[Epilepsy and inequality: demographic description and analysis of the difficulty in accessing advanced resources in a population in a small health area]. / Epilepsia y desigualdad: descripción demográfica y análisis de la dificultad para el acceso a recursos avanzados en una población de un área de salud pequeña.

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is a very common neurological disease with high morbidity and mortality. Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) poses a major therapeutic challenge, even for experts in the field. Despite this, access to advanced resources for this type of patient remains difficult and unequal. The aim of this study is to analyse inequality in a population belonging to a first level hospital. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An analytical observational cross-sectional study was conducted on epileptic patients attending neurology consultations in Area IX of the Murcian Health Service. Demographic, clinical, therapeutic, prognostic and equity variables are described, and significant differences between different subgroups are analysed. RESULTS: The study included 68 patients with a mean age of 42.93 years. Focal epilepsy was the main type (64.7%), and the most commonly used drugs were levetiracetam (33.8%), valproic acid (27.9%) and lamotrigine (22.1%). DRE occurred in 18 patients (26.5% of the total) and only four were under active follow-up in an epilepsy unit, meaning that 71% did not have access to a necessary resource (advanced therapeutic gap). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that epilepsy inequality continues to be a problem, especially in certain geographical areas, with a lack of access to advanced care for patients who need it most. The solution can be achieved by increasing human and material resources to improve overall patient care, thus strengthening both referral hospitals and epilepsy units.

TITLE: Epilepsia y desigualdad: descripción demográfica y análisis de la dificultad para el acceso a recursos avanzados en una población de un área de salud pequeña.Introducción. La epilepsia es una enfermedad neurológica muy frecuente que implica una elevada morbimortalidad. La epilepsia farmacorresistente (EFR) supone un desafío terapéutico superior, incluso para expertos en la materia. A pesar de ello, el acceso a recursos avanzados para este tipo de pacientes continúa siendo dificultoso y desigual. El objetivo de este estudio es analizar la desigualdad en una población perteneciente a un hospital de primer nivel. Pacientes y métodos. Se llevó a cabo un estudio transversal observacional analítico con pacientes epilépticos que acuden a consultas de neurología del área IX del Servicio Murciano de Salud. Se describen variables demográficas, clínicas, terapéuticas, pronósticas y de equidad, y se analizan diferencias significativas entre distintos subgrupos. Resultados. En el estudio se incluyó a 68 pacientes con una media de edad de 42,93 años. El tipo de epilepsia principal fue la focal (64,7%), y los fármacos más usados fueron el levetiracetam (33,8%), el ácido valproico (27,9%) y la lamotrigina (22,1%). La EFR se dio en 18 pacientes (el 26,5% del total) y sólo cuatro se encontraban en seguimiento activo en una unidad de epilepsia, lo que implica que el 71% no accedía a un recurso necesario (advanced therapeutic gap). Conclusiones. Este estudio demuestra que la desigualdad en la epilepsia continúa siendo un problema, especialmente en ciertas áreas geográficas, con una falta de acceso a atención avanzada en pacientes que más lo necesitan. La solución puede conseguirse aumentando recursos humanos y materiales que mejoren la atención global del paciente, reforzando así tanto los hospitales de referencia como las unidades de epilepsia.

