Abstract
Background: “On-demand” treatments approved in the United States (US) for “OFF” episodes in Parkinson’s disease (PD) include apomorphine hydrochloride injection (SC-APO), apomorphine sublingual film (APL), and levodopa inhalation powder (CVT-301). APL received US approval in 2020, and its cost-effectiveness has not been compared with SC-APO and CVT-301.Objective: To develop a cost-effectiveness analysis model comparing APL versus SC-APO and CVT-301 for treatment of patients with PD experiencing “OFF” episodes from a US payer perspective.Methods: The model estimated total costs and effectiveness for each comparator arm, informed from the treatments’ pivotal studies or literature, over a 10-year horizon. Total and incremental patient costs (in 2020 US dollars), total time spent without “OFF” episode symptoms, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained were summarized and compared. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for APL versus SC-APO and CVT-301 were estimated and expressed as incremental patient costs per patient QALY gained and incremental cost per “OFF” hour avoided. Scenario analyses varying inputs and including caregiver costs were also conducted.Results: In the base case, APL had the lowest total “on-demand” treatment costs ($42,095) compared with SC-APO ($276,320; difference: –$234,225) and CVT-301 ($69,577; difference: –$27,482) over the 10-year horizon. APL was also associated with the highest utility, with incremental QALYs of 0.019 versus SC-APO and 0.235 versus CVT-301. APL was dominant over CVT-301 in terms of incremental cost per “OFF” hour, and dominant over both CVT-301 and SC-APO in terms of incremental cost per QALY gained. In all scenario analyses, APL was dominant against both SC-APO and CVT-301, confirming the robustness of the base-case results.Discussion: APL was dominant compared with both comparator arms, being less costly and more effective on average than SC-APO and CVT-301 in terms of QALYs. For SC-APO, cost-effectiveness of APL was driven by lower “on-demand” treatment costs and adverse event–related disutilities. For CVT-301, cost-effectiveness of APL was driven by lower “on-demand” treatment costs and substantially higher efficacy.Conclusions: From a US payer perspective, APL represents a cost-effective option compared with SC-APO and CVT-301 for treatment of “OFF” episodes in patients with PD.
Highlights
Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a chronic, progressive neurologic disorder that results from the loss of dopaminergic neurons in the basal ganglia and subsequent disruption of thalamic connections to the motor cortex.[1]
apomorphine sublingual film (APL) was dominant over CVT-301 in terms of incremental cost per “OFF” hour, and dominant over both CVT-301 and SC-APO in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained
From a United States (US) payer perspective, APL represents a cost-effective option compared with SCAPO and CVT-301 for treatment of “OFF” episodes in patients with PD
Summary
Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a chronic, progressive neurologic disorder that results from the loss of dopaminergic neurons in the basal ganglia and subsequent disruption of thalamic connections to the motor cortex.[1] PD is characterized by primary motor symptoms such as rest tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia, and postural instability[2] as well as secondary (non-motor) symptoms, including mood and sleep. This number is projected to increase to 1.2 million individuals by 2030.11
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
