--- title: "Juvmo (tavapadon) in Parkinson's disease: cost-effectiveness analyses and utility weights" description: "Published cost-effectiveness analyses and health-state utility weights for Juvmo (tavapadon, CVL-751) in Parkinson's disease, each value quoted from the article: 14 cost-effectiveness analyses and 10 studies reporting utility weights. Analyses: Pramipexole versus levodopa as initial treatment in early Parkinson's disease, United States: Noyes et al. (2004); Levodopa versus levodopa-sparing therapy, and dopamine agonists versus monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors, in early Parkinson's disease, United Kingdom: McIntosh et al. (2021); Pramipexole versus baseline levodopa-based treatment in early and in advanced Parkinson's disease, United States: Hoerger et al. (1998); Rasagiline versus pramipexole as first-line monotherapy in early Parkinson's disease, United Kingdom: Haycox et al. (2009); 10 further articles. Utility weights: Utility weights by Hoehn and Yahr stage and OFF-time stage, advanced Parkinson's disease: Lowin et al. (2017); Utility weights by Hoehn and Yahr stage and proportion of the day in off-time, Parkinson's disease: Palmer et al. (2002); Utility weights by OFF time and per daily OFF hour, Parkinson's disease: Hansen et al. (2021); Utility weights by OFF-time category and for dyskinesia, advanced Parkinson's disease: Kwak et al. (2024); 6 further articles. Every value is a verbatim quote from the primary article it is shown with." canonical: "https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/cost-effectiveness-analyses" published: "2026-10-22T07:49:06-04:00" modified: "2026-10-22T07:49:06-04:00" --- # Juvmo (tavapadon) in Parkinson's disease: cost-effectiveness analyses and utility weights Published cost-effectiveness analyses and health-state utility weights that a model of this product could cite, adapt, or compare against, grouped by how each article relates to the product and its indication. Every value is quoted from the article it cites, and section 3 lists the searches that found the articles. ## Overview | Item | Detail | | --- | --- | | Literature searched | Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, searched October 21, 2026; the queries are listed in section 3. | | Cost-effectiveness analyses | 14 | | Studies reporting utility weights | 10 | ## 1 Cost-effectiveness analyses ### 1.1 Analyses of Juvmo (tavapadon and CVL-751) No evidence found. ### 1.2 Treatments for the same indication #### Pramipexole versus levodopa as initial treatment in early Parkinson's disease, United States: Noyes et al. (2004) Relevance: Evaluates pramipexole against levodopa as initial therapy in early Parkinson's disease within a United States randomized trial, the setting of the TEMPO-1 and TEMPO-2 trials and of the early-disease model in the ICER evidence report cited in section 4.1. > “To determine the 2-year incremental cost effectiveness of initial pramipexole treatment compared with initial levodopa treatment in patients with early Parkinson's disease (PD).” > “301 subjects with early PD were randomized to either pramipexole or levodopa and followed every 3 months over a 2-year period.” > “Health state preferences were estimated using the EuroQol.” > “Pramipexole strategy was an estimated 2,138 dollars (SE = 1,182 dollars) more expensive than levodopa strategy.” > “The incremental cost-effectiveness of pramipexole compared with levodopa was 106,900 dollars/QALY (EQ-5D), compared with pramipexole being dominated by levodopa using the EQVAS.” Source: [Noyes et al. (2004)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15358996/) #### Levodopa versus levodopa-sparing therapy, and dopamine agonists versus monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors, in early Parkinson's disease, United Kingdom: McIntosh et al. (2021) Relevance: Evaluates dopamine agonists against monoamine oxidase B inhibitors, and levodopa against levodopa-sparing therapy, as initial treatment of newly diagnosed Parkinson's disease in a United Kingdom randomized trial, the classes listed as current treatment options in section 2. Access: Free full text > “PD MED is a pragmatic, open-label randomized, controlled trial in which patients newly diagnosed with PD were randomly assigned between levodopa-sparing therapy” > “The economic analysis was performed from a health and personal social services perspective (PSS), as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom.” > “Unit costs were attached to resource use volumes using UK 2011 prices, and both costs and benefits were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%, consistent with NICE guidance.” > “Aggregated QALYs and costs were estimated for each trial participant up to 7 years from randomization or death if earlier.” > “Over a mean observation period of 4 years, levodopa was associated with significantly higher quality-adjusted life-years (difference, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05–0.30; P < 0.01) and lower mean costs (£3390; £2671–£4109; P < 0.01) than levodopa-sparing therapies” > “The probability that levodopa is cost-effective was estimated at 100% for all threshold values for a QALY considered” > “There was no significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between those allocated dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (0.02; −0.17 to 0.13 in favor of dopamine agonists; P = 0.81); however costs were significantly lower for those allocated monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (£2321; £1628–£3015; P < 0.01) because of the higher costs of dopamine agonists.” > “For UK threshold values of £20,000 and £30,000 per incremental QALY, the probability that allocation to MAOBI is cost-effective compared with DA was 92% and 81%, respectively” > “Initial treatment with levodopa is highly cost-effective compared with levodopa-sparing therapies.” Source: [McIntosh et al. (2021)](https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.28623) #### Pramipexole versus baseline levodopa-based treatment in early and in advanced Parkinson's disease, United States: Hoerger et al. (1998) Relevance: Evaluates pramipexole against levodopa-based standard care separately in early and in advanced Parkinson's disease in the United States, the early and later stages at which the TEMPO trials studied tavapadon as monotherapy and as an adjunct to levodopa. > “We developed a cost-effectiveness (CE) model in the US setting that linked Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part II (activities of daily life) and III (motor) scores to disease progression, costs and patient utility.” > “We performed separate analyses for patients with early and advanced PD.” > “The study was conducted from the societal perspective, although data presentation allows interpretation of cost effectiveness from either the societal or payer perspective.” > “For patients with both early and advanced PD, treatment with pramipexole had higher costs but was more effective than baseline treatment.” > “For patients with early onset of PD, the incremental total CE ratio for pramipexole was $US8837/QALY.” > “For patients with advanced PD, the incremental CE ratio was $US12 294/QALY (1997 costs).” Source: [Hoerger et al. (1998)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10344917/) #### Rasagiline versus pramipexole as first-line monotherapy in early Parkinson's disease, United Kingdom: Haycox et al. (2009) Relevance: Evaluates first-line monotherapy with rasagiline against pramipexole in early Parkinson's disease from a United Kingdom healthcare payer perspective, classes listed as current treatment options in section 2. > “The aim of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness, from a UK healthcare payer perspective, of two antiparkinsonian treatment strategies in early PD: first-line monotherapy with rasagiline, a novel monoamine oxidase B inhibitor; and the non-ergoline dopamine receptor agonist pramipexole.” > “An economic Markov model was developed as a pragmatic tool to derive comparative information on the effectiveness, utility and costs of these two strategies over a 5-year period.” > “Rasagiline was the dominant strategy.” > “Compared with pramipexole, use of the rasagiline strategy was estimated to reduce costs by 18% per patient over 5 years and was associated with an additional 10% delay in dyskinesia onset (0.41 years; 95% CI 0.27, 0.55).” > “In addition, use of the rasagiline strategy was found to generate a 5% gain in QALYs over 5 years compared with the pramipexole strategy (3.7 +/- 0.02 vs 3.51 +/- 0.03).” Source: [Haycox et al. (2009)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19728752/) #### Dopamine agonists added to levodopa versus levodopa alone in Parkinson's disease, Japan: Shimbo et al. (2001) Relevance: Evaluates dopamine agonists added to levodopa against levodopa alone in Japan, the drug class with which the ICER model of levodopa-treated Parkinson's disease with motor fluctuations in section 4.1 compares tavapadon. > “We used a Markov model to simulate the course of Parkinson's disease and to compare the cost effectiveness of dopamine agonists added to levodopa with that of levodopa alone in Japan.” > “The model assumed that 60-year-old men with Parkinson's disease in Hoehn-Yahr (HY) stages 2 to 5 using levodopa were administered dopamine agonists or continued on levodopa alone.” > “The incremental cost effectiveness of dopamine agonists used for 10 years was then estimated.” > “In the patients in HY stage 2, the incremental cost effectiveness of dopamine agonists was 18,610,000 to 19,320,000 yen per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)” > “In patients in HY stage 3 or higher, the use of dopamine agonists was dominant over levodopa alone mainly due to reduced cost for care.” > “The use of a generic formulation of bromocriptine was dominant over levodopa alone even in the patients with HY stage 2 disease.” Source: [Shimbo et al. (2001)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11596839/) #### Opicapone versus entacapone as adjuncts to levodopa/carbidopa in Parkinson's disease with OFF time, United States: Hansen et al. (2021) Relevance: Evaluates opicapone against entacapone as adjuncts to levodopa/carbidopa, based on reduction in OFF time, from a United States payer perspective, an analysis section 4.1 cites. Access: Free full text > “To assess from a US payer perspective the relative cost-effectiveness of the catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors opicapone and entacapone when used adjunctively to levodopa/carbidopa (LD/CD) in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), based on the drugs’ effects to reduce absolute OFF-time hours in PD patients.” > “A Markov model was created to estimate cost-effectiveness of adjunctive opicapone treatment compared with adjunctive entacapone treatment in a synthetic cohort of 1,000 patients with PD taking LD/CD.” > “Cost data (in 2018 US dollars)” > “Outcomes were projected over a 25-year lifetime horizon and discounted at 3% annually.” > “Opicapone treatment was associated with an average of 1,187 fewer OFF-time hours per patient and an increase of 0.07 QALYs compared with entacapone.” > “Total lifetime costs for opicapone were $3,100 higher than entacapone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $46,900 per QALY.” > “Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested a 60–65% probability that opicapone was cost-effective relative to entacapone at any willingness-to-pay threshold ≥$5,000.” Source: [Hansen et al. (2021)](https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2021.1916750) #### Rasagiline or entacapone added to levodopa, and levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone, versus levodopa monotherapy in advanced Parkinson's disease with motor fluctuations, United States: Groenendaal et al. (2010) Relevance: Evaluates rasagiline or entacapone added to levodopa, and levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone, against levodopa monotherapy in advanced Parkinson's disease with motor fluctuations in the United States, the levodopa-treated population with motor fluctuations studied in TEMPO-3. > “To assess the cost utility of rasagiline or entacapone as adjunctive therapies to levodopa versus levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone (LCE) versus standard levodopa monotherapy in patients with advanced PD and motor fluctuations in the US.” > “A 2-year stochastic Markov model was utilized to examine the cost effectiveness of treatments of advanced PD.” > “Over 2 years, all therapy options showed greater effectiveness than levodopa alone.” > “Rasagiline+levodopa and LCE were cost saving from a payor perspective, while entacapone+levodopa was cost saving from a societal perspective.” > “Mean benefits over 2 years were 0.12 (90% credibility interval [CI] 0.07, 0.18) additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for rasagiline+levodopa, entacapone+levodopa and LCE” > “From a payor perspective, rasagiline+levodopa and LCE were dominant therapies over levodopa monotherapy, while entacapone+levodopa was effective at a higher cost.” Source: [Groenendaal et al. (2010)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20818839/) #### Entacapone added to standard treatment versus standard treatment alone in Parkinson's disease with off-time, United States: Palmer et al. (2002) Relevance: Evaluates entacapone added to standard treatment in Parkinson's disease with motor fluctuations in the United States, the catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitor class listed as an adjunctive option in section 2. > “To determine the cost effectiveness of adjunctive therapy with entacapone versus standard treatment (levodopa) without entacapone for patients in the US with Parkinson's disease (PD) who experience 'off-time' (re-emergence of the symptoms of PD) while receiving levodopa.” > “A Markov model was used to estimate 5-year costs and effectiveness of standard treatment with and without entacapone.” > “PD disability was measured using the daily proportion of off-time and Hoehn and Yahr scale scores.” > “The analysis measured costs from a societal and third-party payer perspective, and effectiveness as gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and years without progression to >25% off-time.” > “From a societal perspective, entacapone therapy resulted in an incremental cost of US dollars 9327 per QALY gained compared with standard treatment.” > “Treatment with entacapone also provided an additional 7.6 months with < or =25% off-time/day compared with standard treatment.” Source: [Palmer et al. (2002)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12141889/) #### Opicapone and entacapone versus no catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitor, and opicapone versus entacapone, in advanced Parkinson's disease, South Korea: Kwak et al. (2024) Relevance: Evaluates opicapone and entacapone against no catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitor in advanced Parkinson's disease from a South Korean healthcare system perspective, an analysis section 4.1 cites. Access: Not open access Not quoted: The incremental costs, QALYs, and cost-effectiveness ratios are reported in the full text, which is closed access. > “A mixed model of the decision tree and a Markov model with three health states by OFF-time level (<25%, ≥25%, and death) was constructed to compare opicapone (OPC), entacapone (ENT), and no COMT-i over a lifetime.” > “A hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients was created and simulated based on the characteristics of the BIPARK trial subjects.” > “Two COMT-i (OPC and ENT) were identified as a cost-effective option compared to no COMT-i.” > “Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that over 90% of the simulations proved the robust cost-effectiveness of COMT-i.” > “Although ENT may be the preferred option over OPC economically because of its lower price, OPC can be acceptable if the drug price is reduced by 17%.” Source: [Kwak et al. (2024)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39089982/) #### Levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone versus standard care in Parkinson's disease with wearing-off, United Kingdom: Findley et al. (2005) Relevance: Evaluates levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone against standard care in Parkinson's disease with end-of-dose wearing-off from United Kingdom societal and National Health Service perspectives, the levodopa-treated population with motor fluctuations studied in TEMPO-3. > “A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone (LCE;Stalevo), in the treatment of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and end-of-dose motor fluctuations (wearing-off).” > “The costs and outcomes of both treatments were projected over a period of 10 years from the perspective (a) of society as a whole and (b) of the UK National Health Service (NHS).” > “Treatment with LCE produced an average gain of +1.04 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient (2.57 vs. 1.53) in the base-case analysis (discount rate 3.5%).” > “This gain was accompanied by a reduction in the total 10-year direct cost of care to society of 10198 pounds per patient” > “From the societal perspective, therefore, LCE was dominant, producing better clinical outcomes with lower costs.” > “Although treatment with LCE resulted in an increase in direct costs per patient of 3239 pounds (25756 pounds versus 22517 pounds) to the NHS over the 10-year period analysed, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of LCE was only 3105 pounds per QALY gained (approximately E4500).” Source: [Findley et al. (2005)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16004667/) #### Rasagiline or entacapone added to levodopa versus levodopa alone in Parkinson's disease with motor fluctuations, Finland: Hudry et al. (2006) Relevance: Evaluates rasagiline and entacapone as adjuncts to levodopa in Parkinson's disease with motor fluctuations in Finland, covering the monoamine oxidase B and catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitor classes listed in section 2. > “To assess the cost-utility of rasagiline and entacapone as adjunctive therapies to levodopa versus standard levodopa care in PD patients with motor fluctuations in Finland.” > “A 2 year probabilistic Markov model with 3 health states” > “Model inputs included transition probabilities from randomized clinical trials, utilities from a preference measurement study, and costs and resources from a Finnish cost-of-illness study.” > “Over 2 years from a societal perspective, rasagiline or entacapone as adjunctive therapies to levodopa showed greater effectiveness than levodopa alone at no additional costs.” > “Benefits after 2 years were 0.13 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.17) additional QALYs and 5.2 (3.6 to 6.7) additional months for rasagiline and 0.12 (0.08 to 0.17) QALYs and 5.1 (3.5 to 6.6) months for entacapone, both in adjunct to levodopa compared with levodopa alone.” Source: [Hudry et al. (2006)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569799/) #### Apomorphine sublingual film versus apomorphine hydrochloride injection and levodopa inhalation powder for OFF episodes in Parkinson's disease, United States: Thach et al. (2021) Relevance: Evaluates apomorphine sublingual film against apomorphine injection and levodopa inhalation powder as on-demand treatment of OFF episodes from a United States payer perspective, the on-demand therapies listed in section 2 and an analysis section 4.1 cites. > “The cost-effectiveness analysis model was built from a pooled US Medicare and commercial payer perspective.” > “The model used a 10-year time horizon” > “It was developed using a microsimulation model with a 3-month cycle length” > “Costs and benefits were discounted at a 3% annual rate over the time horizon.” > “treatment costs (US$45 865) compared with apomorphine hydrochloride injection (US$280 213; difference: US–$234 349) and levodopa inhalation powder (US$73 317; difference: US–$27 453) over the 10-year time horizon.” > “Over the same time period, apomorphine sublingual film was also associated with the highest utility, with incremental QALYs of 0.019 compared with apomorphine hydrochloride injection (4.107 vs 4.088 QALYs, respectively) and 0.235 compared with levodopa inhalation powder (4.107 vs 3.872 QALYs) (Table 3).” > “Considering both cost and utility outcomes, apomorphine sublingual film was dominant compared with both comparator arms, being less costly and more effective on average than apomorphine hydrochloride injection and levodopa inhalation powder.” > “Apomorphine sublingual film was projected to be dominant in 70% of patients versus apomorphine hydrochloride injection and 71% versus levodopa inhalation powder.” Source: [Thach et al. (2021)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8809356/) ### 1.3 The same disease in other populations or settings #### Carbidopa/levodopa enteral suspension versus oral standard of care in advanced Parkinson's disease, United States: Pahwa et al. (2023) Relevance: Evaluates carbidopa-levodopa enteral suspension against oral standard of care in advanced Parkinson's disease in the United States, a device-aided therapy listed in section 2 and an analysis section 4.1 cites. Access: Free full text > “A published Markov model, comprising of 25 health states and a death state, (defined by a combination of the Hoehn and Yahr scale and waking time spent in OFF-time) was adapted to estimate the benefits for CLES versus oral SoC over a patient's lifetime in the US healthcare setting.” > “to determine the average costs, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient with CLES and SoC, from the US payer perspective (using costs inputs specific for Medicare), thereby calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).” > “Discount rate was applied annually for both costs and effects (3.0%), as per the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review guidelines.” > “The model population comprised of patients with aPD and severe motor fluctuations, defined on the Hoehn and Yahr (HY) scale as ≥3 and OFF-time >4 hours (ie, 25% of 16-hour waking day).” > “In the base case analysis, as compared to SoC, CLES was associated with an incremental cost of $6611, an incremental QALY gain of 0.86, and LY incremental gain of 1.25 over a lifetime time horizon, resulting in an ICER of $7711/QALY.” > “CLES compared to SoC was associated with incremental costs ($1,031,791 vs. $1,025,180) and QALY gain (4.61 vs. 3.76), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7711/QALY.” Source: [Pahwa et al. (2023)](https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.29624) #### Deep brain stimulation with medical therapy versus best medical therapy alone in advanced Parkinson's disease, United States: Pietzsch et al. (2016) Relevance: Evaluates deep brain stimulation with medical therapy against best medical therapy alone in advanced Parkinson's disease from a United States Medicare payer perspective, a device-aided therapy listed in section 2. > “We used a decision-analytic state-transition (Markov) model to project PD progression and associated costs for the two treatment strategies.” > “We estimated the discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) from the Medicare payer perspective, considering a ten-year horizon, and evaluated the robustness of our projections through extensive deterministic sensitivity analyses.” > “Over ten years, DBS treatment led to discounted total costs of $130,510 compared to $91,026 for BMT and added 1.69 QALYs more than BMT, resulting in an ICER of $23,404 per QALY.” > “This ICER was relatively insensitive to variations in input parameters, with neurostimulator replacement, costs for DBS implantation, and costs for treatment of disease-related falls having the greatest effects.” > “Across all investigated scenarios, including a five-year horizon, ICERs remained under $50,000 per QALY.” Source: [Pietzsch et al. (2016)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27491661/) ### 1.4 Related diseases and analogous treatments No evidence found. ## 2 Utility weights ### 2.1 Utility weights from analyses of Juvmo (tavapadon and CVL-751) No evidence found. ### 2.2 Utility weights for the same indication No evidence found. ### 2.3 Utility weights for the same disease in other populations or settings #### Utility weights by Hoehn and Yahr stage and OFF-time stage, advanced Parkinson's disease: Lowin et al. (2017) Relevance: Utilities for health states defined by Hoehn and Yahr stage combined with time in OFF in advanced Parkinson's disease. Access: Free full text Not quoted: The utility weights for each Hoehn and Yahr stage and OFF-time stage are reported in Table 7 of the full text, which this page does not quote. > “A Markov model was used to evaluate LCIG vs SoC in a hypothetical cohort of 100 aPD patients with severe motor fluctuations from an Irish healthcare perspective.” > “Model health states were defined by Hoehn & Yahr (H&Y) scale” > “Health state utilities were estimated from a pooled dataset of EQ5D data (AbbVie data on file)” > “The relationship between H&Y stage, OFF state, and utility was estimated from a regression equation obtained from a GEE (generalized estimating equation) analysis of the pooled dataset.” > “Regression outputs indicated a robust relationship between H&Y status, OFF state, and EQ5D, with the utility impact of worsening a single H&Y state estimated at –0.110 and of worsening a single OFF state estimated at –0.030.” Source: [Lowin et al. (2017)](https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2017.1379411) #### Utility weights by Hoehn and Yahr stage and proportion of the day in off-time, Parkinson's disease: Palmer et al. (2002) Relevance: Utilities for Parkinson's disease by Hoehn and Yahr stage and proportion of the day in off-time, used in a United States analysis of adjunctive entacapone. Access: Not open access Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access. > “Probabilities, unit costs, resource utilisation data and utilities were obtained from published literature, clinical trial reports, a national database, and clinical experts.” Source: [Palmer et al. (2002)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12141889/) #### Utility weights by OFF time and per daily OFF hour, Parkinson's disease: Hansen et al. (2021) Relevance: Utilities for Parkinson's disease by OFF time and per daily OFF hour, used in a United States analysis of opicapone and entacapone as adjuncts to levodopa/carbidopa. Access: Free full text > “Clinical inputs were derived from clinical trials, published literature, and expert opinion.” > “Mean utility values for QALY estimation were 0.78 and 0.63 for <25% OFF-time and ≥25% OFF-time, respectively” > “An incremental OFF-hour/day utility decrement of 0.026 was applied to the additional number of hours of OFF-time per day based on an analysis of patient-reported outcomes drawn from the US Adelphi Parkinson’s Disease Specific Programme, a cross-sectional study of 109 neurologists and their patients with PD” Source: [Hansen et al. (2021)](https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2021.1916750) #### Utility weights by OFF-time category and for dyskinesia, advanced Parkinson's disease: Kwak et al. (2024) Relevance: Utilities for Parkinson's disease by OFF-time category and for dyskinesia, used in a South Korean analysis of opicapone and entacapone. Access: Not open access Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access. Source: [Kwak et al. (2024)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39089982/) #### Utility weights for monotherapy with and without motor fluctuations or dyskinesia, early Parkinson's disease: Haycox et al. (2009) Relevance: Utilities in early Parkinson's disease for monotherapy with and without motor fluctuations or dyskinesia, used in a United Kingdom analysis of rasagiline and pramipexole. Access: Not open access Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access. > “Cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) data were derived from published sources.” Source: [Haycox et al. (2009)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19728752/) #### Utility weights for initial pramipexole and initial levodopa treatment, early Parkinson's disease: Noyes et al. (2004) Relevance: Utilities measured in trial participants with early Parkinson's disease treated initially with pramipexole or with levodopa. Access: Not open access Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access. > “Health state preferences were estimated using the EuroQol.” Source: [Noyes et al. (2004)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15358996/) #### Baseline utility weights for participants assigned a dopamine agonist or a monoamine oxidase type B inhibitor, early Parkinson's disease: McIntosh et al. (2021) Relevance: Utilities measured in trial participants with newly diagnosed Parkinson's disease allocated to a dopamine agonist or a monoamine oxidase B inhibitor. Access: Free full text > “Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) was estimated using the EuroQol EQ-5D 3-level questionnaire.” > “EQ-5D utilities were calculated by applying the UK value set” > “Baseline EQ-5D utility was higher for those assigned MAOBI than for those assigned DA (0.68 vs 0.65; P for difference = 0.03).” Source: [McIntosh et al. (2021)](https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.28623) #### Utility weights by Hoehn and Yahr stage in men, Parkinson's disease: Shimbo et al. (2001) Relevance: Utilities for Parkinson's disease by Hoehn and Yahr stage in men, used in a Japanese analysis of dopamine agonists added to levodopa. Access: Not open access Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access. Source: [Shimbo et al. (2001)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11596839/) #### Utility weights by daily duration of OFF episodes and per OFF hour reduced, Parkinson's disease: Thach et al. (2021) Relevance: Utilities for Parkinson's disease by daily duration of OFF episodes and the utility gain per OFF hour reduced. > “Utility values were derived from a cost-effectiveness study in patients with PD by Lowin et al.” > “hour reduced was assumed at 0.044, and for each additional hour reduced, the utility was assumed at 0.015.” Source: [Thach et al. (2021)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8809356/) | Health state | Utility | | --- | --- | | “episode category I (1–4 hours)” | “0.643” | | “episode category II (4–8 hours)” | “0.555” | | “episode category III (8–12 hours)” | “0.467” | | “episode category IV (12–16 hours)” | “0.379” | | “For the first” “hour reduced” | “0.044” | | “For each additional hour after the first” | “0.015” | Source: [Thach et al. (2021)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8809356/) #### Disutilities for an increase in Hoehn and Yahr stage and in OFF time, advanced Parkinson's disease: Pahwa et al. (2023) Relevance: Disutilities for an increase in Hoehn and Yahr stage and for an increase in OFF-time duration in Parkinson's disease, from a United States analysis. Access: Free full text > “Health-related quality of life data was obtained (using US value set) from the Adelphi-DSP study” > “The outputs of the regression analysis indicated that an increase in HY-stage and OFF stage resulted in a utility decrement of 0.080 and 0.049, respectively” Source: [Pahwa et al. (2023)](https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.29624) ### 2.4 Utility weights for related diseases and analogous treatments No evidence found. ## 3 Search strategy | Dataset | Query | Results | | --- | --- | --- | | Methods | tavapadon | 0 | | Ratios | tavapadon | 0 | | Methods | "Parkinsons disease" OR "Parkinson disease" OR parkinsonism | 7 | | Methods | Parkinson | 50 | | Ratios | "Parkinson" | 60 | | Ratios | "Parkinson's disease" OR "Parkinson disease" | 86 | | Ratios | pramipexole OR ropinirole OR rotigotine OR "dopamine agonist" OR "dopamine agonists" | 35 | | Ratios | rasagiline OR selegiline OR safinamide OR entacapone OR opicapone OR tolcapone OR istradefylline OR amantadine OR apomorphine | 53 | | Ratios | levodopa OR foslevodopa OR carbidopa | 53 | | Weights | "Parkinson's disease" OR "Parkinson disease" OR Parkinson | 387 | | Methods | "CVL-751" OR "PF-06649751" OR Juvmo | 0 | | Weights | "Hoehn" OR "Hoehn and Yahr" | 164 | | Weights | "OFF time" OR "off-time" OR "motor fluctuations" OR dyskinesia | 167 | | Ratios | "deep brain stimulation" | 64 | ## Related pages - [Juvmo (tavapadon): Parkinson's disease](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease.md) - [Juvmo (tavapadon) in Parkinson's disease: Terms and abbreviations](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/terms-and-abbreviations) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/terms-and-abbreviations.md) - [Juvmo (tavapadon): Parkinson's disease](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/executive-summary) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/executive-summary.md) - [Juvmo (tavapadon) in Parkinson's disease: Product information and disease description](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/product-information-and-disease-description) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/product-information-and-disease-description.md) - [Juvmo (tavapadon) in Parkinson's disease: Clinical evidence](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/clinical-evidence) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/clinical-evidence.md) - [Juvmo (tavapadon) in Parkinson's disease: Economic information and modeling report](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/economics) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/economics.md) - [Juvmo (tavapadon) in Parkinson's disease: References](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/references) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/references.md) - [Juvmo (tavapadon) in Parkinson's disease: new drug review](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/monograph/review) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/monograph/review.md) - [Juvmo (tavapadon) in Parkinson's disease: prevalence by geography](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/prevalence) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/prevalence.md) - [Juvmo (tavapadon) in Parkinson's disease: interactive budget impact model](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/budget-impact-model) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/juvmo--parkinson-s-disease/budget-impact-model.md)