ArticleAttention deficit and hyperactivity disorders2016
A cost-effectiveness analysis of off-label atypical antipsychotic treatment in children and adolescents with ADHD who have failed stimulant therapy.
Article in Attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment Patterns, Health Care Resource Utilization, and Health Care Cost Associated with Atypical Antipsychotics or Guanfacine Extended Release in Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Quebec, Canada.Journal of child and adolescent psychopharmacology · 2019Article
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
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.
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.