Meta-analysis and pharmacoeconomic study of rasagiline versus selegiline in the treatment of Parkinson's disease.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Given the persistent absence of direct head-to-head trials, this study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rasagiline versus selegiline as early-stage monotherapy for Parkinson's disease (PD), informing clinical selection and healthcare policies in China. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to April 2026. Focusing on short-term outcomes (10-16 weeks), an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) using placebo as a common anchor evaluated symptom improvement (UPDRS total scores) and adverse event (AE) incidence. For economic evaluation, a 2-year Markov model was constructed from a Chinese healthcare-system perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated alongside robust sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (rasagiline: 6; selegiline: 4) were included. The ITC revealed no statistically significant differences between rasagiline and selegiline in short-term symptomatic relief (Mean Difference = -0.82, 95% CI [-2.08, 0.44], p = 0.203) or AE risk (Odds Ratio = 0.83, 95% CI [0.50, 1.38], p = 0.475). The overall evidence certainty was rated as moderate. Economically, the base-case simulation indicated rasagiline yielded a marginal benefit of 0.0088 QALYs over selegiline but incurred an additional 17,111.10 Yuan. This resulted in an ICER of 1,951,505.55 Yuan/QALY, substantially exceeding the conventional willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSION: Supported by moderate-certainty evidence, rasagiline and selegiline provide comparable short-term efficacy and safety for early-stage PD monotherapy. However, at its current pricing, rasagiline is not cost-effective. Significant price reductions or definitive proof of long-term superiority are required to justify its economic value.