The Cost Effectiveness and Using of Drugs for Treatment of Advanced Parkinson′s Disease

James Lee^*
*Correspondence: James Lee, Department of Economics, Saint Louis University, Missouri, USA, Email:

Introduction

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive moderate neurodegenerative disease that manifests as bradykinesia, tremor, rigidity, and unsteadiness in posture, affecting patients' daily activities. Even though PD is primarily thought to be a developmental issue, it is linked to non-engine side effects like autonomic breakdown, sleep issues, mental decline, and tangible anomalies like anosmia, vision issues, and pain. Age is a significant risk factor for Parkinson's disease (PD), which affects about 1% of people over 60 and continues to spread with increasing age. Over the course of many years, the weight of PD has grown worldwide. According to a study conducted with the help of the Clinical Practice Research Data link, the assessed prevalence of PD in people 45 and older in the UK in 2018 was 18,641.Additionally, PD places a significant financial burden on the healthcare system due to the associated clinical costs that rise with infection severity.

Description

Due to a lack of antibiotics that can change the nature of the infection, the treatment of PD focuses on suggestive administration through dopamine substitution. The most effective and widely used treatment for early PD is oral levodopa, which is combined with carbidopa, a dopa-decarboxylase inhibitor, to prevent the partial conversion of levodopa to dopamine. Complex PD, also known as progressed PD, is characterized by a limited remedial window and delayed gastric discharge, resulting in a erratic clinical response that manifests as engine issues in the patient and an expanding OFF-time.In any case, there isn't universal agreement on what a PD means, and different definitions have been proposed, which could cause care to be different. Device-supported medications like subcutaneous apomorphine mixture, deep brain stimulation (DBS) treatment, and levodopa/carbidopa digestive gel (LCIG) are used to treat Parkinson's disease (PD).However, patients over 70 years old, intellectually impaired, or dysphagic are not considered suitable candidates for the DBS procedure. Apomorphines are dopamine agonists that are considered a shortterm or salvage treatment. However, they can be associated with undesirable side effects to the point where they are unsuitable for all patients. Even though it is used in clinical practice in England, different countries use and access it differently. As a result, patients who are unable to undergo apomorphine implantation or DBS are limited in their treatment options [1-5].

Levodopa/carbidopa digestive gel is a combination of levodopa and carbidopa that is used to provide patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) who are unable to tolerate other pharmaceutical combinations with consistent gastrointestinal effects. Using a nasogastric or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube with a compact mixture siphon, treatment is administered directly into the upper jejunum or duodenum. Gingival gel containing levodopa and carbamazepine is permitted in. When readily available therapeutic combinations are unacceptable, LCIG is approved in England for the treatment of cutting-edge levodopa-responsive PD with severe engine changes and hyper/dyskinesia. In a randomized controlled trial comparing LCIG to oral prompt delivery levodopa in Parkinson's disease patients, LCIG significantly reduced OFF-time and expanded on schedule without daytime dyskinesia. Other recent clinical studies on the health and viability of LCIG in a PD demonstrated a significant reduction in OFF-time, an improvement in engine vacillations, and a reduction in non-engine side effects-all of which contributed to an increase in patient satisfaction. A year-long open-mark study of LCIG in patients with PD and severe engine vacillations was conducted in conjunction with the financial examination presented in this study.

Conclusion

In patients with PD, previous financial evaluations have examined the costeffectiveness of LCIG in comparison to standard of care (SoC), which includes standard follow-up visits and oral treatment regardless of subcutaneous apomorphine mixture.These assessments have been evaluated by various appraisal bodies for health innovation, and a few areas for improvement have been highlighted, particularly the method used to calculate key sources of information like stopping rates and health state advancements and the absence of readily available information sources.In light of NICE models, the ICER of LCIG in comparison to SoC in patients with PD was determined to be within the WTP edges and to be practical in the base case.The study determined that, in comparison to SoC, LCIG treatment resulted in a significant increase in patient satisfaction and increased costs per patient, despite lower costs associated with disease severity.

The most readily available evidence serves as the foundation for the cost adequacy gauges. Future work may be supported by an expanded proof base on cutting-edge PD.In particular, the vulnerability of the investigation will be reduced by the availability of powerful long-term result information and information regarding the costs associated with more severe health conditions in PD.In Britain, LCIG is presently the main treatment choice for patients with complex a PD who have not answered, or are unsatisfactory for, apomorphine and DBS. Compared to previous LCIG cost-effectiveness studies, the current economic analysis was conducted for a larger population.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest associated with this manuscript.

References

1. Contin, Manuela and Paolo Martinelli. "Pharmacokinetics of levodopa." J Neurol 257 (2010): 253-261.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Antonini, Angelo, Werner Poewe, K. Ray Chaudhuri and Robert Jech. "Levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel in advanced Parkinson's: Final results of the GLORIA registry." Parkinsonism Relat Disord 45 (2017): 13-20.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Nyholm, Dag, A.I.M. Nilsson Remahl, N. Dizdar and R. Constantinescu. "Duodenal levodopa infusion monotherapy vs. oral polypharmacy in advanced Parkinson’s disease." Neurol 64 (2005): 216-223.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Annic, A., D. Devos, D. Seguy and K. Dujardin. "Continuous dopaminergic stimulation by Duodopa in advanced Parkinson's disease: Efficacy and safety." Rev Neurol 165 (2009): 718-727.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Antonini, A., F. Mancini, M. Canesi and R. Zangaglia. "Duodenal levodopa infusion improves quality of life in advanced Parkinson’s disease." Neurodegener Dis 5 (2008): 244-246.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at