COST OF ADVERSE EVENT MANAGEMENT IN CHILDREN, ADOLESCENTS, AND ADULTS WITH ATTENTION-DEFICIT/HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER IN THE UNITED STATES
Author(s)
Jeff Schein, MPH, DrPH1, Taiji Wang, MPH2, Olivia Reese, MPH2, Adrienne Kwok, MPH3, Martin Cloutier, MS4, Ann Childress, MD5;
1Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA, 2Analysis Group, Menlo Park, CA, USA, 3Analysis Group, San Francisco, CA, USA, 4Analysis Group, Inc, Montréal, QC, Canada, 5Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Inc., Las Vegas, NV, USA
1Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA, 2Analysis Group, Menlo Park, CA, USA, 3Analysis Group, San Francisco, CA, USA, 4Analysis Group, Inc, Montréal, QC, Canada, 5Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Inc., Las Vegas, NV, USA
OBJECTIVES: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 12.4% of children and adolescents and 6% of adults in the US. This study estimated and compared annual healthcare costs associated with adverse event (AE) management among children, adolescents, and adults with ADHD treated with centanafadine versus common ADHD therapies in the US.
METHODS: AE management costs for patients with ADHD (children/adolescents [6-17 years] and adults [≥18 years]) were estimated over one year from a US third-party payer perspective using a cost calculator. The model simulated a one-million-member health plan based on census and literature-derived epidemiologic data. Pairwise comparisons were conducted between centanafadine and each of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, atomoxetine hydrochloride, viloxazine, methylphenidate hydrochloride, and guanfacine in children and adolescents, and each of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, atomoxetine hydrochloride, viloxazine, and methylphenidate hydrochloride in adults. Costs were estimated using two approaches: (1) AE-specific medical costs, including inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department encounters with a recorded AE diagnosis; and (2) total excess healthcare costs, including all-cause medical costs (i.e., inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department encounters with a recorded AE diagnosis) and pharmacy costs, excluding ADHD treatment costs. Inputs for AE incidence, cost, and duration were obtained from matching-adjusted indirect comparison analyses, claims analyses, and physician surveys.
RESULTS: In a simulated one-million-member plan, shifting 20% of treated patients to centanafadine (2,063 children/adolescents; 1,015 adults) yielded annual savings of $16,000-$316,000 for AE-specific medical costs and $126,000-$1,488,000 for total excess healthcare costs in children/adolescents, and $140,000-$420,000 for AE-specific costs and $318,000-$937,000 for total excess costs in adults at the plan-level.
CONCLUSIONS: Centanafadine has the potential to reduce AE-related healthcare costs compared with alternative ADHD therapies for children, adolescents, and adults.
METHODS: AE management costs for patients with ADHD (children/adolescents [6-17 years] and adults [≥18 years]) were estimated over one year from a US third-party payer perspective using a cost calculator. The model simulated a one-million-member health plan based on census and literature-derived epidemiologic data. Pairwise comparisons were conducted between centanafadine and each of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, atomoxetine hydrochloride, viloxazine, methylphenidate hydrochloride, and guanfacine in children and adolescents, and each of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, atomoxetine hydrochloride, viloxazine, and methylphenidate hydrochloride in adults. Costs were estimated using two approaches: (1) AE-specific medical costs, including inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department encounters with a recorded AE diagnosis; and (2) total excess healthcare costs, including all-cause medical costs (i.e., inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department encounters with a recorded AE diagnosis) and pharmacy costs, excluding ADHD treatment costs. Inputs for AE incidence, cost, and duration were obtained from matching-adjusted indirect comparison analyses, claims analyses, and physician surveys.
RESULTS: In a simulated one-million-member plan, shifting 20% of treated patients to centanafadine (2,063 children/adolescents; 1,015 adults) yielded annual savings of $16,000-$316,000 for AE-specific medical costs and $126,000-$1,488,000 for total excess healthcare costs in children/adolescents, and $140,000-$420,000 for AE-specific costs and $318,000-$937,000 for total excess costs in adults at the plan-level.
CONCLUSIONS: Centanafadine has the potential to reduce AE-related healthcare costs compared with alternative ADHD therapies for children, adolescents, and adults.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
EE339
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas