Clinical drug investigation · 2025
The Cost Effectiveness of Adjunctive Medical Cannabis Therapy in the Treatment of Moderate Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Doucette Mitchell L, Hemraj Dipak, Macfarlan D Luke, Chin Junella, Fisher Emily
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Research on the benefits of medical cannabis (MC) is emerging and supports its use as a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of MC as an adjunctive therapy for moderate PTSD under varying reimbursement scenarios.
METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted from the US payor perspective, using pricing data from the largest multi-state MC producer and established literature on standard PTSD treatments. We analyzed eight MC product types: dried flower, oral solutions, tablets, and edibles, each available in low/moderate (LM) and high-cost formulations. Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were calculated for these products across reimbursement levels of 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25%. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to assess cost-effectiveness acceptability across willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $0-$100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.
RESULTS: Non-flower MC products (edibles, oral solutions, and tablets) consistently demonstrated cost-effectiveness under a WTP threshold of $50,000, even at 100% reimbursement. Dried flower products, while less cost effective due to higher costs, achieved cost effectiveness under 75% or lower reimbursement levels for LM cost formulations. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robust ICURs for non-flower products, with narrower variability compared to dried flower products.
CONCLUSIONS: Medical cannabis products, particularly non-flower formulations, represent a cost-effective adjunctive therapy for moderate PTSD under various reimbursement scenarios. This analysis underscores the importance of evidence-based reimbursement policies to improve patient access to cost-effective treatments while ensuring financial sustainability for payors.
METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted from the US payor perspective, using pricing data from the largest multi-state MC producer and established literature on standard PTSD treatments. We analyzed eight MC product types: dried flower, oral solutions, tablets, and edibles, each available in low/moderate (LM) and high-cost formulations. Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were calculated for these products across reimbursement levels of 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25%. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to assess cost-effectiveness acceptability across willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $0-$100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.
RESULTS: Non-flower MC products (edibles, oral solutions, and tablets) consistently demonstrated cost-effectiveness under a WTP threshold of $50,000, even at 100% reimbursement. Dried flower products, while less cost effective due to higher costs, achieved cost effectiveness under 75% or lower reimbursement levels for LM cost formulations. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robust ICURs for non-flower products, with narrower variability compared to dried flower products.
CONCLUSIONS: Medical cannabis products, particularly non-flower formulations, represent a cost-effective adjunctive therapy for moderate PTSD under various reimbursement scenarios. This analysis underscores the importance of evidence-based reimbursement policies to improve patient access to cost-effective treatments while ensuring financial sustainability for payors.