Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4/2011

01-07-2011 | Review Article

The use of decision-analytic models in Parkinson’s disease

A systematic review and critical appraisal

Authors: Dr James Shearer, Colin Green, Carl E. Counsell, John P. Zajicek

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 4/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

The aims of this review were to review decision-analytic models used to evaluate interventions in idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (PD), and to consider the future directions for development of methods to model the progression of PD over time.
A systematic search of the healthcare literature up to June 2010 identified model-based economic evaluations in PD. The modelling methods used in the identified studies were appraised using good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling.
The review identified 18 model-based evaluations of interventions in PD. All models evaluated treatments targeted towards the motor symptoms of PD or the motor complications of PD treatment. There were no models identified that evaluated interventions targeted towards the non-motor symptoms of PD, such as neuropsychiatric problems or autonomic dysfunction. Consequently, models characterized disease progression in PD using clinical measures of motor functioning. Most studies (n = 13) evaluated medications, three evaluated diagnostic technologies and two examined surgical procedures. Overall, the models reported structural components and data inputs appropriately and clearly, although limited evidence was provided to support choices made on the structures used in the models or the data synthesis reported. Models did not adequately consider structural uncertainty or internal/external consistency.
Modelling methods used to date do not capture the full impact of PD. The emphasis in the current literature is on the motor symptoms of PD, characterizing the clinical nature of disease progression, largely neglecting the important impacts of non-motor symptoms. Modelling methods reported for the motor symptoms of PD may not be suitable for future interventions targeted towards modifying disease progression in PD across the entire spectrum of PD. More comprehensive models of disease progression, including both motor and non-motor symptoms will be needed where it is important to capture the effects of interventions more broadly.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Ibbotson T, Goa K. Management of Parkinson’s disease: defining the role of entacapone. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2002; 10(10): 643–59CrossRef
3.
Chaudhuri K, Healy D, Schapira A. Non-motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease: diagnosis and management. Lancet Neurol 2006; 5: 235–45PubMedCrossRef
4.
National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions. Parkinson’s disease: national clinical guideline for diagnosis and management in primary and secondary care. London: Royal College of Physicians, 2006
5.
Findley L, Aujila M, Bain P, et al. Direct economic impact of Parkinson’s disease: a research survey of the UK. Mov Disord 2003; 18: 1139–45PubMedCrossRef
6.
Sculpher M, Claxton K, Drummond M, et al. Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Econ 2006; 15: 677–87PubMedCrossRef
7.
Weinstein M, O’Brien BJ, Hornberger J, et al. 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 2003; 6(1): 9–17PubMedCrossRef
8.
Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006
9.
Siebert U, Bornscheim B, Walbert T, et al. Systematic assessment of decision models in Parkinson’s disease. Value Health 2004; 7(5): 610–26PubMedCrossRef
10.
Eggert K, Reese J, Oertel W, et al. Cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapies in early Parkinson’s disease. CNS Drugs 2008; 22(10): 841–60PubMedCrossRef
11.
Nuijten M. Bridging decision analytic modelling with a cross-sectional study: application to Parkinson’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17(3): 227–36PubMedCrossRef
12.
Goulionis J, Vozikis A. Medical decision making for patients with Parkinson’s disease under average cost criterion. Aust New Zealand Health Policy 2009; 6(15): 1–8
13.
Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24(4): 355–71PubMedCrossRef
14.
Haycox A, Armand C, Murteira S, et al. 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 2009; 26(9): 791–801PubMedCrossRef
15.
Kristiansen I, Bingefors K, Hyholm D, et al. Short-term cost and health consequences of duodenal levodopa infusion in advanced Parkinson’s disease in Sweden: an exploratory study. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2009; 7(3): 167–80PubMedCrossRef
16.
Hudry J, Rinne J, Keränen T, et al. Cost-utility model of rasagiline in the treatment of advanced Parkinson’s disease in Finland. Ann Pharmacother 2006; 40: 651–7PubMedCrossRef
17.
Findley L, Lees A, Apajasalo M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone (Stalevo) compared to standard care in UK Parkinson’s disease patients with wearing-off. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21(7): 1005–14PubMedCrossRef
18.
Iskedjian M, Einarson T. Cost analysis of ropinerole versus levodopa in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21(2): 115–27PubMedCrossRef
19.
Lindgren P, Jönsson B, DuChane J. The cost-effectiveness of early cabergoline treatment compared to levodopa in Sweden. Eur J Health Econ 2003; 4: 37–42PubMedCrossRef
20.
Smala A, Spottke E, Machat O, et al. Cabergoline versus levodopa monotherapy: a decision analysis. Mov Disord 2003; 18(8): 898–905PubMedCrossRef
21.
Palmer C, Nuijten M, Schmier J, et al. Cost effectiveness of treatment of Parkinson’s disease with entacapone in the United States. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20(9): 617–28PubMedCrossRef
22.
Linna M, Taimela E, Apajasalo M, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for evaluating cost-utility of entacapone for Parkinson’s disease. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2002; 2(2): 91–7PubMedCrossRef
23.
Nuijten M, van Iperen P, Palmer C, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of entacapone in Parkinson’s disease: a Markov process analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 4(4): 316–28
24.
Shimbo T, Hira K, Takemura M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dopamine agonists in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease in Japan. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19(8): 875–86PubMedCrossRef
25.
Davey P, Rajan N, Lees M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of per-golide compared to bromocriptine in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease: a decision analytic model. Value Health 2001; 4(4): 308–15PubMed
26.
Hoerger T, Bala M, Rowland C, et al. Cost effectiveness of pramipexole in Parkinson’s disease in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14(5): 541–57PubMedCrossRef
27.
Van Laere K, Everaert L, Annemans L, et al. The cost effectiveness of 123I-FP-CIT SPECT imaging in patients with an uncertain clinical diagnosis of parkinsonism. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35: 1367–76PubMedCrossRef
28.
Antonini A, Berto P, Lopatriello S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of 123I-FP-CIT SPECT in the differential diagnosis of essential tremor and parkinson’s disease in Italy. Mov Disord 2008; 23(15): 2202–9PubMedCrossRef
29.
Dodel R, Höffken H, Möller C, et al. Dopamine transporter imaging and SPECT in diagnostic work-up of Parkinson’s disease: a decision-analytic approach. Mov Disord 2003; 18Suppl. 7: S52–62PubMedCrossRef
30.
Hjelmgren J, Ghatnekar O, Reimer J, et al. Estimating the value of novel interventions for Parkinson’s disease: an early decision-making model with application to dopamine cell replacement. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2006; 12: 443–52PubMedCrossRef
31.
Tomaszewski K, Holloway R. Deep brain stimulation in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Neurology 2001; 57: 663–71PubMedCrossRef
32.
Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making. Med Decis Making 1993 Dec 1; 13(4): 322–38PubMedCrossRef
33.
34.
Fahn S, Elton R, UPDRS program members. Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale. In: Fahn S, Marsden C, Goldstein M, et al., editors. Recent developments in Parkinson’s disease. Florham Park (NJ): Macmillan Healthcare Information, 1987: 153–63
35.
Palmer C, Schmier J, Snyder EH, et al. Patient preferences and utilities for ‘off-time’ outcomes in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 819–27PubMedCrossRef
36.
Dodel RC, Berger K, Oertel WH. Health-related quality of life and healthcare utilisation in patients with Parkinson’s disease: impact of motor fluctuations and dyskinesias. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19(10): 1013–38PubMedCrossRef
37.
Chrischilles E, Rubenstein L, Voelker M, et al. The health burdens of Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 1998; 13(3): 406–13PubMedCrossRef
38.
Keränen T, Kaakkola S, Sotaniemi K, et al. Economic burden and quality of life impairment increase with severity of PD. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2003; 9(3): 163–8PubMedCrossRef
39.
Schrag A, Jahanshahi M, Quinn N. How does Parkinson’s disease affect quality of life? A comparison with quality of life in the general population. Mov Disord 2000; 15: 1112–8PubMedCrossRef
40.
Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: a suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17(5): 461–77PubMedCrossRef
41.
Goetz C, Poewe W, Rascol O, et al. Movement disorder society task force report on the Hoehn and Yahr staging scale: status and recommendations the movement disorder society task force on rating scales for Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2004; 19(9): 1020–8PubMedCrossRef
