Purpose.To determine the 2-year incremental cost effectiveness of initial pramipexole treatment compared with initial levodopa treatment in patientswith early Parkinson’s disease (PD).Methods.301 subjects with early PD were randomized to either pramipexole or levodopa and followed every 3 months over a 2-year period. Costs were assigned to patient collected health utilization data using a variety of methods. Health state preferences were estimated using the EuroQol.Results.Pramipexole strategy was an estimated $2,138 (SE = $1,182) more expensive than levodopa strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness of pramipexole compared with levodopa was $106,900/QALY (EQ-5D), compared withpramipexole being dominated by levodopa using the EQVAS.Conclusions.Although considerable uncertainty exists in the 2-year cost-effectiveness of initial pramipexole compared with initial levodopa in the treatment of early PD, our estimates suggest that pramipexole may not be welfare enhancing during the first 2 years of treatment. If initial pramipexole results in long-term improvements in quality of life, its cost-effectiveness will become more favorable.
1. Tanner CM, Goldman SM.Epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease. Neurol Clin. 1996;14:317–333.
2.
2. Reardon K, Shiff M, Kempster PA.Evolution of motor fluctuations in Parkinson’s disease: a longitudinal study over 6 years. Mov Disord. 1999;14:605–611.
3.
3. Parkinson Study Group. Pramipexole vs levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2000;284:1931–1938.
4.
4. Rascol O, Brooks DJ, Korczyn AD, et al. A five-year study of the incidence of dyskinesia in patients with early Parkinson’s disease who were treated with ropinirole of levodopa. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1484–1491.
5.
5. Rinne UK, Bracco F, Chouza C, et al. Early treatment of Parkinson’s disease with cabergoline delays the onset of motor complications. Results of a double-blind levodopa controlled trial. Drugs. 1998;55(Suppl 1):23–30.
6.
6. Miyasaki JM, Martin W, Suchowersky O, Weiner WJ, Lang AE.Practice parameter: initiation of treatment for Parkinson’s disease: an evidence-based review: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2002;58: 11–17.
7.
7. Olanow CW, Watts RL, Koller WC.An algorithm (decision tree) for the management of Parkinson’s disease (2001): treatment guidelines. Neurology. 2001;56(Suppl 5):S1–S88.
8.
8. Parkinson Study Group. A randomized controlled trial comparing pramipexole with levodopa in early Parkinson’s disease: design and methods of the CALM-PD Study. Clin Neuropharmacol. 2000;23(1):34–44.
9.
9. Fahn S, Elton RL, UPDRS Development Committee. Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale. Recent Developments in Parkinson’s Disease. Florman Park (NJ): Macmillan; 1987. p 153–163.
10.
10. Ramsey SD, McIntosh M, Sullivan SD.Design issues for conducting cost-effectiveness analyses alongside clinical trials. Ann Rev Public Health. 2001;22:129–141.
11.
11. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index. Washington (DC): Author. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cpi.
12.
12. Federal Register (1994) Part II: 42 CFR Parts 410 and 414 Medicare program. Physician Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 1995; Payment Policies and Relative Value Unit Adjustments. Vol. 59, No. 235. Washington DC:US Government Printing Office; 1994.
13.
13. Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 148, 1 August 2002, p:49985-50248.
14.
14. Mushlin AI, J Zwanziger, E Gajary, M Andrews, R Marron. Approach to cost-effectiveness assessment in the MADIT trial. Am Journal of Cardiol. 1997;80(5B):33F-41F.
15.
15. Williams RM. The costs of visits to emergency departments. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:642–666.
16.
16. Medical Economics Company. The Red Book Drug Topics. Montvale (NJ): Author; 2001.
17.
17. Gabrel CS. An overview of nursing home facilities: data from the 1997 National Nursing Home Survey. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics; 2000.
18.
18. Hyattsville US Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000. Table No. 750: Money Income of Persons. Washington (DC): Government Printing Office; 2000.
19.
19. Torrance GW, Siegel J, Luce BR. Framing and designing the cost effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 1995, 1996. p 54–81.
20.
20. Meltzer D, Johannesson M.Inconsistencies in the “societal perspective” on costs of the panel on cost-effectiveness in heath and medicine. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:371–377.
21.
21. EuroQol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;12:199–208.
23. Curran D, Fayers PM, Molenbergh G, Machin D.Analysis of incomplete quality of life data in clinical trials. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM, eds. Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 1998.
24.
24. Efron B, Tibshirani R.Bootstrap measures of standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Stat Sci. 1986;1:54–77.
25.
25. Davison A, Hinkley D.Bootstrap methods and their applications. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 1997.
26.
26. Stinnett AA, Mullahy J.Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(2 Suppl):S68–S80.
27.
27. Briggs AH. A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. An illustration and application to blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17(1):69–82.
28.
28. Hoch JS, Briggs AH, Willan AR. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2002;11(5):415–430.
29.
29. Lenert L, Kaplan R.Validity and interpretation of preference based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2000; 38(9): II-138-II-150.
30.
30. Franic D, Pathak D.Effect of including (versus excluding) fates worse than death on utility measurement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19(2):347–361.
31.
31. Siderowf AD, Ravina B, Glick HA. Health preference assessment in Parkinson’s disease: a comparison of measures. Neurology. 2002; 59: 103–108; 2003; 19 (2): 347–361.
32.
32. Schrag A, Selai C, Jahanshani M, Quinn N.The EQ-5D—a generic quality of life measure—is a useful instrument to measure quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;69:67–73.
33.
33. Schrag A, Jahanshahi M, Quinn N. How does Parkinson’s disease affect quality of life?A comparison with quality of life in the general population. Mov Disord. 2000;15(6):1112–1118.
34.
34. Thompson BL, O’Connor P, Boyle R, et al. Measuring clinical performance: comparison and validity of telephone survey and administrative data. Health Serv Res. 2001;36(4):813–825.
35.
35. Goossens ME, Rutten-van Molken MP, Vlaeyen JW, van der Linden SM. The cost diary: a method to measure direct and indirect costs in cost-effectiveness research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(7):688–695.
