Accounting for repeat intervention costs in the economic comparison of laser interstitial thermal therapy and anterior temporal lobectomy for treatment of refractory temporal lobe epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) is an alternative to anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) for the treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy that has been found by some to have a lower procedure cost but is generally regarded as less effective and sometimes results in a subsequent procedure. The goal of this study is to incorporate subsequent procedures into the cost and outcome comparison between ATL and LITT. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective cohort study includes 85 patients undergoing ATL or LITT for temporal lobe epilepsy during the period September 2015 to December 2022. Of the 40 patients undergoing LITT, 35 % (N = 14) underwent a subsequent ATL. An economic cost model is derived, and difference in means tests are used to compare the costs, outcomes, and other hospitalization measures. RESULTS: Our model predicts that whenever the percentage of LITT patients undergoing subsequent ATL (35% in our sample) exceeds the percentage by which the LITT procedure alone is less costly than ATL (7.2% using total patient charges), LITT will have higher average patient cost than ATL, and this is indeed the case in our sample. After accounting for subsequent surgeries, the average patient charge in the LITT sample ($103,700) was significantly higher than for the ATL sample ($88,548). A second statistical comparison derived from our model adjusts for the difference in effectiveness by calculating the cost per seizure-free patient outcome, which is $108,226 for ATL, $304,052 for LITT only, and $196,484 for LITT after accounting for the subsequent ATL surgeries. SIGNIFICANCE: After accounting for the costs of subsequent procedures, we found in our cohort that LITT is not only less effective but also results in higher average costs per patient than ATL as a first course of treatment. While cost and effectiveness rates will vary across centers, we also provide a model for calculating cost effectiveness based on individual center data.

Marginal decision-making in the treatment of refractory epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Epilepsy surgery is one of the most effective treatments in modern medicine. Yet, it remains largely under-utilized, in spite of its proven efficacy. The referrals for epilepsy surgery are often delayed until it is too late to prevent the detrimental psychosocial effects of refractory seizures. The reluctance towards epilepsy surgery is influenced by the perceived risks of the procedure by practitioners and patients. This review discusses how, in general decision-making processes, one faces a natural tendency towards emphasizing the risks of the most immediate and operational decision (surgery), at times without contrasting these risks with the alternative (uncontrolled epilepsy). METHODS: In the field of economics, this bias is well recognized and can be overcome through marginal analysis, formally defined as focusing on incremental changes as opposed to absolute levels. RESULTS: Regarding epilepsy surgery, the risks and benefits of surgery are considered separately from the risks of uncontrolled epilepsy. For instance, even though surgery carries an ∼0.1-0.5% risk of perioperative mortality, the chance of sudden unexpected death with refractory epilepsy can be as high as 0.6-0.9% per year. It is suggested that the inadequate way of phrasing clinical questions can be a crucial contributing factor for the under-utilization of epilepsy surgery. SIGNIFICANCE: It is proposed that examining decision-making for epilepsy surgery in the context of marginal analysis may enable providers and patients to make more accurate informed decisions.