Cost‐effectiveness analysis of burning mouth syndrome therapy

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To study the cost-effectiveness of four alternative treatments for burning mouth syndrome (BMS). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a healthcare payer perspective of four therapy strategies (amisulpride, paroxetine, sertraline and topical clonazepam), using a decision-tree model that incorporated direct healthcare costs and probabilities associated with the possible events and outcomes. Average cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Sensitivity analyses included the costs of brand name and generic drugs in five European countries (France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and UK), as well as two scenarios with different treatment length. RESULTS: Of the drugs analysed, topical clonazepam proved to be the most cost-effective therapy. Although generic proved more efficient than brand name drugs, they displayed no advantage over brand name topical clonazepam. The Netherlands was the country with the highest overall drug efficiency. Sensitivity analyses highlighted the robustness of the model, because topical clonazepam proved to be the most efficient therapy under all the different scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Topical clonazepam, which previous analyses of clinical evidence have shown to be the drug of choice for BMS, also proved to be the most cost-effective of the drugs analysed for this condition.