Economic Evaluation of a Novel Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in US Motor Vehicle Drivers.

Background: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 4.4% of US adults. ADHD is associated with high-risk driving behavior and costly motor vehicle accidents. DYANAVEL XR (DXR) (Tris Pharma, Inc.) is a once-daily fast-acting amphetamine developed for ADHD treatment. A randomized controlled trial showed that DXR patients were 43% less likely to crash during a driving simulation than individuals taking placebo. Study outcomes suggest a DXR crash rate similar to that of a driver without ADHD, while patients treated with the current standard of care (SOC) have a 52% higher crash risk than non-ADHD drivers. Objective: The aim was to evaluate the economic benefits attributable to improved driving abilities and avoided crashes in DXR patients compared with patients treated with the SOC or those who are untreated. Methods: A cost-impact model estimated 1-year crash-related cost outcomes for DXR-treated patients compared with SOC-treated and untreated ADHD patients. SOC was assumed to consist of a combination of short-, intermediate-, and long-acting ADHD stimulant and non-stimulant medications. DXR crash risk was assumed equivalent to the non-ADHD population risk, as supported by trial data. Crash risk for untreated and SOC-treated ADHD patients were assumed to be 99% and 52% higher than the general US population, respectively. Model outcomes included the cost impact (medication- and crash-related costs) and the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities avoided with DXR. Results: Treatment with DXR would avoid 0.82 crashes, 0.016 injuries, and 0.036 fatalities per year compared with untreated patients, and 0.036 crashes, 0.007 injuries, and 0.0001 fatalities per year compared with SOC-treated patients. Compared with a population of 25% SOC-treated patients and 75% untreated patients, DXR use would save an average of $4581perpersonperyearacrossallagegroupswhenpricedat$ 80 per month, assuming all SOC-treated and untreated patients utilized DXR. When the value of quality-of-life improvement is considered, savings increase over 7-fold. Discussion: Outcomes suggest that DXR may be an economically beneficial treatment compared with SOC for ADHD patients. Conclusions: The economic model showed that DXR is cost-saving compared with no treatment and SOC by reducing the number of motor vehicle crashes in the ADHD population.