Study register · detailSystematic Review · Multiple Sclerosis · 2018
Systematic Review of the Costs and Benefits of Prescribed Cannabis-Based Medicines for the Management of Chronic Illness: Lessons from Multiple Sclerosis.
Herzog et al.·PharmacoEconomicsImpact 3.2
MixedGRADEHigh27 citations
Samplek = 10 Studien
DurationInception to December 2016
ControlStandard therapy / no CBM
EndpointICER
Blindingunklar
DesignSystematic Review
Cannabinoidkombination
THC:CBD1:1
Routeoromukosal
”Key finding
Nabiximols showed cost-effectiveness for MS spasticity from a European perspective in four of five studies, but was not associated with statistically significant improvements in EQ-5D scores compared to standard therapy.
Summary
Systematic review on cost-benefit of prescribed cannabis medicines in chronic diseases; k=10 studies identified, all for MS. Six contained cost-benefit analyses, four quality-of-life data. Nabiximols for MS spasticity potentially cost-effective in five European health systems: ICER per QALY £49.257 (UK), £10.891 (Wales), €11.214 (Germany), €4.968 (Italy), dominant (Spain). EQ-5D scores showed no statistically significant improvement vs. standard care.
P
PopulationAdults with chronic diseases (all included studies on multiple sclerosis), pooled k=10 studies
I
InterventionPrescription cannabis-based medicines (CBMs), in particular nabiximols (Sativex)
C
ControlStandard therapy / no CBM (from health systems perspective)
O
OutcomeNabiximols possibly cost-effective for MS spasticity (ICER £49.257/QALY UK; £10.891/QALY Wales; €11.214/QALY Germany; €4.968/QALY Italy; dominant in Spain); no significant improvement in EQ-5D scores vs. standard care
Confidence in the evidence
Very lowLowModerateHigh
High
The highest of four GRADE levels, the effect estimate is very reliable.
Quality profile
Sample size★★★★★
Blinding—
Effect sizeMixed
Citations / year★★★★★
Authors
Herzog S, Shanahan M, Grimison P, Tran A, Wong N, Lintzeris N, Simes J, Stockler M, Morton RL
Introduction: Cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) may offer relief from symptoms of disease; however, their additional cost needs to be considered alongside their effectiveness. We sought to review the economic costs and benefits of prescribed CBMs in any chronic illness, and the frameworks used for their economic evaluation.
Methods: A systematic review of eight medical and economic databases, from inception to mid-December 2016, was undertaken. MeSH headings and text words relating to economic costs and benefits, and CBMs were combined. Study quality was assessed using relevant checklists and results were synthesised in narrative form.
Results: Of 2514 identified records, ten studies met the eligibility criteria, all for the management of multiple sclerosis (MS). Six contained economic evaluations, four studies reported utility-based quality of life, and one was a willingness-to-pay study. Four of five industry-sponsored cost-utility analyses for MS spasticity reported nabiximols as being cost-effective from a European health system perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for these five studies were pound49,257 (UK); pound10,891 (Wales); euro11,214 (Germany); euro4968 (Italy); and dominant (Spain). Nabiximols for the management of MS spasticity was not associated with statistically significant improvements in EQ-5D scores compared with standard care. Study quality was moderate overall, with limited inclusion of both relevant societal costs and discussions of potential bias.
Conclusions: Prescribed CBMs are a potentially cost-effective add-on treatment for MS spasticity; however, this evidence is uncertain. Further investment in randomised trials with in-built economic evaluations is warranted for a wider range of clinical indications.
Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42014006370.