Oral aripiprazole in the treatment of tic disorders in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on a mapping algorithm derived from a Chinese children and adolescents population

Abstract

Abstract Background Oral aripiprazole exhibits favorable clinical efficacy and safety in the suppression of tics in children and adolescents with tic disorders. This study aims to evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of high-dose and low-dose aripiprazole in children and adolescents with tic disorders from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods A questionnaire survey was conducted on 146 patients with tic disorders, of whom 144 completed EQ-5D-Y and YGTSS. Four models were built to convert YGTSS onto EQ-5D-Y utility using two mapping algorithms. We constructed a decision tree model containing efficacy and safety to compare the cost-effectiveness of high-dose and low-dose aripiprazole based on our mapping function. Results The GLM with model 1 (YGTSS total tic scores) was selected as the preferred function in our decision tree model. The base case cost-effectiveness analysis showed that compared to low-dose aripiprazole, high-dose aripiprazole improves effectiveness by 0.001QALYs and increases the overall cost by $197.99, resulting in an ICER of $174339.22 per QALY, which exceeds three times the gross domestic product per capita. Hence, high-dose aripiprazole is not likely to be a cost-effective option for child patients with tic disorders. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that these results is robust. Conclusion On the basis of currently available data, low-dose aripiprazole may be a safe, effective, and economical dosage for children and adolescents with tic disorders. Limitations The main limitation of our study is the lack of utility directly used for cost-effectiveness analysis. We obtained the utility of patients with tic disorders indirectly by the mapping function. This may introduce some bias and uncertainty. And it is a limitation to use the direct medical costs of Germany in our model. Although we converted it to the equivalent value of China using purchasing power parities, caution should be exercised when interpreting the results of this study.