A cost-effectiveness analysis of off-label atypical antipsychotic treatment in children and adolescents with ADHD who have failed stimulant therapy.

Abstract

The objectives of this study are: (1) to estimate the expected health outcomes of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) and other non-stimulant attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications and (2) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of AAPs compared to other non-stimulant ADHD medications. We used decision analysis to compare three alternatives for treating children and adolescents with ADHD who failed initial stimulant treatment: (1) AAPs, (2) a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (atomoxetine), and (3) selective α2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine and guanfacine). Probability estimates and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) weights were derived from a literature review. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using the expected health outcomes derived from the decision analysis and expected costs from the literature. The study was conducted from the third-party payer perspective, and the study period was 1 year. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and a Monte Carlo simulation were performed. Over the course of 1 year of ADHD pharmacotherapy, the highest QALY was for clonidine/guanfacine (expected QALY = 0.95) followed by atomoxetine (expected QALY = 0.94). Atypical antipsychotics yielded the lowest health outcome with an expected QALY of 0.84. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the AAP strategy was dominated as it was less effective and more costly than other two strategies. Compared to clonidine/guanfacine, AAPs provided lower QALYs (0.11 QALY lost) at an additional cost of $2186 on average. Compared to atomoxetine, AAPs resulted in 0.10 QALYs lost at an additional cost of $2186. In this decision analysis model, AAPs provide lower expected health outcomes than other ADHD medications in children and adolescents who failed prior stimulant therapy. Furthermore, AAPs were not a cost-effective option.