Advertisement

European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

, Volume 16, Issue 7, pp 421–429 | Cite as

Long-acting medications for the hyperkinetic disorders

A note on cost-effectiveness
  • Michael Schlander
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION

Abstract

New long-acting medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have become available, which combine certain advantages over conventional short-acting drugs with higher acquisition costs. Choices between these drugs should thus be driven by their clinical profiles and by an acceptable balance of increased costs and additional benefits. Accordingly, the notion of relative cost-effectiveness should be central to recommendations about the use of these drugs in practice. A recent technology assessment on behalf of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) did not identify differences between compounds in terms of clinical efficacy and described drug cost as the major driver of cost-effectiveness. The underlying economic model was restricted to a cost-utility analysis that used only a fraction of the available clinical evidence base and did not address the distinction between efficacy and effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness evaluations including the potential impact of improved treatment compliance indicate a relatively more attractive cost-effectiveness of long-acting medications than suggested by the NICE assessment. These evaluations provide health economic support to treatment recommendations recently published by the European Network for Hyperkinetic Disorders. Limitations of currently available economic evaluations include their short time horizon, and future research should assess treatment effects on long-term sequelae associated with ADHD.

Keywords

attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) hyperkinetic disorder (HKD) stimulants methylphenidate atomoxetine cost-effectiveness 

Notes

Conflicts of interset

There was no third-party or industry involvement in the present paper. The Institute for Innovation & Valuation in Health Care (InnoVal-HC) is a not-for-profit research organization formally associated with the University of Applied Economic Sciences Ludwigshafen (Germany); the Institute accepts support under a policy of unrestricted educational grants only. Potential competing interests: The Institute and/or its staff report having received public speaking and conference attendance as well as project support from payers’, physicians’, and pharmacists’ associations, as well as from companies including E. Lilly and Johnson & Johnson.

