HOW MUCH SHOULD WE BE PREPARED TO PAY FOR PSYCHOSOCIAL INTERVENTIONS FOR PATIENTS WITH ATTENTION-DEFICIT/HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER (ADHD)?
Author(s)
Michael Schlander, MD, MBA, Professor1, Oliver Schwarz, PhD, Professor1, Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen, PhD, Health Economist2, Peter S. Jensen, MD, Professor3, Ulf Persson, Ph, D, Program Director4, Paramala J. Santosh, MD, Consultant5, Goetz-Erik Trott, MD, Professor6, _ MTA Cooperative Group, _, Cooperative Group71Institute for Innovation & Valuation in Health Care (InnoVal-HC), Eschborn, Germany; 2 Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands; 3 Columbia University, New York, NY, USA; 4 The Swedish Institute for Health Economics, IHE, Lund, Sweden; 5 Institute of Child Health - Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, United Kingdom; 6 University of Wuerzburg, Aschaffenburg, Germany; 7 National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
OBJECTIVES: Notwithstanding evidence showing its clinical effectiveness, little if any data have supported the cost-effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for patients with ADHD. The NIMH-initiated MTA study was designed to maximize clinical effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in children with ADHD. We use patient-level data from this study to estimate the maximum allowable cost of better-targeted behavioral interventions that would still meet currently used benchmarks for cost-effectiveness in Europe, assuming they replicate clinical effectiveness as reported in the MTA study. METHODS: A total of 579 children age 7-9.9 years with ADHD (DSM-IV) were randomly assigned medication management (MedMgt), intense behavioral treatment (Beh), both combined (Comb), or community care (CC). All MTA treatment strategies were clinically effective. Costing from a societal and from a third-party payer’s perspective for Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom excluded the research component of the study. Treatment response was defined as normalization of core symptoms after 14 months. QALYs were estimated using utility weights derived from UK expert and parent-proxy-ratings. Comb was most effective, and Med dominated Beh economically. Using this data, we estimated the maximum allowable cost (MAC) of Comb versus Med, quantifying the uncertainty by means of non-parametric bootstrapping. RESULTS: MACs and their 95% confidence intervals for Comb versus Med were determined (a) for ADHD, and for subgroups with (b) “pure” ADHD (without comorbidity, n=184) and (c) hyperkinetic disorder (HKD, with or without conduct disorder, n=145), assuming (1) Comb meeting an ICER threshold (when added to MedMgt) of (1) €50,000 or (2) €100,000 per QALY. MACs for UK were (1) €2943 (€2569-€3310) and (2) €3328 (€2612-€4043). Estimates for Germany and The Netherlands were lower, whereas Swedish estimates were broadly in line with UK data. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations, which will be discussed, these estimates may assist designing clinical studies to support acceptable cost-effectiveness of psychosocial treatment strategies for ADHD.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2008-11, ISPOR Europe 2008, Athens, Greece
Value in Health, Vol. 11, No. 6 (November 2008)
Code
MH1
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies, Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Mental Health
Explore Related HEOR by Topic