Study register · detailSystematic Review · Multiple Sclerosis · 2021
Cost-Effectiveness of Medicinal Cannabis for Management of Refractory Symptoms Associated With Chronic Conditions: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.
Erku et al.·Value in healthImpact 0.3
MixedGRADEModerate16 citations
Samplek = 12 Studien n = 8 Pat.
Durationuntil September 6, 2020
ControlStandard therapy / no therapy
EndpointICER
Blindingunklar
DesignSystematic Review
”Key finding
Medicinal Cannabis showed variable cost-effectiveness depending on indication and setting: nabiximols was cost-effective for MS spasticity in European settings, cannabidiol was cost-effective for Dravet syndrome in Canada, but not for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome in the USA.
Summary
Systematic review on cost-effectiveness of medical cannabis; k=12 cost-utility analyses (8 MS, 2 pediatric epilepsy, 2 chronic pain). Nabiximols cost-effective for MS spasticity in multiple European settings; ICER range from cost-saving to >451.800 US$ per QALY depending on setting and cannabinoid type. Publications met 70–100% (median 83%) of CHEERS criteria.
P
PopulationAdults and children with chronic diseases (MS, pediatric treatment-resistant epilepsies, chronic pain) – pooled from 12 studies
I
InterventionMedical cannabis (nabiximols, cannabidiol, other cannabis-based products)
C
ControlStandard therapy / no therapy (depending on study)
O
OutcomeICER varies widely (cost-saving to >451.800 USD/QALY); nabiximols cost-effective for MS spasticity (several European settings); cannabidiol cost-effective for Dravet syndrome (Canada), not cost-effective for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (USA)
Confidence in the evidence
Very lowLowModerateHigh
Moderate
The third of four GRADE levels, the effect estimate is probably reliable.
Objectives: Although there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that cannabinoids may relieve symptoms of some illnesses, they are relatively high-cost therapies compared with illicit growth and supply. This article aimed to comprehensively review economic evaluations of medicinal cannabis for alleviating refractory symptoms associated with chronic conditions.
Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched for articles published up to September 6, 2020. The quality of reporting of economic evaluations was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. The extracted data were grouped into subcategories according to types of medical conditions, organized into tables, and reported narratively.
Results: This review identified 12 cost-utility analyses conducted across a variety of diseases including multiple sclerosis (MS) (N = 8), pediatric drug-resistant epilepsies (N = 2), and chronic pain (N = 2). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied widely from cost saving to more than US$451 800 per quality-adjusted life-year depending on the setting, perspectives, types of medicinal cannabis, and indications. Nabiximols is a cost-effective intervention for MS spasticity in multiple European settings. Cannabidiol was found to be a cost-effective for Dravet syndrome in a Canadian setting whereas a cost-utility analysis conducted in a US setting deemed cannabidiol to be not cost-effective for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Overall study quality was good, with publications meeting 70% to 100% (median 83%) of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist criteria.
Conclusions: Medicinal cannabis-based products may be cost-effective treatment options for MS spasticity, Dravet syndrome, and neuropathic pain, although the literature is nascent. Well-designed clinical trials and health economic evaluations are needed to generate adequate clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence to assist in resource allocation.