the methodological features of the study will be of value in designing cost-effectiveness analyses of other therapies for chronic conditions. These include the methods used to deal with the absence of head-to-head trial data and the need to reflect time dependency in Markov transition probabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Neil Hawkins & David Epstein & Michael Drummond & Jennifer Wilby & Anita Kainth & David Chadwick & Mark Sculpher, 2005. "Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of New Pharmaceuticals in Epilepsy in Adults: The Results of a Probabilistic Decision Model," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 493-510, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:5:p:493-510
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05280559
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05280559
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X05280559?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johannesson, Magnus & Weinstein, Milton C., 1993. "On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 459-467, December.
    2. Karl Claxton & John Posnett, 1996. "An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority‐setting," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(6), pages 513-524, November.
    3. Karl Claxton & John Posnett, "undated". "An Economic Approach to Clinical Trial Design and Research Priority Setting," Discussion Papers 96/19, Department of Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Susan Griffin & Helen Weatherly & Gerry Richardson & Mike Drummond, 2008. "Methodological issues in undertaking independent cost-effectiveness analysis for NICE: the case of therapies for ADHD," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(2), pages 137-145, May.
    2. Steven M. Teutsch & Marc L. Berger, 2005. "Evidence Synthesis and Evidence-Based Decision Making: Related But Distinct Processes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 487-489, September.
    3. John Hornberger & Katherine Robertus, 2005. "Comprehensive Evaluations of Health Care Interventions: The Realism-Transparency Tradeoff," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 490-492, September.
    4. Neil Hawkins & David A. Scott, 2010. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Discount the Placebo at Your Peril," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5), pages 536-543, September.
    5. Louise B. Russell, 2005. "Comparing Model Structures in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 485-486, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Neil Hawkins & Mark Sculpher & David Epstein, 2005. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatments for Chronic Disease: Using R to Incorporate Time Dependency of Treatment Response," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 511-519, September.
    2. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of 'payback' and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357.
    3. Sofia Dias & Alex J. Sutton & Nicky J. Welton & A. E. Ades, 2013. "Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 6," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 671-678, July.
    4. Samer A. Kharroubi & Alan Brennan & Mark Strong, 2011. "Estimating Expected Value of Sample Information for Incomplete Data Models Using Bayesian Approximation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 839-852, November.
    5. Nicky J. Welton & Jason J. Madan & Deborah M. Caldwell & Tim J. Peters & Anthony E. Ades, 2014. "Expected Value of Sample Information for Multi-Arm Cluster Randomized Trials with Binary Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(3), pages 352-365, April.
    6. Mark Strong & Jeremy E. Oakley & Alan Brennan & Penny Breeze, 2015. "Estimating the Expected Value of Sample Information Using the Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 570-583, July.
    7. Fleurence, Rachael L. & Torgerson, David J., 2004. "Setting priorities for research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-10, July.
    8. Mark Strong & Jeremy E. Oakley & Alan Brennan, 2014. "Estimating Multiparameter Partial Expected Value of Perfect Information from a Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(3), pages 311-326, April.
    9. Hawre Jalal & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Karen M. Kuntz, 2015. "Computing Expected Value of Partial Sample Information from Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Linear Regression Metamodeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 584-595, July.
    10. Franck Maunoury & Anastasiia Motrunich & Maria Palka-Santini & Stéphanie F Bernatchez & Stéphane Ruckly & Jean-François Timsit, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Transparent Antimicrobial Dressing for Managing Central Venous and Arterial Catheters in Intensive Care Units," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    11. Sze Huey Tan & Keith R. Abrams & Sylwia Bujkiewicz, 2018. "Bayesian Multiparameter Evidence Synthesis to Inform Decision Making: A Case Study in Metastatic Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(7), pages 834-848, October.
    12. Ana P. Johnson-Masotti & Purushottam W. Laud & Raymond G. Hoffmann & Matthew J. Hayat & Steven D. Pinkerton, 2004. "A Bayesian Approach to Net Health Benefits: An Illustration and Application to Modeling HIV Prevention," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(6), pages 634-653, November.
    13. Martin E. Backhouse, 1998. "An investment appraisal approach to clinical trial design," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 605-619, November.
    14. Michael Fairley & Lauren E. Cipriano & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert, 2020. "Optimal Allocation of Research Funds under a Budget Constraint," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 797-814, August.
    15. A C Bouman & A J ten Cate-Hoek & B L T Ramaekers & M A Joore, 2015. "Sample Size Estimation for Non-Inferiority Trials: Frequentist Approach versus Decision Theory Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    16. Joanna Thorn & Joanna Coast & Lazaros Andronis, 2016. "Interpretation of the Expected Value of Perfect Information and Research Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(3), pages 285-295, April.
    17. Hawre Jalal & Fernando Alarid-Escudero, 2018. "A Gaussian Approximation Approach for Value of Information Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(2), pages 174-188, February.
    18. Elizabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Andrew Briggs, 2000. "Improving the efficiency and relevance of health technology assessent: the role of iterative decision analytic modelling," Working Papers 179chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    19. Elisabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2005. "The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development," Working Papers 005cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    20. A. E. Ades & G. Lu & K. Claxton, 2004. "Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations in Medical Decision Modeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(2), pages 207-227, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:5:p:493-510. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.