For rasagiline versus ropinirole XL, the total costs were $91,027.38 with rasagiline and $94,168.04 with ropinirole XL; the QALYs were 3.45 with rasagiline and 3.34 with ropinirole XL. Thus, rasagiline was the dominant strategy as it was both more effective and less expensive.
For rasagiline versus pramipexole, the total costs were $89,845.25 with rasagiline and $90,678.56 with pramipexole; the QALYs were 3.45 with rasagiline and 3.34 with pramipexole. Thus, rasagiline was the dominant strategy.
For rasagiline versus generic ropinirole, the total costs were $87,366.78 with rasagiline and $84,674.50 generic ropinirole; the QALYs were 3.45 with rasagiline and 3.34 with generic ropinirole. The incremental cost per QALY gained with rasagiline over generic ropinirole was $25,938.61.
For rasagiline versus levodopa, the total costs were $91,027.38 with rasagiline and $91,598.45 with levodopa; the QALYs were 3.45 with rasagiline and 3.21 with levodopa. Rasagiline was the dominant strategy.
In the comparison between rasagiline and generic ropinirole, the key parameters were utility values and dyskinesia cost multiplier. However, rasagiline remained the most cost-effective treatment in almost all sensitivity analyses at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, except when the cost of dyskinetic and non-dyskinetic patients was set to equal. The probability of rasagiline being cost-effective was 60.5% when compared with generic ropinirole. Rasagiline was more effective regardless of costs in 69.1% of simulations.