Dataset Information

Comparative economic evaluation of quetiapine plus lamotrigine combination vs quetiapine monotherapy (and folic acid vs placebo) in patients with bipolar depression (CEQUEL).

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Although not licensed for acute bipolar depression, lamotrigine has evidence for efficacy in trials and its use is recommended in guidelines. So far there had been no prospective health economic evaluation of its use.

Methods

Cost-utility analysis of the CEQUEL trial comparing quetiapine plus lamotrigine vs quetiapine monotherapy (and folic acid vs placebo in an add-on factorial design) for patients with bipolar depression (n = 201) from the health and social care perspective. Differences in costs together with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between the groups were assessed over 52 weeks using a regression-based approach.

Results

Health-related quality of life improved substantially for all randomization groups during follow-up with no significant difference in QALYs between any of the comparisons (mean adjusted QALY difference: lamotrigine vs placebo -0.001 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.05), folic acid vs placebo 0.002 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.05)). While medication costs in the lamotrigine group were higher than in the placebo group (£647, P < 0.001), mental health community/outpatient costs were significantly lower (-£670, P < 0.001). Mean total costs were similar in the groups (-£180, P = 0.913).

Conclusions

Lamotrigine improved clinical ratings in bipolar depression compared with placebo. This differential effect was not detected using the EQ-5D-3L. The additional cost of lamotrigine was balanced by significant savings in some other medical costs which made its use cost neutral to the health service. Compared to placebo, folic acid produced neither clinical nor significant health economic benefits. The study supports the use of lamotrigine in combination with other drugs to treat bipolar depression.

SUBMITTER: Simon J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6491973 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy for anxiety symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder experiencing depression in the BipOLar DEpRession (BOLDER I and II) studies. METHOD:A post hoc analysis of anxiety symptoms in 1,051 acutely depressed patients with bipolar I or II disorder (DSM-IV) from 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 8-week studies of quetiapine (300 or 600 mg once daily) was conducted. Anxiety symptoms were assessed using Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) total and psychic (items 1-6, 14) and somatic (items 7-13) anxiety subscale scores (mixed-model repeated measure and last-observation-carried-forward analysis of change from baseline at each assessment). The BOLDER I study was conducted between September 2002 and October 2003, and the BOLDER II study was conducted between June 2004 and August 2005. RESULTS:Mean baseline HARS total scores were similar across the treatment groups (300 mg/d: 18.9, 600 mg/d and placebo: both 18.6). There was a significantly greater improvement from baseline in mean HARS total scores at the first evaluation (week 1) in both quetiapine groups compared with placebo (300 mg/d: -4.6, P < .001 and 600 mg/d: -4.1, P = .003 vs placebo: -2.8). These improvements were sustained through week 8 with both quetiapine doses (300 mg/d: -10.1, P < .001 and 600 mg/d: -10.5, P < .001 vs placebo: -6.9). At week 8, there was also significant improvement from baseline in HARS psychic and somatic anxiety subscale scores compared with placebo (P < .001). The baseline severity of anxiety did not impact the improvement in depressive symptoms. Common adverse events included dry mouth, sedation, somnolence, and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS:In this pooled analysis, quetiapine monotherapy was more effective than placebo and generally well tolerated for the treatment of both depressive and anxiety symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00060489 (BOLDER I) and NCT00083954 (BOLDER II).

Project description:BackgroundIn the clinical use of third-line treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), the combination treatment is increasingly used due to problems such as drug resistance, and while their efficacy has been proven, whether they are economical has become a new issue. A recent trial showed copanlisib plus rituximab combination therapy (CRCT) had better efficacy in the treatment of relapsed indolent NHL (iNHL) compared to rituximab monotherapy (RM). However, the long-term cost and effectiveness of this regimen is not known. We are the first to evaluate the cost effectiveness of CRCT in third-line treatment of relapsed iNHL from the perspective of US payers.MethodsWe used a Markov model to evaluate cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) which included a population from CHRONOS-3 with mean age of 62.5 years and total cycle length of 16.3 years. The cycle length was 1 month, adverse reaction rates were from CHRONOS-3, mean body surface area was referenced from published literature, cost values are referenced from published literature and Drugbank, utility values were referenced from the published literature, and the primary endpoint was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness to pay (WTP) threshold was set at $150,000 per QALYs, and one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to verify the robustness of the model. All costs are expressed in 2021 dollars and costs and utilities have been calculated at a discount rate of 3% per year.ResultsCRCT and RM obtained 6.53 QALYs and 5.15 QALYs, respectively, and the ICER of CRCT vs. RM was $358,895.2/QALYs. Parameters having the greatest impact on the robustness of the model were the drug cost of copanlisib and the utility value of the progression-free survival (PFS) state. When the WTP threshold was $150,000, the probability of CRCT and RM being the most cost effective was 0.4% and 99.6% respectively.ConclusionsFrom a US payer perspective, CRCT is not cost-effective in treating relapsed iNHL at current prices compared to RM. But given its positive clinical efficacy, appropriate price discounts or assistance programs should be considered to make CRCT more affordable to patients with relapsed iNHL.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:CEQUEL (Comparative Evaluation of QUEtiapine plus Lamotrigine combination versus quetiapine monotherapy [and folic acid versus placebo] in bipolar depression) was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group, 2×2 factorial trial that examined the effect of adding lamotrigine and/or folic acid (FA) to quetiapine in bipolar depression. Lamotrigine improved depression, but its effectiveness was reduced by FA. We investigated the baseline predictors and correlates of clinical response, and the possible basis of the interaction. METHODS:The main outcome was change in depressive symptoms at 12 weeks, measured using the Quick Inventory for Depressive Symptoms-self report version 16 (QIDS-SR16). We examined the relationship between symptoms and lamotrigine levels, and biochemical measures of one-carbon metabolism and functional polymorphisms in catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) and folate hydrolase 1 (FOLH1). RESULTS:Lamotrigine levels were unaffected by FA and did not differ between those participants who achieved remission and those with persisting symptoms. When participants with subtherapeutic serum levels were excluded, there was a main effect of lamotrigine on the main outcome, although this remained limited to those randomized to FA placebo. None of the biochemical measures correlated with clinical outcome. The negative impact of FA on lamotrigine response was limited to COMT Met carriers. FOLH1 and MTHFR had no effect. CONCLUSIONS:Our results clarify that FA's inhibition of lamotrigine's efficacy is not a pharmacokinetic effect, and that low serum lamotrigine levels contributed to lamotrigine's lack of a main effect at 12 weeks. We were unable to explain the lamotrigine-FA interaction, but our finding that it is modulated by the COMT genotype provides a starting point for follow-on neurobiological investigations. More broadly, our results highlight the value of including biochemical and genetic indices in randomized clinical trials.