Cost-effectiveness of dexamphetamine and methylphenidate for the treatment of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Objective: To analyze from a health sector perspective the cost-effectiveness of dexamphetamine (DEX) and methylphenidate (MPH) interventions to treat childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), compared to current practice.

Method: Children eligible for the interventions are those aged between 4 and 17 years in 2000, who had ADHD and were seeking care for emotional or behavioural problems, but were not receiving stimulant medication. To determine health benefit, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed for DEX and MPH, and the effect sizes were translated into utility values. An assessment on second stage filter criteria ('equity', 'strength of evidence', 'feasibility' and 'acceptability to stakeholders') is also undertaken to incorporate additional factors that impact on resource allocation decisions. Simulation modelling techniques are used to present a 95% uncertainty interval (UI) around the incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER), which is calculated in cost (in A$) per DALY averted.

Results: The ICER for DEX is A$4100/DALY saved (95% UI: negative to A$14 000) and for MPH is A$15 000/DALY saved (95% UI: A$9100-22 000). DEX is more costly than MPH for the government, but much less costly for the patient.

Conclusions: MPH and DEX are cost-effective interventions for childhood ADHD. DEX is more cost-effective than MPH, although if MPH were listed at a lower price on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme it would become more cost-effective. Increased uptake of stimulants for ADHD would require policy change. However, the medication of children and wider availability of stimulants may concern parents and the community.

Stimulants for depression: on the up and up?

The use of traditional psychostimulants (methylphenidate and dexamphetamine) and stimulant-like drugs (modafinil and armodafinil) for the treatment of depression is a growing concern given the lack of research evidence supporting their effectiveness. The current article describes the role of stimulants in treating depression--specifically their risks and benefits and their potential use alongside antidepressants. Clinically, the rapid amelioration of depressive symptoms with traditional psychostimulants is often dramatic but short-lived, and this suggests that they likely operate via different mechanisms to conventional antidepressants. More importantly, there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials supporting their efficacy in treating depression, although modafinil has been shown to be effective in reducing prominent depressive symptoms, such as fatigue. Research is urgently required to clarify psychostimulants' mechanisms of action and to evaluate their long-term benefits and risks in the treatment of major and bipolar depression. Ultimately, specificity of action needs to be determined to inform the sophisticated clinical use of psychostimulants in the management of depression. Until then they should only be prescribed if absolutely necessary, and even then their prescription should be facilitatory and time limited unless it is for investigational purposes.