Trial reportPharmacoEconomics2005
Pramipexole and levodopa in early Parkinson's disease: dynamic changes in cost effectiveness.
Trial report in PharmacoEconomics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Examination of the effect of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators on health-related quality of life: based on results from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Trial-II.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2009Trial
- Health state values during the first year of drug treatment in early-stage Parkinson's disease: a prospective, population-based, cohort study.Drugs & aging · 2009Trial
- Health economics of Parkinson's disease prevention: why early detection matters in low- and middle-income countries.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Review
- Rapid health technology assessment of six non-ergot dopamine-receptor agonists for the treatment of early Parkinson's disease.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Comparison of the effectiveness, safety, and costs of anti-Parkinson drugs: A multiple-center retrospective study.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2024Article
- Receptor Ligands as Helping Hands to L-DOPA in the Treatment of Parkinson's Disease.Biomolecules · 2019Review
- Pharmacotherapy in the management of early Parkinson's disease: cost-effectiveness and patient acceptability.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2010Article
- Cost effectiveness of rasagiline and pramipexole as treatment strategies in early Parkinson's disease in the UK setting: an economic Markov model evaluation.Drugs & aging · 2009Article
- Update on the use of pramipexole in the treatment of Parkinson's disease.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2008Article
- Review
- A review of the health-related quality of life and economic impact of Parkinson's disease.Drugs & aging · 2006Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveIn chronic disease, treatment effects and costs accumulate over time; hence, the choice of time horizon in cost-effectiveness analysis can be particularly important. In this article we analyse the dynamic changes in cumulative costs, effects and incremental cost effectiveness of two competing drug strategies in patients with early Parkinson's disease (PD).
methodsThree hundred and one subjects with PD were randomised to initial pramipexole or levodopa and followed every 3 months over a 4-year period. Healthcare resource use was recorded in patient diaries and valued using a variety of sources at year 2002 US dollar values. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was measured using the EuroQoL EQ-5D. The study was conducted from a US societal perspective. Missing data were imputed using a multivariate fixed-effects model. Additional quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained by using pramipexole compared with levodopa were estimated as the area between the normalised treatment HRQoL profiles. The QALYs and costs for each treatment arm were calculated for various study horizons.The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the net monetary benefit (NB) [using 50,000 US dollars, 100,000 US dollars and 150,000 US dollars as the value of a QALY] were estimated, and were bootstrapped to calculate the standard errors. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) were built to estimate the probability that pramipexole was cost effective given different societal values of QALY, for various study horizons.We conducted sensitivity analyses on the ICER and the NB to test their robustness to various assumptions about missing data, for various subpopulations and under changes in the drug prices.
resultsUnder the base-case assumptions, the ICER for pramipexole was 42,989 US dollars per QALY. Using the CEAC approach, the probability that pramipexole was cost effective relative to levodopa over the first 4 years was 0.57, 0.77 and 0.82 when a QALY was valued at 50,000 US dollars, 100,000 US dollars, and 150,000 US dollars, respectively. Over time, the ICER for pramipexole improved and uncertainty around the ICER decreased. If, after treatment withdrawal, HRQoL improved in pramipexole subjects and declined in levodopa subjects (best-case scenario for pramipexole), the probability of pramipexole being cost effective increased to 0.88, 0.96 and 0.98, respectively. Factors that improved the ICER of pramipexole were a decrease in the relative price of pramipexole and having low HRQoL or depression at baseline.
conclusionsThe cost effectiveness of pramipexole compared with levodopa in the treatment of early PD increased as the time horizon of the clinical trial extended from 2 to 4 years. Our results suggest that pramipexole is more cost effective for patients with depression and low baseline HRQoL than in other patient subgroups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.