Objective: To perform a cost-utility analysis on the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with methylphenidate immediate-release (MPH-IR) in children and adolescents from Brazil. Method: A Markov model was constructed to compare MPH-IR vs. no treatment. A 24-week naturalistic study was conducted to collect transition probabilities and utility data. Effectiveness was expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and costs reported in 2014 international dollars (I$). The perspective was the Brazilian Unified Health System as payer, and the time horizon was 6 years. Results: Of 171 patients, 73 provided information at baseline, and 56 at week 24. Considering the MPH-IR monthly cost of I$ 38, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of treatment was I$ 9,103/QALY for children and I$ 11,883/QALY for adolescents. In two-way sensitivity analysis, considering one Gross National Product per capita (I$ 11,530) as willingness-to-pay, a cost of no-treatment lower than I$ 45/month would render MPH-IR a cost-saving strategy. Discussion: MPH-IR treatment of children and adolescents is cost-effective for ADHD patients from the Brazilian public health system perspective. Both patients and the healthcare system might benefit from such a strategy. Trial registration number: NCT01705613.

Objective: To estimate the economic consequences of the current Brazilian government policy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatment and how much the country would save if treatment with immediate-release methylphenidate (MPH-IR), as suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO), was offered to patients with ADHD. Method: Based on conservative previous analyses, we assumed that 257,662 patients aged 5 to 19 years are not receiving ADHD treatment in Brazil. We estimated the direct costs and savings of treating and not treating ADHD on the basis of the following data: a) spending on ADHD patients directly attributable to grade retention and emergency department visits; and b) savings due to impact of ADHD treatment on these outcomes. Results: Considering outcomes for which data on the impact of MPH-IR treatment are available, Brazil is probably wasting approximately R$ 1.841 billion/year on the direct consequences of not treating ADHD in this age range alone. On the other hand, treating ADHD in accordance with WHO recommendations would save approximately R$ 1.163 billion/year. Conclusions: By increasing investments on MPH-IR treatment for ADHD to around R$ 377 million/year, the country would save approximately 3.1 times more than is currently spent on the consequences of not treating ADHD in patients aged 5 to 19 years.