Economic information and modeling report

Modeling overview

6 evidence topics · 2 sources

Summary

The economic evaluations retained in this report concern procedural treatments for essential tremor, not ulixacaltamide. One evaluation compared focused ultrasound thalamotomy, deep brain stimulation, and stereotactic radiosurgery, using Medicare reimbursement as a proxy for societal costs. Another evaluated focused ultrasound using a Markov cost-utility model with a five-year time horizon and a public payer perspective. These evaluations do not establish ulixacaltamide-specific incremental costs, cost-effectiveness, or payer budget impact.

Cost-effectiveness of focused ultrasound, radiosurgery, and deep brain stimulation

“magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy, DBS, and stereotactic radiosurgery” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Medicare reimbursement was employed as a proxy for societal cost.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound

“We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a Markov cohort model.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“5-year time horizon and a public payer perspective” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Focused ultrasound versus no surgery: incremental cost and cost-effectiveness

“Compared with no surgery, MRgFUS in our model was associated with an incremental cost of $21,438 and an incremental QALY of 0.47 over 5 years, resulting in a best estimate ICER of $45,817/QALY” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“MRgFUS was 56.0% and 89.5% likely to be cost-effective at common willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000/QALY, respectively” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“In people ineligible for invasive neurosurgery, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound versus no surgery is comparable to many other tests and treatments that are widely adopted in high-income countries.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Procedural comparators: five-year costs and incremental ratios

“Over a 5-year time horizon, the total mean costs of MRgFUS, RF, and DBS were $23,497, $14,972, and $57,523, respectively, with a total mean of 3.70, 3.63, and 3.96 QALYs, respectively” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“The ICER of MRgFUS versus RF was $119,607/QALY, and the ICER of DBS versus MRgFUS was $130,850/QALY.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Sensitivity of the focused ultrasound result to time horizon and capital cost

“When the time horizon was shortened to 1 year (versus 5 years in the reference case), the ICER increased to $241,520/QALY. When a 10-year time horizon was used, the ICER was reduced by 40% compared with the reference case ($25,980/QALY).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“When the capital cost of MRgFUS (costs of the focused ultrasound system and equipment) was included ($33,033 per case vs $14,095 per case in the reference case), the ICER almost doubled compared with the reference case result ($85,047/QALY).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Ulixacaltamide-specific budget impact and cost-effectiveness models

No evidence found.