Comparative economic outcomes in patients with focal seizures initiating eslicarbazepine acetate versus brivaracetam in the long-term care setting in the USA.

Aim: To compare all-cause and epilepsy-specific pharmacy and total costs associated with initiation of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) or brivaracetam (BRV) among patients with focal seizures in long-term care (LTC) in the US. Methods: This retrospective analysis used data from IQVIA's New Data Warehouse. Results: 298 patients initiated ESL and 282 patients initiated BRV. Initiation of ESL versus BRV was associated with 33.3% lower all-cause pharmacy costs, 34.4% lower epilepsy-specific pharmacy costs, 21.3% lower all-cause total costs and 30.9% lower epilepsy-specific total costs (all p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Among patients with focal seizures in LTC in the US, initiation of ESL versus BRV was associated with significant reductions in all-cause and epilepsy-specific pharmacy and total costs compared with initiation of BRV.

Comparative economic outcomes in patients with focal seizures initiating eslicarbazepine acetate versus brivaracetam as their first adjunctive ASD.

AIMS: To study the association between initiation of first adjunctive therapy with eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) vs. brivaracetam (BRV) on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and charges among patients with treated focal seizures (FS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Symphony Health's Integrated Dataverse (IDV) claims data (1 April 2015 to 30 June 2018) were used to identify two cohorts as first adjunctive therapy with ESL or BRV following a generic anti-seizure drug (ASD). The index date was the earliest claim for a new ESL or BRV prescription. Key inclusion criteria were only 1 generic ASD in the 12 months before the index date; ≥1 medical claim with an FS diagnosis. Unit of analysis was the 90-day person-time-block. Changes in HCRU and charges were assessed using a difference-in-differences framework. Both unadjusted and adjusted analyses were performed. The adjusted model utilized person-specific fixed effects and propensity score-based weighting to control for differences in baseline covariates. Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for charge outcomes. RESULTS: 208 and 137 patients initiated first adjunctive therapy with ESL (43.7 years, 51.9% female) or BRV (39.3 years, 51.8% female). Patients in the ESL cohort had numerically larger reductions in all-cause and FS-related inpatient hospitalizations and outpatient visits and FS-related emergency department visits. Compared to patients initiating BRV, patients treated with ESL had significantly larger reductions in total charges (-$3,446, CI: -$13,716, -$425), all-cause (-$3,166, CI: -$13,991, -$323) and FS-related (-$2,969, CI: -$21,547, -$842) medical charges, all-cause (-$3,397, CI: -$15,676, -$818) and FS-related (-$2,863, CI: -$19,707, -$787) outpatient charges, and non-ASD-related prescription charges (-$420, CI: -$1,058, -$78). LIMITATIONS: Claims may be missing, or miscoded; outcomes may be influenced by variables not accounted for in the analysis; only information on submitted charges was included. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with FS, initiation of first adjunctive therapy with ESL was associated with significantly larger reductions in medical and non-ASD-related prescriptions charges compared to BRV.

Comparative Economic Outcomes in Patients with Focal Seizure Initiating First-Line Eslicarbazepine Acetate Monotherapy versus Generic Antiseizure Drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between initiating first-line (1L) monotherapy with eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) vs a generic antiseizure drug (ASD) and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and charges in adults with treated focal seizures (FS). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of Symphony Health's Integrated Dataverse® open-source claims data. Two cohorts were identified as having initiated 1L monotherapy with ESL or literature-defined generic ASDs. Linear regression models with person fixed effects and inverse probability treatment weights assessed the relative additional changes in HCRU and charges among patients who received ESL compared to generic ASD. RESULTS: A total of 250 and 43,220 patients initiated ESL (48.3 years; 57.2% female) or a generic ASD (54.5 years; 58.1% female), respectively. Compared to patients initiating a generic ASD, patients treated with ESL had additional reductions of 11.8 percentage points in the likelihood of any all-cause outpatient visits (P<0.001), 7.4 percentage points in the likelihood of any emergency department (ED) visits (P=0.013), and 22.7 percentage points in the likelihood of any FS-related outpatient visits (P<0.001). Patients initiating ESL had greater reductions in mean charges for all-cause medical ($2620; P=0.002), outpatient ($1995; P=0.005), and non-FS-related medical ($2708; P<0.001) services. Patients initiating ESL had greater relative increases in mean total prescription ($1368; P<0.001) and ASD-related prescription ($1636; P<0.001) charges, but greater relative reductions in non-ASD prescription ($269; P=0.032) charges. The increases in prescription charges were of a lower magnitude than the decreases in medical charges. CONCLUSION: Initiation of ESL as 1L monotherapy was associated with statistically significantly greater reductions in any use of several all-cause and FS-related services, number of visits, and charges compared to initiation of a generic ASD as 1L monotherapy in patients with FS. Initiation of a generic ASD as 1L monotherapy was associated with significantly smaller increases in total prescription charges and ASD-related prescription charges.

Impact of Early Initiation of Eslicarbazepine Acetate on Economic Outcomes Among Patients with Focal Seizure: Results from Retrospective Database Analyses.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed the association between early initiation of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as first-line therapy (1L cohort) or as first adjunctive regimen to either levetiracetam (LEV) or lamotrigine (LTG) (add-on cohort), and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and charges among adults with treated focal seizures (FS). METHODS: This retrospective, longitudinal cohort analysis used Symphony Health's Integrated Dataverse (IDV®) claims data to identify patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of FS who had a new prescription for ESL between April 2015 and June 2018. Baseline was the 90-day period immediately prior to the date of the first-dispensed claim for ESL (index date) with a follow-up of 1-4 consecutive 90-day periods. Linear regression models were estimated to assess changes in HCRU and charge outcomes. RESULTS: There were 274 and 153 patients who received ESL in the 1L cohort and add-on cohort, respectively. The 1L cohort experienced significant reductions from baseline during follow-up in all-cause inpatient (IP; P < 0.0001), emergency room (ER; P < 0.0001), and outpatient (OP; P < 0.0001) visits; FS-related IP (P = 0.006) and OP (P < 0.0001) visits; total, medical, all-cause ER and OP, and FS-related medical charges (P < 0.05); and significant increases in total prescription and anti-seizure drug (ASD)-related prescription (P < 0.001) charges. The add-on cohort experienced significant reductions in all-cause IP (P = 0.009) and all-cause and FS-related OP visits (P < 0.0001 for both) and significant increases in total prescription and ASD-related prescription (P < 0.001) charges during the follow-up period. In both cohorts, the increases in prescription charges were smaller than the reduction in total medical charges. CONCLUSION: Early initiation of ESL as 1L or add-on therapy was associated with statistically significant reductions in all-cause IP and all-cause and FS-related OP visits during follow-up compared to baseline. The 1L cohort also had statistically significant reductions in all-cause ER visits, FS-related IP visits, and total, medical, all-cause ER and OP, and FS-related medical charges. Knowledge of healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs of care in patients taking anti-seizure drugs (ASDs) is required to inform prescribing and formulary decision-making. Levetiracetam (LEV) and lamotrigine (LTG) are the most widely used first-line (1L) ASDs in the USA. Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), a third-generation ASD with sodium channel-modulating activity, is typically used in later lines of therapy. Sodium channel-blocking anti-seizure drugs may represent an effective treatment option for patients with epilepsy in the 1L setting. This study assessed the association between early initiation of ESL as 1L therapy (1L cohort) or as first adjunctive therapy to either LEV or LTG (add-on cohort), and HCRU and charges among adults with treated focal seizures (FS). The results showed that following ESL initiation the 1L cohort experienced significant reductions in all-cause inpatient (IP), emergency room (ER), and outpatient (OP) visits; FS-related IP and OP visits; and total, medical, all-cause ER and OP, and FS-related medical charges, and significant increases in total prescription and ASD-related prescription charges. The add-on cohort showed significant reductions in all-cause IP and all-cause and FS-related OP visits and significant increases in total prescription and ASD-related prescription charges. In both cohorts, the increases in prescription charges were smaller than the reduction in total medical charges. These data imply that use of ESL as 1L therapy in adult patients with FS could help conserve scarce healthcare resources and reduce the burden on healthcare budgets. These findings may inform selection of ASD therapy in this patient population.

Pitavastatin: a new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor.

OBJECTIVE: To review pitavastatin, the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor and determine its place in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. DATA SOURCES: Literature was accessed through PubMed (1948-December 2009). Pitavastatin, itavastatin, nisvastatin, NK 104, and NKS 104 were used as search terms. Results were limited to articles written in the English language. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All articles identified from the data source were reviewed for inclusion. Articles included were those pertaining to the pharmacology and pharmacokinetic properties of pitavastatin, in addition to original research evaluating the clinical efficacy of pitavastatin for hypercholesterolemia. DATA SYNTHESIS: Pitavastatin is an oral HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of primary hyperlipidemia and mixed dyslipidemia. Pitavastatin 2 mg has been shown to be noninferior to atorvastatin 10 mg and simvastatin 20 mg with respect to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering ability. Additionally, pitavastatin 2 mg was shown in one study to lower LDL-C significantly more than pravastatin 10 mg. As with other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, primary safety concerns are related to myopathies and alterations in liver enzyme levels. While efficacy regarding beneficial effects on lipid parameters is comparable to that of other agents, a potential advantage of pitavastatin is its cytochrome P450 (CYP450) independent elimination, thereby reducing the likelihood of clinically significant drug-drug interactions. However, this is not a unique property, as pravastatin and rosuvastatin also possess this property. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the lack of outcome data, pitavastatin offers no clear advantage over other drugs in this class.