umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Retigabine as add-on treatment of refractory epilepsy a cost-utility study in a Swedish setting
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Neuroscience, Clinical Neuroscience.
2013 (English)In: Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, ISSN 0001-6314, E-ISSN 1600-0404, Vol. 127, no 6, 419-426 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objectives To calculate comparative incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per quality-adjusted life year, QALY) and net marginal benefits for retigabine as add-on treatment for patients with uncontrolled focal seizures as compared to add-on lacosamide treatment and no add-on treatment, respectively. Materials & Methods Calculations were performed using a validated decision-tree model. The study population consisted of adult patients with focal-onset epilepsy in published randomized placebo-controlled add-on trials of retigabine or lacosamide. Healthcare utilization and QALY for each treatment alternative were calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using the specification of this model as a basis for Monte Carlo simulations. 2009 prices were used for all costs. Results Results were reported for a 2-year follow-up period. Retigabine add-on treatment was both more effective and less costly than lacosamide add-on treatment, and the cost per additional QALY for the retigabine no add-on (standard) therapy comparison was estimated at 2009Euro 15,753. Using a willingness-to-pay threshold for a QALY of Euro 50,000, the net marginal values were estimated at 2009Euro 605,874 for retigabine vs lacosamide and 2009Euro 2,114,203 for retigabine vs no add-on, per 1,000 patients. The probabilistic analyses showed that the likelihood that retigabine treatment is cost-effective is at least 70%. Conclusions The estimated cost per additional QALY, for the retigabine vs no add-on treatment comparison, is well within the range of newly published estimates of willingness to pay for an additional QALY. Thus, add-on retigabine treatment for people with focal-onset epilepsy with no/limited response to standard antiepileptic treatment appears to be cost-effective.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. Vol. 127, no 6, 419-426 p.
National Category
Neurology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-73558DOI: 10.1111/ane.12077ISI: 000318948600008OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-73558DiVA: diva2:632794
Available from: 2013-06-25 Created: 2013-06-25 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Forsgren, Lars
By organisation
Clinical Neuroscience
In the same journal
Acta Neurologica Scandinavica
Neurology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 48 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf