, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 115–127 | Cite as

Cost Analysis of Ropinirole versus Levodopa in the Treatment of Parkinson’s Disease

  • Michael Iskedjian
  • Thomas R. Einarson
Original Research Article


Background: Not all patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) respond to levodopa and others develop dyskinesias. Ropinirole, a dopamine agonist, is associated with fewer dyskinesias than levodopa.

Objective: To examine the economic impact of reducing dyskinesias using ropinirole instead of levodopa plus benserazide in PD was examined. The research question addressed was: is the added cost of ropinirole offset by savings due to avoided cases of dyskinesia?

Methods: A cost-minimisation analysis was performed from both the societal and Ministry of Health (MoH) of Ontario, Canada perspectives, using 5-year data from a study of dyskinesia outcomes comparing ropinirole with levodopa plus benserazide. A predictive model was developed to capture resource utilisation over 5 years, such as medication costs, medical consultations, hospital admissions, nursing home admissions, caregiver time and productivity loss. The model was based on a previously reported clinical trial which determined dyskinesia rates to be 20% for ropinirole and 45% for levodopa. Standard costing lists were used, and costs were discounted at various rates. Constant 1999 Canadian dollars ($Can) were applied, and no increases were assumed over the time horizon of the analysis. A multivariate sensitivity analysis with changes in key parameters was also performed.

Results: From a societal perspective, ropinirole was cost saving. From the MoH perspective, the analysis yielded an incremental expected daily cost/patient of $Can4.41 for substituting levodopa plus benserazide with ropinirole. Ropinirole resulted in daily savings/patient of $Can0.17 in non-drug healthcare costs. In the sensitivity analysis, the direction of results did not change despite changes of 15 to 20% in key parameters, suggesting robustness of the model.

Conclusions: From the societal perspective, in comparison with levodopa plus benserazide, the added cost of ropinirole is offset by savings due to avoided cases of dyskinesia.


Levodopa Pramipexole Ropinirole Drug Acquisition Cost Nursing Home Admission 
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.



The authors would like to thank Tony Kim, MA, Ali Rajput, MD, and Lesley G. Shane, PharmD, for their comments, and Nathalie Kulin, MSc, for her technical assistance in preliminary analyses and a previous version of the manuscript. Funding for this study was provided by GlaxoSmithKline Canada. PharmIdeas is an independent research firm having performed several pharmacoeconomic and outcomes research studies in Parkinson’s diease for GlaxoSmithKline and its competitors.


  1. 1.
    Mutch W, Dingwall-Fordyce I, Downie A, et al. Parkinson’s disease in a Scottish city. BMJ 1986; 292: 534–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schoenberg B, Andersen A, Haerer A. Prevalence of Parkinson’s disease in the biracial population of Copiah County, Mississippi. Neurology 1985; 35: 841–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sutcliffe R, Prior R, Mawby B, et al. Parkinson’s disease in the district of Northampton Health Authority. Acta Neurol Scand 1985; 72: 363–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sutcliffe R, Meara J. Parkinson’s disease epidemiology in Northampton District, England, 1992. Acta Neurol Scand 1995; 92 (6): 443–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rajput A, Offord K, Beard C, et al. Epidemiology of parkinsonism: incidence, classification and mortality. Ann Neurol 1984; 16: 278–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gottwald M, Bainbridge J, Dowling G, et al. New pharmacotherapy for Parkinson’s disease. Ann Pharmacother 1997; 31 (10): 1205–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stern MB. The changing standard of care in Parkinson’s disease: current concepts and controversies. Neurology 1997; 49 Suppl. 1: S1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuzel M. Ropinirole: a dopamine agonist for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999; 56 (3): 217–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Watts R. The role of dopamine agonists in early Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1997; 49 (1 Suppl. 1): S34–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rascol O, Brooks D, Korczyn A, et al. A five-year study of the incidence of dyskinesia in patients with early Parkinson’s disease who were treated with ropinirole or levodopa. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1484–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scheife R, Schumock G, Burnstein A, et al. Impact of Parkinson’s disease and its pharmacologic treatment on quality of life and economic outcomes. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2000; 57 (10): 953–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Whetten-Goldstein K, Sloan F, Kulas E, et al. The burden of Parkinson’s disease on society, family, and the individual. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997; 45 (7): 844–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubenstein L, Chrischilles E, Voelker M. The impact of Parkinson’s disease on health status, health expenditures, and productivity: estimates from the National Medical Expenditure Survey. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12 (4): 486–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dodel R, Singer M, Kohne-Volland R, et al. The economic impact of Parkinson’s disease: an estimation based on a 3-month prospective analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14 (3): 299–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoerger T, Bala M, Rowland C, et al. Cost effectiveness of pramipexole in Parkinson’s disease in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14 (5): 541–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hempel A, Wagner M, Maaty M, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of using Sinemet CR over standard Sinement in parkinsonian patients with motor fluctuations. Ann Pharmacother 1998; 32 (9): 878–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Canadian Pharmacists Association. Compendium of pharmaceuticals and specialties. The Canadian drug reference for health professionals. Toronto: Webcom Limited, 2002Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shimomura SK. Parkinson’s disease. In: Katcher B, Young L, Koda-Kimble M, editors. Applied therapeutics. The clinical use of drugs. Spokane: Applied Therapeutics, Inc., 1983: 1113–26Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schrag A, Brooks D, Brunt E, et al. The safety of ropinirole, a selective nonergoline dopamine agonist, in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Clin Neuropharmacol 1998; 21 (3): 169–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Statistics Canada. Latest release from the labour force survey. 2002 CANSIM tables 282-0001 to 282-0094. Available from URL: [Accessed 2002 Nov 21]
  21. 21.
    Aoki FY, Fleming DM, Griffin AD, et al., on behalf of the Zanamivir Study Group. Impact of Zanamivir treatment on productivity, health status and healthcare resource use in patients with influenza. Pharmacoeconomics 2000 Feb; 17 (2): 187–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rubenstein LM, Chrischilles EA, Voelker MD. The impact of Parkinson’s Disease on health status, health expenditures, and productivity. Estimates from the National Medical Expenditure Survey. Pharmacoeconomics 1997 Oct; 12 (4): 486–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario drug benefit formulary/comparative drug index. 35 ed. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health, 1999Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ontario Ministry of Health. Schedule of benefits: physician services under the health insurance act (1998 Feb 1). Toronto: Government of Ontario, 1998Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Torrance GW, Blaker D, Detsky A, et al. Canadian guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 (6): 535–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PharmIdeas Research & Consulting Inc.OakvilleCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations