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.

Comparing healthcare cost associated with the use of enzyme-inducing and non-enzyme active antiepileptic drugs in elderly patients with epilepsy in the UK: a long-term retrospective, matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In elderly patients (≥65 years of age) with epilepsy who take medications for comorbid conditions, some antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may alter the metabolism of other treatments and increase the risk of adverse consequences and healthcare utilisation. This analysis compares healthcare costs associated with enzyme-inducing AEDs (EIAEDs) and non-enzyme active AEDs (nEAAEDs) use in elderly patients with epilepsy. METHODS: This retrospective matched cohort study used the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) of UK primary care medical records, linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database. Selected patients with epilepsy were ≥ 65 years and prescribed an EIAED or nEAAED between 2001 and 2010 (index) after ≥1 year without AEDs (baseline) and followed until the first occurrence of the following: end of HES data coverage, end of GP registration, or death; practice's up-to-standard status or addition of an AED belonging to another cohort or discontinuation of the last AED of that cohort. Propensity score matching reduced confounding factor effects between cohorts. Key outcomes included time to cohort treatment failure, time to index AED treatment failure, and direct healthcare costs in 2014 Pound Sterling (£) values. RESULTS: Overall, 1425 elderly patients were included: 964 with EIAEDs and 461 with nEAAEDs. At baseline, the EIAED cohort was older (mean age, 76.2 vs. 75.1 years) and a higher proportion were male. Baseline direct healthcare costs were similar. After matching (n = 210 each), and over the entire follow-up period, median monthly direct healthcare costs were higher for patients taking EIAEDs than nEAAEDs (£403 vs. £317; p = 0.0150, Mann-Whitney U). Costs were higher for patients remaining in the EIAED cohort after 3 follow-up years. The median time to cohort treatment failure for the EIAED cohort was 1110 days vs. 1175 days for the nEAAED cohort. CONCLUSION: Newly treated elderly patients with epilepsy were more likely to be prescribed EIAEDs than nEAAEDs. In matched cohorts, elderly patients with epilepsy treated with EIAEDs had higher average total direct and epilepsy-related healthcare costs than nEAAED-treated patients; this difference was greater than previously reported in the overall adult population. Changing treatment practices could improve patient care and reduce costs.

Analysis of pharmacotherapy regimen and costs in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy following vagus nerve stimulation therapy: a single-center study (Poland).

Approximately 30-40% of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) who underwent vagus nerve stimulator (VNS) implantation achieve above 50% reduction in seizure frequency. VNS proves effective in reducing frequency of seizures in DRE patients, when combined with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). This raises a question whether improvement of clinical parameters is achieved with VNS only or relies on combined therapy with AEDs. The aim of the study was the analysis of impact of VNS on clinical recovery of patients with DRE and the analysis of pharmacotherapy costs and drug regimen following VNS implantation in DRE patients. The study included all the patients who had VNS implanted at our department in the years 2014-2018. The patients would be followed up for 2 years after the VNS implantation date. The most commonly used drugs included levetiracetam, lacosamide, valproate, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate. Average cost of AEDs in year 1 following VNS implantation was between EUR 15.53 (CLB) and EUR 545.52 (TGB) and in year 2 between EUR 13.51 (NTZ) and EUR 779.44 (LAC). The greatest number of seizures affected the group of patients treated with three drugs. A statistically significant improvement in seizure frequency was observed in the group of patients treated with two and three drugs. With the rising costs of healthcare, the importance of economic efficiency is becoming increasingly relevant. VNS is a reasonable option for saving money in the healthcare system while ensuring measurable clinical and therapeutic outcomes over the long term.

Economic Value of Adjunctive Brivaracetam Treatment Strategy for Focal Onset Seizures in Finland.

