Seizure clusters, treatment patterns, and healthcare resource utilization in patients with epilepsy: A Wisconsin-based claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: Seizure clusters are underresearched and associated with adverse outcomes in patients with epilepsy. This study was a noninterventional, retrospective claims-based analysis using the Wisconsin Health Information Organization (WHIO) All-Payer Claims Database to characterize the epilepsy population in Wisconsin, with a focus on prevalence, treatment patterns, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with seizure clusters prior to the introduction of nasal spray rescue medications. This timeframe allows characterization of a historical baseline for future comparisons with newer treatments. METHODS: Four cohorts were defined: (1) all-epilepsy (all patients with epilepsy); and subcohorts of: (2) patients receiving a monotherapy antiseizure medication (ASM); (3) patients receiving ASM polytherapy; and (4) patients treated for seizure clusters (ie, those taking rescue medications and ≥ 1 ASM). Primary outcomes were HCRU over a 12-month follow-up period, which were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2019, 16,384 patients were included in the all-epilepsy cohort; 11,688 (71.3 %) were on monotherapy, 3,849 (23.5 %) were on polytherapy, and 526 (3.2 %) were treated for seizure clusters. Twelve-month retentions to the ASM treatments were 46.7 % (7,895/16,904) in the all-epilepsy cohort, and 40.0 % (4,679/11,688) and 40.1 % (1,544/3,849) in the monotherapy and polytherapy subcohorts, respectively. Rescue medication prescriptions were obtained 1,029 times by the 526 patients in the treated seizure cluster subcohort, with infrequent refill rates (mean 1.6-1.9 times/year). A higher proportion of patients in the treated seizure cluster subcohort had epilepsy-related outpatient visits (89.7 %), other visits (71.3 %), and hospitalizations (25.3 %) than patients in the monotherapy (72.2 %, 50.2 %, 19.3 %, respectively) and polytherapy (83.3 %, 63.3 %, 22.8 %, respectively) subcohorts. Mean (standard deviation) all-cause ($114,717 [$231,667]) and epilepsy-related ($76,134 [$204,930]) costs over 12 months were higher in the treated seizure cluster subcohort than the monotherapy ($89,324 [$220,181] and $30,745 [$145,977], respectively) and polytherapy ($101,506 [$152,931] and $49,383 [$96,285], respectively) subcohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated for seizure clusters incurred higher all-cause and epilepsy-related costs and epilepsy-related HCRU than other subcohorts and had infrequent rescue medication refills. The findings of this analysis highlight the need for appropriate treatment for those patients with epilepsy experiencing seizure clusters. The effect of newer rescue medications to alter these findings will be explored in a follow-up study. Regardless, specialist providers with expertise in treating refractory epilepsy and seizure cluster patients may help to reduce the burden of seizure clusters.

Regional determinants for outcome and cost of status epilepticus.

OBJECTIVE: Status epilepticus (SE) requires informed management. Since regional differences exist in practice and outcome, we aimed to characterize the epidemiology of SE and identify the factors associated with cost-effective management at the sole level IV epilepsy center of Central New York (CNY). METHODS: We searched for patients aged 18 years or older admitted at our center's hospitals from February 2018 to November 2019 with the discharge diagnosis of SE. Seventy-seven individuals with definite SE were included. We constructed models to determine the main factors that impact the refractoriness of SE, the clinical outcome, and the estimated cost of hospitalization. RESULTS: The rate of SE-related disability was 20.8% and the all-cause mortality 36.4%. Our analysis showed that initial anti-seizure medication (ASM) choice did not have a significant influence on the clinical outcome; nor did it affect the refractoriness of SE. Likewise, our anesthetic regimen did not alter the disease course or outcome. In line with prior studies, we demonstrated that age carried a negative predictive value to the SE-related disability and mortality (CI95% [-0.02, 0], p < 0.001). Interestingly, we found that use of midazolam (CI95% [-20.8, -0.08], p = 0.05) and anoxic brain injury as the underlying etiology (CI95% [-33.5, -1.59], p = 0.03) were marginally associated with shorter hospitalizations and reduced cost. The latter might reflect the rapidly-deteriorating course of anoxic brain injury, complicated by its higher likelihood of refractoriness (CI95% [0.14, 0.79], p = 0.006), and consequently, the decision to withdraw care. CONCLUSION: Taken together, we described the demographics, management, and prognosis of SE locally and further defined the potential determinants for the cost-effective care. We found that similar to other studies, age was the main determinant factor in prognosis. We also noticed that midazolam usage was associated with shorter hospital stay, suggesting that strategic use of midazolam may reduce the direct cost of management of SE. These findings can be adopted to optimize SE management in CNY.

Cost Effectiveness of Adding Fenfluramine to Standard of Care for Patients with Dravet Syndrome in Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated, in a Swedish setting, the cost effectiveness of fenfluramine (FFA) as an add-on to standard of care (SoC) for reducing seizure frequency in Dravet syndrome, a severe developmental epileptic encephalopathy. METHODS: Cost effectiveness of FFA+SoC compared with SoC only was evaluated using a patient-level simulation model with a lifetime horizon. Patient characteristics and treatment effects, including convulsive seizures, seizure-free days and mortality, were derived from FFA clinical trials. Resource use and costs included cost of drug acquisition, routine care and monitoring, as well as ongoing and emergency resources. Quality of life (QoL) estimates for patients and their caregivers were derived from clinical trial data. Robustness was evaluated by one-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Lifetime cost of FFA+SoC was ~3 million SEK per patient compared with ~1.5 million SEK for SoC only. FFA+SoC generated 15% more QALYs than SoC only (21.2 vs 18.5 over a lifetime), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ~540,000 SEK. Moreover, FFA+SoC had a higher probability of being cost effective than SoC only from a willingness-to-pay threshold of 710,000 SEK. Results remained generally consistent across scenario analyses, with only few exceptions (exclusions of carer utility or FFA effect on sudden unexpected death in epilepsy). CONCLUSION: Due to better seizure control, FFA is a clinically meaningful add-on therapy and was estimated to be a cost-effective addition to current SoC for patients with this rare disease in Sweden at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 1,000,000 SEK.

Economic Evaluation of HLA-B*15:02 Genotyping for Asian Australian Patients With Epilepsy.

Importance: The HLA-B*15:02 allele has been associated with an increased risk of carbamazepine-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis in specific Asian populations (including Han Chinese, Malaysian, Thai, and Vietnamese individuals). While HLA-B*15:02 genotype testing in Asian populations is recommended by several international prescribing guidelines, it is not subsidized by the Medicare Benefits Schedule in Australia. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of HLA-B*15:02 genotyping in Asian Australian patients with epilepsy. Design, Setting, and Participants: A model with components of decision analysis and Markov simulation was developed to simulate clinical trajectories of adult Asian Australian patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy being considered for carbamazepine treatment. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses over a lifetime time horizon were conducted from the perspective of the Australian health care sector. The study was conducted in May 2023 and data analysis was performed from August 2023 to November 2023. Intervention: No HLA-B*15:02 genotyping and the empirical initiation of treatment with carbamazepine vs HLA-B*15:02 genotyping and the initiation of treatment with valproate in allele carriers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs in 2023 Australian dollars (A$); incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: HLA-B*15:02 screening was associated with an additional mean cost of A$114 (95% CI, -A$83 to A$374; US$76; 95% CI, -US$55 to US$248) and a reduction in 0.0152 LYs (95% CI, 0.0045 to 0.0287 LYs) but improvement by 0.00722 QALYs (95% CI, -0.0247 to -0.01210) compared with no screening, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$15 839 per QALY gained (US$10 523 per QALY). Therefore, universal genotyping for Asian Australian individuals was cost-effective compared with current standards of practice at the A$50 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the intervention remained cost-effective across a range of costs, utilities, transition probabilities, and willingness-to-pay thresholds. At the A$50 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, universal screening was the preferred strategy in 88.60% of simulations. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this economic evaluation suggest that HLA-B*15:02 screening represents a cost-effective choice for Asian Australian patients with epilepsy who are being considered for treatment with carbamazepine.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of HLA-B*15:02 screening before treatment of epilepsy in Indonesia.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse skin reactions due to drugs such as Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) occur in 3% of people receiving anti epileptic drugs (AED). Although SJS/TEN has a low incidence, the mortality and morbidity rates are high. Indonesia has not adopted HLA-B*1502 screening prior to administration of carbamazepine (CBZ), although previous studies found a relationship between HLA-B*1502 and SJS/TEN. METHODS: A hybrid decision tree and Markov model was developed to evaluate three strategies for treating newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: CBZ direct therapy, levetiracetam (LEV) direct therapy, and therapy based on HLA-B*15:02 test results. From a societal perspective, base case and sensitivity analyses were carried out over a lifetime. RESULTS: Direct administration of CBZ appears to have a slightly lower average cost than the HLA-B*15:02 allele screening strategy. The increase in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in HLA-B*15:02 screening before treatment related to the cost difference reached 0.519 with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of around USD 984 per unit of QALY acquisition. Direct treatment of LEV increased treatment costs by almost USD 2000 on average compared to the standard CBZ strategy. The increase in QALY is 0.834 in direct levetiracetam treatment, with an ICER of around USD 2230 for each QALY processing. CONCLUSION: Calculation of the cost-effectiveness of lifetime epilepsy therapy in this study found that the initial screening strategy with the HLA-B*15:02 test was the most cost-effective.

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.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5-12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0-94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96-1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of -0·040 (95% central range -0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. INTERPRETATION: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Valproic acid and socioeconomic associations in Swedish women with epilepsy 2010-2015.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the correlation between socioeconomic status and the prescription of Valproic acid (VPA) in women of fertile age in Sweden. METHODS: This is a registered-based cohort study including all women living in Sweden aged 18-45 years in the years 2010-2015, with a diagnosis of epilepsy and no intellectual disability (n = 9143). Data were collected from the National Patient Register, the Drug Prescription Register, and the Longitudinal integration database for health insurance and labor market studies (LISA). RESULTS: Women with only 9 years of school were more often prescribed VPA than women with a University degree (12.9% compared to 10.7% in 2015 [p = 0.015]). Similar differences were seen between the lowest and highest income group (16.6% compared to 12.7% in 2015 [p < 0.001]). The odds of having a VPA prescription in 2015 was 1.59 (p < 0.001) in women with 9 years of school compared to women with a University degree, and 1.60 (p < 0.001) in the lowest income group relative to the highest income group after adjusting for age. From 2010 to 2015, the proportion with VPA prescription in the whole cohort diminished with an absolute reduction of -2.2% (p < 0.001). The decrease was similar among the different education and income groups (p = 0.919 and p = 0.280). SIGNIFICANCE: The results indicate that the increased knowledge on VPA teratogenicity was implemented across socioeconomic strata in the Swedish healthcare system. Women with lower income or education level remained more frequent VPA users. Whether this difference reflects epilepsy type or severity, or socioeconomic disparities, merit further study.

Cost-utility model of brivaracetam in the adjunctive treatment of patients with epilepsy in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the cost utility of Brivaracetam compared with the third-generation anti-epileptic drugs used as standard care. METHODS: A cost utility analysis of Brivaracetam was carried out with other third-generation comparators. The treatment pathway of a hypothetical cohort over a period of 2 years was simulated using the Markov model. Data for effectiveness and the QALYs of each health status for epilepsy, as well as for the disutilities of adverse events of treatments, were analyzed through a studies review. The cost of the anti-epileptics and the use of medical resources linked to the different health statuses were taken into consideration. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using a Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Brivaracetam was shown to be the dominant alternative, with Incremental Cost Utility Ratio (ICUR) values from -11,318 for Lacosamide to -128,482 for Zonisamide. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis validates these results. The ICUR sensitivity is greater for increases in the price of Brivaracetam than for decreases, and for Eslicarbizapine over the other adjunctives considered in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with Brivaracetam resulted in cost effective and incremental quality adjusted life years come at an acceptable cost.

Treatment gaps and challenges in epilepsy care in the Philippines.

OBJECTIVE: Epilepsy is a neurologic disease that carries a high disease burden and likely, a huge treatment gap especially in low-to-middle income countries (LMIC) such as the Philippines. This review aimed to examine the treatment gaps and challenges that burden Philippine epilepsy care. MATERIALS & METHODS: Pertinent data on epidemiology, research, health financing and health systems, pharmacologic and surgical treatment options, cost of care, and workforce were obtained through a literature search and review of relevant Philippine government websites. RESULTS: The estimated prevalence of epilepsy in the Philippines is 0.9%. Epilepsy research in the Philippines is low in quantity compared with the rest of Southeast Asia (SEA). Inequities in quality and quantity of healthcare services delivered to local government units (LGUs) have arisen because of devolution. Programs for epilepsy care by both government and nongovernment institutions have been implemented. Healthcare expenditure in the Philippines is still largely out-of-pocket, with only partial coverage from the public sector. There is limited access to antiseizure medications (ASMs), mainly due to cost. Epilepsy surgery is an underutilized treatment option. There are only 20 epileptologists in the Philippines, with one epileptologist for every 45,000 patients with epilepsy. In addition, epilepsy care service delivery has been further impeded by the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. CONCLUSION: There is a large treatment gap in epilepsy care in the Philippines in terms of high epilepsy disease burden, socioeconomic limitations and inadequate public support, sparse clinico-epidemiologic research on epilepsy, inaccessibility of health care services and essential pharmacotherapy, underutilization of surgical options, and lack of specialists capable of rendering epilepsy care. Acknowledgment of the existence of these treatment gaps and addressing such are expected to improve the overall survival and quality of life of patients with epilepsy in the Philippines.

COVID-19 containment and its unrestrained impact on epilepsy management in resource-limited areas of Pakistan.

The current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that led to an unprecedented crisis with significant health, social, and economic repercussions presented more serious concerns for those living with some chronic conditions such as epilepsy. This study was aimed to find out impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on management of epilepsy. A cross-sectional study was conducted through telephone interviews, targeting 213 caregivers of pediatric patients with epilepsy, belonging to underserved areas of Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan. A simple questionnaire was designed to record the responses of participants relevant to the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 pandemic and their knowledge about possible ways that can be accessed for the management of epilepsy during an ongoing pandemic. The current study, which holds 77% of the respondents from rural areas and 23% from urban settings, showed that partial measures of lockdown taken to stop or slow the spread of COVID-19 resulted in adverse economic and health outcomes in the said population including cancelation of follow-up visits, worsening of seizures, job loss, burden of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) costs, and discontinuation of medicines. Furthermore, knowledge about alternative ways to access health facilities was found very poor among caregivers. Income sources of poor people disrupted by lockdown can lead to unintentional nonadherence to medication, which is a clear picture of inequitable distribution of resources. This study highlights the major issues faced by the caregivers during this ongoing pandemic of COVID-19.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of epilepsy surgery in children and adolescents with drug resistant focal epilepsy at three years in a tertiary care epilepsy center in Thailand.

Epilepsy surgery is proven as a cost-effective treatment in developed countries, especially in adults with drug resistant epilepsy (DRE). This study is aimed to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of epilepsy surgery in children and adolescents with DRE at three years compared with those who were eligible for surgery but received medical treatment. This study was conducted from January 2014 to December 2018. Clinical data were obtained from a retrospective chart review. Direct medical costs, including epilepsy surgery, inpatient and outpatient treatment were retrieved from the finance department. Direct non-medical costs were collected from the family interview. The effectiveness was determined by percent seizure reduction and quality of life assessed by EQ-5D scores. Decision tree analysis using TreeAge Pro® 2018 was deployed to determine the cost-effectiveness. Seventeen patients had epilepsy surgery and 19 were in the medical group. Seizure freedom was noted in 52% and 16% in the surgical and medical groups, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 743,040 THB (22,793 USD) per 1 QALY and 3302 THB (101 USD) per 1% seizure reduction. The study did not demonstrate cost-effectiveness of epilepsy surgery in the short term compared with Thailand's threshold (160,000 THB (4908 USD) per 1 QALY). Epilepsy surgery may be cost-effective if evaluated beyond three years.

Epilepsy duration as an independent predictor of response to vagus nerve stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a form of neuromodulation that has been used to treat individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Although many retrospective studies have explored the predictors of VNS treatment efficacy, the data have been inconsistent, and no VNS studies to date have used the 2017 ILAE epilepsy classification system. METHODS: In this single-center retrospective study, we reviewed data from 77 patients who underwent VNS implantation between 2011 and 2019. Data regarding patient gender, epilepsy duration, age at implantation, numbers of antiepileptic drugs, MRI findings, history of craniotomy, epilepsy classification, stimulation current intensity, stimulation duration, and responder status (responders were those with ≥ 50 % seizure frequency reduction) were analyzed via univariate analysis or receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to select possible related factors and classification cutoffs. Then, binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify the variables that significantly predicted responder status. RESULTS: In the inclusion group, the mean stimulation duration, mean seizure reduction, and responder rate was 47.2 months, 42.6 %, and 50.6 %, respectively. The univariate analysis indicated that seizure types and MRI findings might be related categorical variables (P < 0.05). After performing binary logistic regression and creating ROC curves for the continuous variables, epilepsy duration was chosen as a related variable, with 12.5 years as the classification cutoff (P = 0.002). A binary logistic regression of risk factors showed that epilepsy duration was significantly related to responder status (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Epilepsy duration is an independent predictor for responders to VNS. VNS is more likely to be efficacious in those with an epilepsy duration < 12.5 years, especially those with a duration of 5-12.5 years.

Barriers in accessing medical cannabis for children with drug-resistant epilepsy in Canada: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: The use of medical cannabis to treat drug-resistant epilepsy in children is increasing; however, there has been limited study of the experiences of parents with the current system of accessing medical cannabis for their children. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we used a patient-centered access to care framework to explore the barriers faced by parents of children with drug-resistant epilepsy when trying to access medical cannabis in Canada. We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 parents to elicit their experiences with medical cannabis. We analyzed the data according to five dimensions of access, namely approachability, acceptability, availability, affordability, and appropriateness. RESULTS: Parents sought medical cannabis as a treatment because of a perceived unmet need stemming from the failure of antiepileptic drugs to control their children's seizures. Medical cannabis was viewed as an acceptable treatment, especially compared with adding additional antiepileptic drugs. After learning about medical cannabis from the media, friends and family, or other parents, participants sought authorization for medical use. However, most encountered resistance from their child's neurologist to discuss and/or authorize medical cannabis, and many parents experienced difficulty in obtaining authorization from a member of the child's existing care team, leading them to seek authorization from a cannabis clinic. Participants described spending up to $2000 per month on medical cannabis, and most were frustrated that it was not eligible for reimbursement through public or private insurance programs. CONCLUSIONS: Parents pursue medical cannabis as a treatment for their children's drug-resistant epilepsy because of a perceived unmet need. However, parents encounter barriers in accessing medical cannabis in Canada, and strategies are needed to ensure that children using medical cannabis receive proper care from healthcare professionals with training in epilepsy care, antiepileptic drugs, and medical cannabis.

Healthcare utilization and associated costs following initiation of perampanel in patients with epilepsy.

PURPOSE: We compared health service utilization and costs for patients with epilepsy before and after initiation of perampanel and compared with matched controls. METHOD: Patients were selected from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Patients initiating perampanel were matched to controls initiating an alternate add-on therapy for the same underlying epilepsy subtype. First prescription defined index date. Primary and secondary care contacts and associated costs were aggregated in the 12 months before and after index date. Secondary care contacts were available for a subset (~60%) of patients. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-three patients treated with perampanel were identified. One hundred and eighty-three (53.4%) were male, mean age was 39.1 (sd: 16.0). Mean epilepsy duration was 21.1 (standard deviation (sd): 13.3) years. Two hundred and eighty-seven (83.7%) were matched to controls. Inpatient admissions with a primary diagnosis of epilepsy (0.5 versus 0.2 per patient-year (ppy), p = 0.002) and neurology specific outpatient appointments (3.2 versus 2.9 ppy, p = 0.041) were significantly reduced following initiation with perampanel. Total costs attributable to epilepsy (£1889 to 1477 ppy) and overall secondary costs (£2593 to £2102) were also significantly reduced. There was no significant difference in primary care, outpatient, or general inpatient admissions. Compared with controls, there was a significant reduction in primary epilepsy admissions (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.423; 95% Confidence intervals (CI): 0.198-0.835) but a significant increase in outpatient appointments (1.306; 95% CI: 1.154-1.478) and accident and emergency contacts (1.603; 95% CI: 1.081-2.390) for patients treated with perampanel. CONCLUSION: Treatment with perampanel is associated with reduced epilepsy-related inpatient admissions and accident and emergency contacts.

The Humanistic and Economic Burden of Pediatric Focal Seizures in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the humanistic and economic burden of focal seizures in children 2-12 years old. METHODS: We conducted a targeted literature review by searching MEDLINE for English-language publications reporting on children 2-12 years old with focal seizures published in the United States since 2008. RESULTS: Thirty-five publications were included. Incidence of focal seizures was 23.2 to 47.1 per 100,000 children per year; prevalence was 2.0 per 1,000 children, and ranged from 1.6 - 2.6 per 1,000 in patients of any age. Life expectancy was 47.3-61.8 years among children 3-12 years old. Patients took several antiepileptic drugs and experienced frequent seizures, sleep disorders, mood disorders, migraine, and seizure-related injuries (eg, bone fractures, sprains, open wounds). Children with focal seizures scored below average on cognitive assessments and up to 42%, 16%, and 19% had depression, anxiety, and attention-deficit disorder, respectively. Patients of any age had about 10 outpatient visits (2 epilepsy-related), 2 inpatient visits (less than 1 epilepsy-related), and 24 procedures (1 epilepsy-related) per year. Medication adherence was low: only half of pediatric patients maintained ≥90% adherence over 6 months. Annual total health care costs among patients of any age ranged from $18,369 - 38,549; first-year total health care costs for children were $19,883. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence and prevalence of focal seizures is high and the humanistic and economic burdens are significant. Future studies focused exclusively on children with focal seizures are needed to more precisely describe the burden. We also suggest further research and implementation of methods to improve medication adherence as an approach to lessen burden on these young patients.

Cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and impact of antiepileptic drugs on the risk of fracture in patients with epilepsy: A nationwide cohort study.

PURPOSE: Although nonenzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (nEIAEDs) are accepted for the treatment of epilepsy, few studies have examined the costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of nEIAEDs in relation to the incidence of fracture among patients with epilepsy. In the present study, we performed cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses comparing the influence of enzyme-inducing AEDs (EIAEDs) and nEIAEDs on the risk of fracture in this population. METHODS: A total of 4864 patients with epilepsy were classified into EIAED and nEIAED groups. Propensity score matching was applied to reduce the influence of selection bias. Clinical outcomes were measured in relation to AED fee, medical expenses associated with epilepsy and fracture, and the total number of fractures. Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses were performed for all patients. RESULTS: Patients in the unmatched EIAED cohort (n = 3686) were older and had more comorbidities. After matching, the cohorts exhibited similar features (n = 2432 each). Fracture risk was lower in the nEIAED group than in the EIAED group (HR = 0.70). The additional medical expense of nEIAEDs in fractures and epilepsy for 2 years per person was 107,731 New Taiwan dollars (NT$). The additional cost for nEIAEDs to reduce one event of fracture was $14,789,421 NT$. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with epilepsy using nEIAEDs had a lower risk of fracture than those using EIAEDs. However, the cost-benefit ratio and cost-effectiveness of such treatment were lower in the nEIAED group than in the EIAED group.