References

  1. 1.
    Annemans L, Ingham M (2002) Estimating cost-effectiveness of Concerta OROS in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) – adapting the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment’s (CCOHTA) economic model of methylphenidate immediate release versus behavioural interventions from a parent’s perspective. Value Health 5(6):517Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bae JP (2005) Meta-regression assessment of atomoxetine efficacy using randomized controlled ADHD trials. Value Health 8(6):A16Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baltussen R, Leidl R, Ament A (1996) Real world designs in economic evaluation: bridging the gap between clinical research and policy-making. Pharmacoeconomics 16(5):449–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Banaschewski T, Coghill D, Santosh P, Zuddas A, Ashershon P, Buitelaar J, Danckaerts M, Doepfner M, Faraone SV, Rothenberger A, Sergeant J, Steinhausen H-C, Sonuga-Barke EJS, Taylor E (2006) Long-acting medications for the hyperkinetic disorders. A systematic review and European treatment guideline. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiat, published online May 5, 2006Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barkley RA, Fischer M, Edelbrock CS, Smallish L (1991) The adolescent outcome of hyperactive children diagnosed by research criteria. III. Mother–child interactions, family conflicts and maternal psychopathology. J Child Psychol Psychiat 32:233–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beneke M, Rasmus W (1992) “Clinical Global Impressions” (ECDEU): some critical comments. Pharmacopsychiatry 25:171–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biederman J, Arnsten AFT, Faraone SV, Doyle AE, Spencer TJ, Wilens TE, Weiss MD, Safren SA, Culpepper L (2006) New developments in the treatment of ADHD. J Clin Psychiat 67(1):148–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Briggs A, Gray A (2000) Using cost effectiveness information. Brit Med J 320:246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buxton M, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, Prince RL, Sheldon TA, Szucs T, Vray M (1997) Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 6:217–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Claxton A, Cramer J, Pierce C (2001) A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance. Clin Therap 23(8):1296–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dahlke F, Lohaus A, Gutzmann H (1992) Reliability and clinical concepts underlying global judgments in dementia: implications for clinical research. Psychopharmacol Bull 28:425–432PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IAO (2006) “Yes”, “no”, or “yes, but?” Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy 77:352–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Danckaerts M, Heptinstall E, Chadwick O, Taylor E (1999) Self-report of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adolescents. Psychopathology 32:81–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Civita M, Regier D, Alamgir AH, Anis AH, FitzGerald MJ, Marra CA (2005) Evaluating health-related quality-of-life studies in paediatric populations: some conceptual, methodological and developmental considerations and recent applications. Pharmacoeconomics 23(7):659–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Ridder A, De Graeve D (2002) Estimating willingness to pay for drugs to treat ADHD – a contingent valuation study in students. Value Health 5(6):462Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Devlin N, Parkin D (2004) Does NICE have cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 13:437–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dolan P (2001) Utilitarianism and the measurement and aggregation of quality-adjusted life-years. Health Care Anal 9(1):65–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A (2005) QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ 14(2):197–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donnelly M, Haby MM, Carter R, Andrews G, Vos T (2004) Cost-effectiveness of dexamphetamine and methylphenidate for the treatment of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Austr New Zeal J Psychiat 38:592–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Faraone SV (2003) Understanding the effect size of ADHD medications: implications for clinical care. Medscape 8:1–7Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fischer M, Barkley RA, Fletcher KE, Smallish L (1993) The stability of dimensions of behaviour in ADHD and normal children over an 8-year follow-up. J Abnormal Child Psychol 21:315–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Foster EM, Jensen PS, Schlander M, Pelham WE, Hechtman L, Arnold LE, Swanson JM, Wigal T (2007) Treatment for ADHD: is more complex treatment cost-effective for more complex cases? Health Services Res 42(1):165–182Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Freemantle N, Blonde L, Bolinder B, Gerber RA, Hobbs FD, Richard FD, Martinez L, Ross S (2005) Real-world trials to answer real-world questions. Pharmacoeconomics 23(8):747–754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garber AM (2000) Advances in cost-effectiveness analysis of health interventions. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP (eds) Handbook of health economics, vol 1A. Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp 181–221Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gilmore A, Milne R (2001) Methylphenidate in children with hyperactivity: review and cost-utility analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety 10:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Griebsch I, Coast J, Brown J (2005) Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Pediatrics 115:e600–e614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guy W (2000) Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Scale. In: American Psychiatric Association (APA), Handbook of Psychiatric Measures. Washington, DC, APA, pp 100–102Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hack S, Chow B (2001) Pediatric psychotropic medication compliance: a literature review and research-based suggestions for improving treatment compliance. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 11(19):59–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hay JW (1998) Economic modeling and sensitivity analysis. Value Health 1(3):187–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Iskedjian M, Maturi B, Walker JH, Einarson TR, Khattak S, Carter G (2003) Cost-effectiveness of atomoxetine in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Value Health 3(6):275Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jensen PS, Garcia JA, Glied S, Crowe M, Foster M, Schlander M, Hinshaw S, Vitiello B, Arnold LE, Elliott G, Hechtman L, Newcorn JH, Pelham WE, Swanson J, Wells K (2005) Cost-effectiveness of ADHD treatments: findings from the multimodal treatment study of children with ADHD. Am J Psychiat 162(9):1628–1636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jensen PS, Garcia JA, Glied S, Foster EM, Schlander M, and the MTA Cooperative Group (2004) Cost-effectiveness of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments: estimates based upon the MTA study. 16th World Congress of the International Association for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied Professions (IACAPAP). Book of abstracts. Steinkopff-Verlag, Darmstadt, p 219Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kemner JE, Lage MJ (2006) Effect of methylphenidate formulation on treatment patterns and use of emergency room services. Am J Health Syst Pharm 63(4):317–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kemner JE, Lage MJ (2006) Impact of methylphenidate formulation on treatment patterns and hospitalizations: a retrospective analysis. Ann General Psychiat 5(5):1–8Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kemner JE, Starr HL, Bowen DL, Ciccone PE, Lynch JM (2004) Greater improvement and response rates with OROS MPH vs atomoxetine in children with ADHD. Presentation at the XXIVth congress of the collegium internationale neuro-psychopharmacologicum, Paris, France, June 20–24, 2004Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kemner JE, Starr HL, Ciccone PE, Hooper-Wood CG, Crocket RS (2005) Outcomes of OROS methylphenidate compared with atomoxetine in children with ADHD: a multicenter, randomized prospective study. Adv Therapy 22(5):498–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    King S, Griffin S, Hodges Z, Weatherly H, Asseburg C, Richardson G, Golder S, Taylor E, Drummond M, Riemsma R (2006) A systematic review and economic model of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methylphenidate, dexamfetamine and atomoxetine for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Health Technol Assess 10(23)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    King S, Griffin S, Hodges Z, Weatherly H, Asseburg C, Richardson G, Golder S, Taylor E, Drummond M, Riemsma R (2004) A systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of methylphenidate hydrochloride, dexamfe- tamine sulphate and atomoxetine for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. York, December 2004Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    King S, Riemsma R, Hodges Z, Emmans D, Golder S, Drummond M, Weatherly H, Griffin S, Richardson G, Taylor E, Senn S (2004) Technology assessment report for the HTA programme: methylphenidate, dexamfetamine and atomoxetine for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Final version. NICE, London, June 2004Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Klassen A, Miller A, Fine S (2004) Health-related quality of life in children and adolescents who have a diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics 114(5):541–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lage M, Hwang P (2004) Effect of methylphenidate formulation for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder on patterns and outcomes of treatment. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 14(4):575–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Laing A, Cottrell S, Robinson P, Veraart C, Tilden D, Aristides M (2005) A modelled economic evaluation comparing atomoxetine with current therapies for the treatment of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in The Netherlands. Value Health 8(6):A198Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Loeber R, Green SM, Lahey BB, Stouthamer-Loeber M (1991) Differences and similarities between children, mothers, and teachers as informants on disruptive child behavior. J Abnormal Child Psychol 19:75–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    March JS, Silva SG, Compton S, Shapiro M, Califf R, Krishman R (2005) The case for practical clinical trials in psychiatry. Am J Psychiat 162(5):836–846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Marchetti A, Magar R, Lau H, Murphy EL, Jensen PS, Conners CK, Findling R, Wineburg E, Carotenuto I, Einarson TR, Iskedijan M (2001) Pharmacotherapies for attention-defiict/hyperactivity disorder: expected-cost analysis. Clin Therap 23(11):1904–1921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Marcus SC, Wan GJ, Kemner JE, Olfson M (2005) Continuity of methylphenidate treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 159:572–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Miller A, Lee SK, Raina P, Klassen A, Zupancic J, Olsen L (1998) A review of therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Ottawa, ON, Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Miller AR, Lalonde CE, McGrail KM (2004) Children’s persistence with methylphenidate therapy: a population-based study. Can J Psychiat 49(11):761–768Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    MTA Cooperative Group (1999) A 14-month randomized clinical trial of treatment strategies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Arch General Psychiat 56:1073–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    MTA Cooperative Group (1999) Moderators and mediators of treatment response for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: the multimodal treatment study of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Arch General Psychiat 56:1088–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Narayan S, Hay J (2004) Cost effectiveness of methylphenidate versus AMP/DEX mixed salts for the first-line treatment of ADHD. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 4(6):625–634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence [NICE] (2004) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (reference N0515). NICE, London, April 2004Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence [NICE] (2004) Guideline development methods: information for National Collaborating Centres and guideline developers. NICE, London, February 2004 (updated February 2005)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [NICE] (2006) Technology Appraisal 98: Methylphenidate, atomoxetine and dexamfetamine for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. Review of Technology Appraisal 13. NICE, London, March 2006Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [NICE] (2005) Final Appraisal Determination: Methylphenidate, atomoxetine and dexamfetamine for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. NICE, London, May 2005Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Newcorn J, Kratochvil CJ, Allen AJ, Milton DR, Moore RJ, Michelson D (2005) Atomoxetine and OROS methylphenidate for the treatment of ADHD: acute results and methodological issues. Poster presentation at 45th Annual Meeting of the New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit (NCDEU) of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Boca Raton, FL, June 6–9, 2005, Book of Abstracts, p 188Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Newcorn JH, Owens JA, Jasinski DR, et al. (2004) Results from recently completed comparator studies with atomoxetine and methylphenidate. 51st Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), Washington, DC, Symposium 20, October 21, 2004Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, Brown R, Buxton M, Chawla A, Cook J, Glick H, Liljas B, Petitti D, Reed S (2005) Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health 8(5):521–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Revicki DA, Frank L (1999) Pharmacoeconomic evaluations in the real world: effectiveness versus efficacy studies. Pharmacoeconomics 15(5):423–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rittenhouse B, O’Brien B (1996) Threats to the validity of pharmacoeconomic analyses based on clinical trial data. In: Spilker B (ed) Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sanchez RJ, Crismon ML, Barner JC, Bettinger T, Wilson JP (2005) Assessment of adherence measures with different stimulants among children and adolescents. Pharmacotherapy 25(7): 909–917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Schachar R, Jadad AR, Gauld M, Boyle M, Booker L, Snider A, Kim M, Cunningham C (2002) Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: critical appraisal of extended treatment studies. Can J Psychiat 47(4):337–348Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Schirm E, Tobi H, Zito JM, de Jong-van den Berg LTW (2001) Psychotropic medication in children: a study from the Netherlands. Pediatrics 108(2):e25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Schlander M (2007) Health technology assessments by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): a qualitative study. New York, NY: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Schlander M (2007) Is NICE infallible? A qualitative study of its assessment of treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Curr Med Res Opin 23 (in press)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Schlander M (2007) NICE accountability for reasonableness: a qualitative study of its appraisal of treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Curr Med Res Opin 23(1):207–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Schlander M (2006) Cost-effectiveness of treatment options for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents: what have we learnt? 17th World congress of the international association for child and adolescent psychiatry and allied professions (IACAPAP), Melbourne, September 10–14, 2006. Book of abstracts, p 43 (No. 2040)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Schlander M (2005) Kosteneffektivität und Ressourcenallokation: Gibt es einen normativen Anspruch der Gesundheitsoekonomie? In: Kick HA, Taupitz J (eds) Gesundheitswesen zwischen Wirtschaftlichkeit und Menschlichkeit. Muenster, LIT-Verlag, pp 37–112Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Schlander M (2004) Cost-effectiveness of methylphenidate OROS for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): an evaluation from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). Value Health 7(3):236Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Schlander M, Schwarz O, Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Jensen P, Persson U, Santosh P, Trott G-E, the MTA Cooperative Group (2006) Cost-effectiveness of clinically proven treatment strategies for attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United States, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom. Value Health 9(6):A312Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Schlander M, Schwarz O, Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Jensen P, Persson U, Santosh P, Trott G-E, the MTA Cooperative Group (2006) Functional impairment of patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): an alternative cost-effectiveness analysis of clinically proven treatment strategies based upon the NIMH MTA study. Value Health 9(6):A312Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Schlander M, Schwarz O, Foster EM, Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Jensen P, Persson U, Santosh P, Trott G-E, the MTA Cooperative Group (2006) Cost-effectiveness of clinically proven treatment strategies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): impact of coexisting conditions. Value Health 9(6):A309Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Schlander M, Jensen PS, Foster EM, Schwarz O, the MTA Cooperative Group (2005) Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of clinically proven treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): impact of diagnostic criteria and comorbidity. 5th World Congress, International Health Economics Association (iHEA). Book of abstracts. Barcelona, pp 194–195Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Schlander M, Trott G-E, Migliaccio-Walle K, Caro JJ (2004) Kosteneffektivitaet alternativer Therapien der Aufmerksamkeits-Defizit-Hyperaktivitaets-Stoerung (ADHS) bei Kindern und Jugendlichen: ein Vergleich von Methylphenidat-OROS einmal taeglich und Methylphenidat dreimal taeglich aus der Perspektive der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung. Monatsschrift fuer Kinderheilkunde 152:Suppl 1Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Schlander M, Jensen PS, Foster EM, Garcia JA, Glied S, Croew M, MTA Cooperative Group (2004) Kosteneffektivitaet alternativer Behandlungsstrategien der Aufmerksam-keitsdefizit/Hyperaktivitätsstörung (ADHS): Erste Daten aus der ameri-kanischen MTA-Studie. Monatsschrift für Kinderheilkunde 152:Suppl. 1Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Schwartz D, Lellouch J (1967) Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutic trials. J Chronic Dis 20:637–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Sharp WS, Walter JM, Marsh WL, Ritchie GF, Hamburger SD, Castellanos FX (1999) ADHD in girls: clinical comparability of a research sample. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiat 38:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Steele M, Weiss M, Swanson J, Wang J, Prinzo RS, Binder CE (2006) A randomized, controlled, effectiveness trial of OROS-methylphenidate compared to usual care with immediate-release-methylphenidate in Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity-Disorder. Can J Clin Pharmacol 13(1):e50–e62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Steele M, Riccardelli R, Binder C (2004) Effectiveness of OROS-methylphenidate vs. usual care with immediate release methylphenidate in ADHD children. Presentation at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) annual meeting, New York, NY, May 1–6thGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Steinhoff K, Wigal T, Swanson J (2003) Single daily dose ADHD medication effect size evaluation. Poster presentation, 50th annual meeting of the American Academy for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Miami, FL, October 22–27, 2003Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Swanson J (2003) Compliance with stimulants for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Issues and approaches for improvement. CNS Drugs 17(2):117–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Swanson J, Gupta S, Lam A, Shoulson I, Lerner M, Modi N, Lindemulder E, Wigal S (2003) Development of a new once-a-day formulation of methylphenidate for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: proof-of-concept and proof-of-product studies. Arch General Psychiat 60(2):204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Swanson JM, Kraemer HC, Hinshaw SP, Arnold LE, Conners CK, Abikoff HB, Clevenger W, Davies M, Elliott GR, Greenhill LL, Hechtman L, Hoza B, Jensen PS, March JS, Newcorn JH, Owens EB, Pelham WE, Schiller E, Severe JB, Simpson S, Vitiello B, Wells K, Wigal T, Wu M (2001) Clinical relevance of the primary findings of the MTA: success rates based on severity of ADHD and ODD symptoms at the end of treatment. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiat 40(2):168–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Taylor E, Doepfner M, Sergeant J, Asherson P, Banaschewski T, Buitelaar J, Coghill D, Danckaerts M, Rothenberger A, Sonuga-Barke E, Steinhausen H-C, Zuddas A (2004) European guidelines for hyperkinetic disorder – first upgrade. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiat 13(Suppl 1):7–30Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Tilden D, Richardson R, Nyhus K, Robinson P, Cottrell S (2005) A modelled economic evaluation of atomoxetine (Strattera) for the treatment of three patient subgroups with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Value Health 8(6):A197Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N (2002) Cost-effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. King’s Fund and Office of Health Economics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, Luce BR (2003) Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices – modeling studies. Value Health 6(1):9–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Weinstein MC, Toy EL, Sandberg EA, Neumann PJ, Evans JS, Kuntz KM, Graham JD, Hammitt JK (2001) Modeling for health care and other policy decisions: uses, roles, and validity. Value Health 4(5):348–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Weiss M, Gadow K, Wasdell MB (2006) Effectiveness outcomes in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Clin Psychiat 67(Suppl 8):38–45Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Williams A (2004) What could be nicer than NICE? Annual Lecture 2004. Office of Health Economics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    World Health Organization (2003) Technology appraisal programme of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. A review by WHO. June–July 2003. Copenhagen: World Health Organization (WHO). Available online at http://www.nice.org.uk/Docref.asp?d=85797. Last accessed June 30, 2004
  94. 94.
    Zupancic JAF, Miller A, Raina P, Lee SK, Klassen A, Olsen L (1998) Economic evaluation of pharmaceutical and psychological/behavioural therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In: Miller A, Lee SK, Raina P, Klassen A, Zupancic J, Olsen L (eds) A review of therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), Ottawa, ONGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Innovation & Valuation in Health Care (INNOVALHC)EschbornGermany
  2. 2.University of Applied Economic Sciences LudwigshafenLudwigshafenGermany
  3. 3.Dept. of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Mannheim Medical FacultyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations