Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 167–180 | Cite as

Short-term cost and health consequences of duodenal levodopa infusion in advanced Parkinson’s disease in Sweden

An Exploratory Study
  • Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
  • Kerstin Bingefors
  • Dag Nyholm
  • Dag Isacson
Original Research Article



Levodopa is the cornerstone treatment for Parkinson’s disease, but the short half-life of levodopa limits its usefulness in late stages of the disease. Duodenal levodopa infusion (DLI) allows more stable plasma levels and better motor symptom control.


To explore the costs and health benefits of replacing conventional oral polypharmacy with DLI in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, from a Swedish healthcare payer perspective.


Based on a clinical, randomized, crossover study with 24 patients (DIREQT), a decision analytic model predicted 2-year drug costs and QALYs for conventional oral therapy and for DLI. Health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) was recorded using a 15-dimensional (15D) utility instrument at baseline and during the two 3-week trial periods, and then at eight follow-up visits during the subsequent 6 months. Use of medication was based on data from DIREQT and previous studies. Unit costs were based on market prices (drugs) and customary charges in Sweden. All costs were expressed in Swedish kronor (SEK), year 2004 values (€1.00 ≈ SEK9.17, $US1.00 = SEK7.47). Future costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.


The mean utility scores were 0.77 for DLI and 0.72 for conventional therapy (p = 0.02). A considerable variation in the scores was observed during the study. The expected per-patient 2-year cost of DLI was SEK562000 while it was SEK172 000 for conventional therapy. The mean number of QALYs was 1.48 and 1.42, respectively, representing an incremental cost of SEK6.1 million per QALY for DLI (all values discounted at 3%). Using other assumptions in sensitivity analyses, the cost per QALY could be as low as SEK456000.


This analysis can be considered exploratory only; it is based on very limited data. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that DLI results in a significant improvement in HR-QOL. However, the cost per QALY is likely to be higher than customary cost-effectiveness thresholds. Whether these benefits justify the additional costs depends on how the health benefits are measured and how these benefits are valued by society.


Levodopa Deep Brain Stimulation Conventional Therapy Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Orphan Drug 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This study was initiated and funded by Neopharma/Solvay. According to the contract between the researchers and the company, the former have the right to publish material from the study, but the company has the right to comment upon such material before it is published. All researchers had access to the full data file, and the analyses were undertaken by the researchers. D. Nyholm was employed by NeoPharma in 1999–2000, has an ongoing consultancy agreement with Solvay Pharma and has received honoraria from Neopharma/ Solvay for lectures and a book chapter. I. Kristiansen, D. Isacson and K. Bingefors received honoraria for this work.


  1. 1.
    Jankovic J. Parkinson’s disease: clinical features and diagnosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008; 79(4): 368–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Encarnacion EV, Hauser RA. Levodopa-induced dyskinesias in Parkinson’s disease: etiology, impact on quality of life, and treatments. Eur Neurol 2008; 60(2): 57–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jankovic J, Stacy M. Medical management of levodopaassociated motor complications in patients with Parkinson’s disease. CNS Drugs 2007; 21(8): 677–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lees AJ. The on-off phenomenon. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1989 Jun; Suppl.: 29–37Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rinne UK. Problems associated with long-term levodopa treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl 1983; 95: 19–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Markham CH, Diamond SG. Long-term follow-up of early dopa treatment in Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol 1986; 19(4): 365–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dupont E, Andersen A, Boas J, et al. Sustained-release Madopar HBS compared with standard Madopar in the long-term treatment of de novo parkinsonian patients. Acta Neurol Scand 1996; 93(1): 14–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Block G, Liss C, Reines S, et al. Comparison of immediate-release and controlled release carbidopa/levodopa in Parkinson’s disease: a multicenter 5-year study. The CR First Study Group. Eur Neurol 1997; 37(1): 23–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bredberg E, Tedroff J, Aquilonius SM, et al. Pharmacokinetics and effects of levodopa in advanced Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1990; 39(4): 385–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harder S, Baas H, Rietbrock S. Concentration-effect relationship of levodopa in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Clin Pharmacokinet 1995; 29(4): 243–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kurlan R, Rothfield KP, Woodward WR, et al. Erratic gastric emptying of levodopa may cause “random” fluctuations of parkinsonian mobility. Neurology 1988; 38(3): 419–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sage JI, Trooskin S, Sonsalla PK, et al. Long-term duodenal infusion of levodopa for motor fluctuations in parkinsonism. Ann Neurol 1988; 24(1): 87–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sage JI, Trooskin S, Sonsalla PK, et al. Experience with continuous enteral levodopa infusions in the treatment of 9 patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1989; 39(11 Suppl. 2): 60–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mouradian MM, Heuser IJ, Baronti F, et al. Modification of central dopaminergic mechanisms by continuous levodopa therapy for advanced Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol 1990; 27(1): 18–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cedarbaum JM, Silvestri M, Kutt H. Sustained enteral administration of levodopa increases and interrupted infusion decreases levodopa dose requirements. Neurology 1990; 40(6): 995–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kurth MC, Tetrud JW, Tanner CM, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of duodenal infusion of levodopa/carbidopa in Parkinson’s disease patients with ‘on-off fluctuations. Neurology 1993; 43(9): 1698–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bredberg E, Nilsson D, Johansson K, et al. Intraduodenal infusion of a water-based levodopa dispersion for optimisation of the therapeutic effect in severe Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 45(2): 117–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nyholm D, Askmark H, Gomes-Trolin C, et al. Optimizing levodopa pharmacokinetics: intestinal infusion versus oral sustained-release tablets. Clin Neuropharmacol 2003; 26(3): 156–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nilsson D, Hansson LE, Johansson K, et al. Long-term intraduodenal infusion of a water based levodopa-carbidopa dispersion in very advanced Parkinson’s disease. Acta Neurol Scand 1998; 97(3): 175–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nilsson D, Nyholm D, Aquilonius SM. Duodenal levodopa infusion in Parkinson’s disease: long-term experience. Acta Neurol Scand 2001; 104(6): 343–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nyholm D, Lewander T, Johansson A, et al. Enteral levodopa/ carbidopa infusion in advanced Parkinson disease: long-term exposure. Clin Neuropharmacol 2008; 31(2): 63–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nyholm D, Nilsson Remahl AI, Dizdar N, et al. Duodenal levodopa infusion monotherapy versus oral polypharmacy in advanced Parkinson disease. Neurology 2005; 64(2): 216–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med 2001; 33(5): 328–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sintonen H. The 15D-measure of health related quality of life: II. Feasibility, reliability and validity of its valuation system. Melbourne (VIC): National Centre for Health Program Evaluation, 1995Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wittrup-Jensen KU. Measurement and valuation of health-related quality of life [dissertation]. Odense: University of Southern Denmark, 2004Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nord E. Cost-value analysis in health care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Keranen T, Kaakkola S, Sotaniemi K, et al. Economic burden and quality of life impairment increase with severity of PD. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2003; 9(3): 163–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Haapaniemi TH, Sotaniemi KA, Sintonen H, et al. The generic 15D instrument is valid and feasible for measuring health related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75(7): 976–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Isacson D, Bingefors K, Kristiansen IS, et al. Fluctuating functions related to quality of life in advanced Parkinson disease: effects of duodenal levodopa infusion. Acta Neurol Scand 2008; 118(6): 379–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Continuous delivery of levodopa/carbidopa in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease compared to conventional medications [report]. Uppsala: Neopharma, 2004 Nov 7. (Data on file)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nyholm D, Lewander T. A retrospective study of patients treated with Duodopa/Duodopa N from January 1, 1991 to June 30, 2002 [report]. Uppsala: Neopharma, 2003 Aug 8. (Data on file)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jonsson L, Gurner L. Vad kostar vård och omsorg av aldre multisjuka? Rapport 2001: 7. Stockholm: lans Aldrecentrum, 2004Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Askmark H, Antonov K, Aquilonius SM. The increased utilisation of dopamine agonists and the introduction of COMT inhibitors have not reduced levodopa consumption: a nation-wide perspective in Sweden. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2003; 9(5): 271–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nordling S, Grabowski M, Hagell P, et al. Societal costs of Parkinson’s disease (in Swedish) [report]. IHE Arbetsrapport 2001: 2. Lund: Institute for Health Economics, 2001Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Persson U, Hjelmgren J. Health services need knowledge of how the public values health [in Swedish]. Lakartidningen 2003; 100(43): 3436–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Noyes K, Dick AW, Holloway RG. Pramipexole and levodopa in early Parkinson’s disease: dynamic changes in cost effectiveness. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23(12): 1257–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stavem K, Bjornaes H, Lossius MI. Properties of the 15D and EQ-5D utility measures in a community sample of people with epilepsy. Epilepsy Res 2001; 44(2-3): 179–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stavem K. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of two multi-attribute utility measures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Qual Life Res 1999; 8(1-2): 45–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kotomaki T, Honkalampi T, Sintonen H. How do the scores of generic HRQOL instruments reflect the direct TTO valuations of own health by general population [Abstract no. 207]? Value Health 2006; 9(6): A207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Siderowf A, Ravina B, Glick HA. Preference-based quality-of-life in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 2002; 59(1): 103–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Di Rocco A, Molinari SP, Kollmeier B, et al. Parkinson’s disease: progression and mortality in the L-DOPA era. Adv Neurol 1996; 69: 3–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Troster AI, Fields JA, Wilkinson S, et al. Effect of motor improvement on quality of life following subthalamic stimulation is mediated by changes in depressive symptomatology. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2003; 80(1-4): 43–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Woods SP, Fields JA, Lyons KE, et al. Neuropsychological and quality of life changes following unilateral thalamic deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: a one-year follow-up. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2001; 143(12): 1273–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Martinez-Martin P, Valldeoriola F, Tolosa E, et al. Bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation and quality of life in advanced Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2002; 17(2): 372–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Just H, Ostergaard K. Health-related quality of life in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease treated with deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nuclei. Mov Disord 2002; 17(3): 539–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tomaszewski KJ, Holloway RG. Deep brain stimulation in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Neurology 2001; 57(4): 663–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Valldeoriola F, Morsi O, Tolosa E, et al. Prospective comparative study on cost-effectiveness of subthalamic stimulation and best medical treatment in advanced Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2007; 22(15): 2183–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ashkan K, Wallace B, Bell BA, et al. Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson’s disease 1993–2003: where are we 10 years on? Br J Neurosurg 2004; 18(1): 19–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lyons KE, Wilkinson SB, Overman J, et al. Surgical and hardware complications of subthalamic stimulation: a series of 160 procedures. Neurology 2004; 63(4): 612–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hudry J, Rinne JO, Keranen T, et al. Cost-utility model of rasagiline in the treatment of advanced Parkinson’s disease in Finland. Ann Pharmacother 2006; 40(4): 651–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Findley LJ, Lees A, Apajasalo M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone (Stalevo) compared to standard care in UK Parkinson’s disease patients with wearing-off. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21(7): 1005–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Noyes K, Dick AW, Holloway RG. The implications of using US-specific EQ-5D preference weights for cost-effectiveness evaluation. Med Decis Making 2007; 27(3): 327–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, et al. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 2000; 20(3): 332–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004;329(7459): 224–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ekman M, Zethraeus N, Dahlstrom U, et al. Cost-effectiveness of bisoprolol in chronic heart failure [in Swedish]. Lakartidningen 2002; 99(7): 646–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    World Health Organization. Bulletin of the World Health Organization (BLT) [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2009 Sep 8]
  57. 57.
    McCabe C, Claxton K, Tsuchiya A. Orphan drugs and the NHS: should we value rarity? BMJ 2005; 331 (7523): 1016–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kerstin Bingefors
    • 3
  • Dag Nyholm
    • 4
  • Dag Isacson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Health Management and Health EconomicsUniversity of OsloBlindernOsloNorway
  2. 2.Research Unit for General Practice, Institute of Public HealthUniversity of Southern Denmark at OdenseOdenseDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Pharmacy, Pharmacoepidemiology and PharmacoeconomicsUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  4. 4.Department of Neuroscience, NeurologyUppsala University HospitalUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations