Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16336019›Full record

Trial reportPharmacoEconomics2005

Pramipexole and levodopa in early Parkinson's disease: dynamic changes in cost effectiveness.

Katia Noyes, Andrew W Dick, Robert G Holloway, Parkinson Study Group

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Katia NoyesDepartment of Community and Preventive Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, New York 14620, USA. katia_noyes@urmc.rochester.edu
Andrew W Dick
Robert G Holloway
Parkinson Study Group
University of Rochester · US

Funding

Neurology Outcomes Research:Clinical Trials/ TrainingK24NS042098 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI HOLLOWAY, ROBERT G. · 2001 to 2005
$548k
Economic and Policy Analyses in Geriatric DiseaseK01AG020980 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI NOYES, EKATERINA I · 2002 to 2006
$543k
NIA NIH HHS K01 AG 20980NINDS NIH HHS K24 NS4 2098
6 · The paper itself

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

Administration, OralAdultAntiparkinson AgentsBenzothiazolesCost-Benefit AnalysisDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHealth ExpendituresHumansLevodopaMaleParkinson DiseasePramipexoleProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsSex FactorsAntiparkinson AgentsBenzothiazolesLevodopaPramipexoleThiazoles

Identifiers

PMID16336019
OpenAlexW1973682293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.