uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • 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
The cost-utility of pitolisant as narcolepsy treatment.
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, ISSN 0001-6314, E-ISSN 1600-0404Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVES: The cost-effectiveness of available pharmacological treatments for narcolepsy is largely unknown. Available pharmacological treatments are associated with tolerability, abuse and adherence issues. Pitolisant is the first inverse agonist of the histamine H3 receptor to be prescribed for the treatment of narcolepsy with and without cataplexy. Studies suggest that pitolisant is both as effective as previously introduced drugs and is associated with fewer adverse effects. The objective in this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of pitolisant as monotherapy, and pitolisant as an adjunctive treatment to modafinil, compared to standard treatment.

MATERIALS & METHODS: Calculations were performed using a Markov model with a 50-year time horizon. Healthcare utilisation and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment alternative were calculated assuming no treatment effect on survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for treatment effectiveness and healthcare cost parameters.

RESULTS: The cost per additional quality-adjusted life year was estimated at SEK 356 337 (10 SEK ≈1 Euro) for pitolisant monotherapy, and at SEK 491 128 for pitolisant as an adjunctive treatment, as compared to standard treatment. The cost-effectiveness measure was demonstrated to be particularly sensitive to the assumptions made concerning indirect effects on total healthcare utilization and the pitolisant treatment cost.

CONCLUSIONS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the unofficial willingness-to-pay threshold at SEK 500 000. The estimated costs per additional QALY obtained here are likely to overestimate the true cost-effectiveness ratio since significant potential indirect effects - pertaining both to labour-market and household-related productivity - of treatment are not taken into account.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019.
Keywords [en]
Cost effectiveness, narcolepsy, pitolisant
National Category
Neurology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-401740DOI: 10.1111/ane.13202PubMedID: 31838740OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-401740DiVA, id: diva2:1383795
Available from: 2020-01-08 Created: 2020-01-08 Last updated: 2020-01-08

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Landtblom, Anne-Marie
By organisation
Landtblom: Neurology
In the same journal
Acta Neurologica Scandinavica
Neurology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 2 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • 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