INTRODUCTION: There is an unmet need for well-tolerated antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) that effectively control focal onset seizures. This study aimed to evaluate the economic value of new AEDs in the treatment of focal onset seizure, with or without secondary generalization, in Finnish adults and adolescents with epilepsy, comparing brivaracetam with perampanel as adjunctive AEDs. METHODS: Economic value was assessed using cost-utility analysis. Periods of AED initiation, titration, response assessment (seizure freedom, ≥ 50% reduction, no response), switching in no response or treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and death were simulated using a discrete-event simulation model. Responses and switching were simulated based on a comprehensive Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary modeled outcome was the 3%/year discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), payer costs (year 2017 Euro) per patient, and net monetary benefit (NMB) were secondary outcomes. Probabilistic and comprehensive deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Brivaracetam was more efficacious and had fewer TEAEs than perampanel and other AEDs. Modeled average 5-year QALYs and costs were 3.671 and €28,297 for brivaracetam and 3.611 and €27,979 for perampanel, respectively. The resulting ICER for brivaracetam versus perampanel was only €5345/QALY gained in a deterministic base case scenario. Brivaracetam had a positive NMB and high probability of cost-effectiveness of €1190 and 71% or €1944 and 80% with the assumed willingness to pay of €25,358 or €38,036/QALY gained, respectively. The primary result was robust, with a positive NMB persistent in all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When switching from brivaracetam to perampanel was excluded from the modeling or switching from perampanel to brivaracetam was included, brivaracetam was cost-saving and more effective than perampanel (dominant). CONCLUSION: These simulated comparisons demonstrated that brivaracetam was more effective and potentially also more affordable than perampanel. Thus, brivaracetam is likely a cost-effective and net beneficial alternative to perampanel for treatment of focal onset seizures. Plain language summary available for this article.

Comparing the efficacy, exposure, and cost of clinical trial analysis methods.

This study aimed to compare three commonly used analysis methods for clinical trials in epilepsy in terms of statistical efficiency, nonefficacious exposure, and cost. A realistic seizure diary simulator was employed to produce 102 000 trials, which were analyzed by the 50%-responder rate method (RR50), median percentage change (MPC), and time to prerandomization (TTP). Half the trials compared a placebo to a drug that was 20% better, and the other half compared two placebos. The former were used to calculate statistical power; the latter were used for type 1 error rates. Based on the number of patients needed to achieve 90% power, expected number of patient-days of nonefficacious exposures and expected cost were calculated for each method. MPC demonstrated the highest efficacy, lowest exposure, and lowest cost. RR50 demonstrated the lowest efficacy, highest exposure, and highest cost. Costs were: MPC $1 295 000, TTP $1 315 720, and RR50 $2 331 000. Selecting an optimal analysis method for a primary outcome in an epilepsy trial can have consequences in terms of nonefficacious exposure and cost. This study provides evidence supporting the use of MPC (preferred) or TTP, and evidence suggesting that RR50 would incur high costs and excess exposures.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs before and after lacosamide initiation as adjunctive therapy among patients with epilepsy in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate all-cause and epilepsy-specific healthcare resource utilization and costs following lacosamide (LCM) initiation as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of epilepsy. METHODS: A noninterventional retrospective database analysis was conducted that examined patients diagnosed as having epilepsy who added LCM to existing antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy between 2009 and 2016 (the first LCM prescription was the index event). This study used a single-case design whereby patients served as their own controls. Patients were further required to have a minimum of 12 months of continuous eligibility before (preindex period) and after (postindex period) their index event. In the 12-month postindex period, the only allowed AED regimen change was the addition of LCM. Demographic and clinical characteristics were measured at index and during the preindex period, respectively. All-cause and epilepsy-specific healthcare resource utilization and costs were measured and compared in the pre- and postindex periods. Paired t- and McNemar's tests were conducted to assess the significant differences between pre- and postindex. Univariate analyses were used to analyze the impact of LCM on specific subpopulations. RESULTS: The study sample comprised of 2171 patients: mean (standard deviation [SD]) age: 38.9 (19.3) years; 52.6% female. Just over half (56%) of these patients were on monotherapy before adding LCM. Prior to adding LCM, 28.8% of patients had an epilepsy-specific inpatient (IP) admission, and 35.7% of patients had an all-cause IP admission, compared with 18.2% and 26.1% of patients in the post-LCM period, respectively (both p < 0.0001). Likewise, 35.6% of patients had an epilepsy-specific emergency room (ER) visit, and 50.0% had an all-cause ER visit prior to adding LCM, compared with 23.8% and 42.1% in post-LCM, respectively (both p < 0.0001). After adding LCM, one-year mean [SD] epilepsy-specific IP admission costs decreased by 42.9% ($13,647 [$52,290] to $7788 [$32,321]), and all-cause IP admission costs decreased by 38.6% ($20,654 [$72,716] to $12,688 [$46,120]) (both p < 0.0001). One-year epilepsy-specific mean [SD] ER costs decreased by 35.2% ($691 [$1756] to $448 [$1909]; p < 0.0001), and all-cause ER cost decreased by 17.8% ($1217 [$3014] to $1000 [$2970]; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Epilepsy-related IP hospitalizations and ER visits (indicators of seizures) were significantly reduced in patients with epilepsy 12 months after adding LCM as an adjunctive therapy to existing AED treatment in a real-world setting, leading to reduced healthcare resource utilization and epilepsy costs.