42.
Movement Disorder Society Task Force on Rating Scales for Parkinson’s Disease. The Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS): status and recommendations. Mov Disord 2003; 18(7): 738–50CrossRef
43.
Di Rocco A, Molinari S, Kollmeier B, et al. Parkinson’s disease: progression and mortality in the L-DOPA era. In: Battistin L, Scarlato T, Caraceni T, et al., editors. Advances in neurology. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996: 3–11
44.
Le Witt P. Levodopa for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med 2008; 359(23): 2468–76CrossRef
45.
Brennan A, Chick S, Davies R. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ 2006; 15: 1295–310PubMedCrossRef
46.
Barton P, Bryan S, Robinson S. Modelling in the economic evaluation of health care: selecting the appropriate approach. J Health Serv Res Policy 2004; 9(2): 110–8PubMedCrossRef
47.
Bojke L, Claxton K, Sculpher M, et al. Characterizing structural uncertainty in decision analytic models: a review and application of methods. Value Health 2009; 12(5): 739–49PubMedCrossRef
48.
Kim L, Thompson S. Uncertainty and validation of health economic decision models. Health Econ 2010; 19: 43–55PubMed
49.
Poewe W. The natural history of Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol 2006; 253Suppl. 7: 2–6
50.
Dowding C, Shenton C, Salek S. A review of the health-related quality of life and economic impact of Parkinson’s disease. Drugs Aging 2006; 23(9): 693–721PubMedCrossRef
51.
Schrag A, Jahanshahi M, Quinn NP. What contributes to quality of life in patients with Parkinsons’s disease? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000; 69: 308–12PubMedCrossRef
52.
Goetz C, Stebbins G. Risk factors for nursing home placement in advanced Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1993; 43: 2227–9PubMedCrossRef
53.
van Rooden S, Visser M, Verbaan D, et al. Patterns of motor and non-motor features in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2009; 80: 846–50PubMedCrossRef
54.
Schapira AHV. Neurobiology and treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2009; 30(1): 41–7PubMedCrossRef
55.
Post T, Freijer J, DeJongh J, et al. Disease system analysis: basic disease progression models in degenerative disease. Pharm Res 2005; 22(7): 1038–49PubMedCrossRef
56.
Chan P, Holford N. Drug treatment effects on disease progression. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2001; 41: 625–59PubMedCrossRef
57.
Holford N, Chan P, Niutt J, et al. Disease progression and pharmacodynamics in Parkinson disease: evidence for functional protection with levodopa and other treatments. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2006; 33(3): 281–311PubMedCrossRef
58.
Guimaraes P, Kieburtz K, Goetz C, et al. Non-linearity of Parkinson’s disease progression: implications for sample size calculations in clinical trials. Clin Trials 2005; 2: 509–18PubMedCrossRef
59.
Clarke C. A ‘cure’ for Parkinson’s disease: can neuroprotection be proven with current trial designs? Mov Disord 2004; 19(5): 491–8PubMedCrossRef
60.
Alves G, Forsaa EB, Pedersen KF, et al. Epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol 2008; 22Suppl. 5: 18–32CrossRef
61.
Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick RAY, Peto VIV, et al. The Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39): development and validation of a Parkinson’s disease summary index score. Age Ageing 1997 Sep 1; 26(5): 353–7PubMedCrossRef
62.
Goetz C. What’s new? Clinical progression and staging of Parkinson’s disease. J Neural Transm 2006; 70: 305–8CrossRef
63.
van den Hout A, Matthews F. Estimating dementia-free life expectancy for Parkinson’s patients using Bayesian inference and microsimulation. Biostatistics 2009; 10(4): 729–43PubMedCrossRef
64.
Green C, Shearer J, Ritchie CW, et al. Model-based economic evaluation in Alzheimer’s disease: a review of the methods available to model Alzheimer’s disease progression. Value Health. In press
Metadata
Title
The use of decision-analytic models in Parkinson’s disease
A systematic review and critical appraisal
Authors
Dr James Shearer
Colin Green
Carl E. Counsell
John P. Zajicek
Publication date
01-07-2011
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 4/2011
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11590160-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 4/2011

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4/2011 Go to the issue

Research Letter

Drugs for rare diseases: Influence of orphan designation status on price

Short Communication

Cost-efficacy analysis of the MONET trial using UK antiretroviral drug prices

Original Research Article

Cost effectiveness of secondary vs tertiary prevention for post-menopausal osteoporosis

Practical Application

Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses

Short Communication

Design of patient access schemes in the UK