Value contribution of cenobamate for the treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures (FOS) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in Spain through reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions worldwide. The main goal of its treatment is to achieve seizure freedom without intolerable adverse effects. However, despite the availability of many anti-seizure medications, including the latest options, called third-generation anti-seizure medications (ASMs), approximately 40% of people with epilepsy present drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Cenobamate is the first ASM approved in Spain for the adjunctive treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures (FOS) in adult patients with DRE. In a chronic disease with a portfolio of available ASMs, the decision to introduce a new therapeutic alternative must follow a holistic evaluation of value provided. Reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology allows to determine the value contribution of a treatment in a given indication considering all relevant criteria for healthcare decision-making in a transparent and systematic manner from the perspective of relevant stakeholders. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the relative value contribution of cenobamate in the treatment of FOS in patients with DRE compared with third-generation ASMs using reflective MCDA-based methodology. METHODS: A systematic literature review (combining biomedical databases and grey literature sources) was performed to populate the Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking (EVIDEM) MCDA framework adapted to determine what represents value in the management of FOS in patients with DRE in Spain. The study was conducted in two phases. The first took place in 2021 with a multi-stakeholder group of eight participants. The second phase was conducted in 2022 with a multi-stakeholder group of 32 participants. Participants were trained in MCDA methodology and scored four evidence matrices (cenobamate vs. brivaracetam, vs. perampanel, vs. lacosamide and vs. eslicarbazepine acetate). Results were analyzed and discussed in a group meeting through reflective MCDA discussion methodology. RESULTS: DRE is considered a very severe condition associated with many important unmet needs, mainly with regard to the lack of more effective treatments to achieve the ultimate goal of treatment. Compared to third-generation ASMs, cenobamate is perceived to have a better efficacy profile based on improvements in responder rate and seizure freedom. Regarding safety, it is considered to have a similar profile to alternatives and a positive quality-of-life profile. Cenobamate results in lower direct medical costs (excluding pharmacological) and indirect costs. Overall, cenobamate is regarded as providing a high therapeutic impact and supported by high-quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Based on reflective MCDA methodology and stakeholders' experience in clinical management of epilepsy in Spain, cenobamate is perceived as a value-added option for the treatment of patients with DRE when compared with third-generation ASMs.

Cannabidiol en epilepsia resistente a fármacos / Cannabidiol in drug resistant epilepsy

INTRODUÇÃO: La epilepsia resistente a fármacos es un problema de salud relevante, dada la prevalencia esperada, la afectación de la calidad de vida de los pacientes y sus familiares, los costos sanitarios y sociales. Las encefalopatías epilépticas se asocian a un deterioro neurológico progresivo y riesgo de muerte súbita en la medida que las crisis no son controladas. Existen más de 22 medicamentos anticrisis comercializados en Argentina, pero pese a esto, se estima que un porcentaje considerable de algunos síndromes epilépticos no logran controlar su enfermedad. Se define epilepsia resistente a fármacos cuando no se logra el control de la enfermedad pese al uso adecuado de dos o más medicamentos anticrisis en dosis y tiempo adecuados. El Cannabidiol (CBD) es un fármaco que posee efectos antiepilépticos por mecanismos no del todo aclarados, no posee efectos psicoactivos ni se encuentra dentro del listado de estupefacientes. Formas farmacéuticas de CBD de administración oral fueron autorizados por agencias regulatorias en Estados Unidos, Europa, Brasil y Argentina para tratamiento de ciertos síndromes epilépticos. OBJETIVO: El objetivo general del presente informe es evaluar la eficacia y seguridad de CBD en epilepsia resistente a fármacos, así como su impacto en los presupuestos sanitarios, en la equidad y en la salud pública. Se realizó un informe de Evaluación de Tecnología Sanitaria a cargo de un equipo multidisciplinario, donde se consultaron Sociedades médicas especialistas en epilepsia y Asociaciones de pacientes con epilepsia y sus familiares. METOLOGÍA: Se buscó en los sitios públicos de Pubmed, LILACS, BRISA/REDETSA, CRD (del inglés Centre for Reviews and Dissemination- University of York), Cochrane; en "buscadores genéricos de internet" y sociedades científicas. En lo que respecta a agencias de Evaluación de Tecnología Sanitaria y reguladores de medicamentos se buscó en: NICE (del inglés, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) del Reino Unido; PBAC (del inglés, The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee) de Australia; CADTH (del inglés, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health) de Canadá, CONITEC (del portugués, Comissão Nacional de Incorporação de Tecnologías no SUS) de Brasil, SIGNNHS de Escocia, HAS (del francés, Hauté Autorité de santé) de Francia, Cuadro General de Alemania (del alemán, Gemelnsamen Bundesausschusses), Dirección General de Cartera Común de Servicios del SNS y Farmacia de España, ANMAT de Argentina, FDA (del inglés, Food and Drug Administration) de Estados Unidos y EMA (del inglés, European Medicines Agency) de Europa. Se complementó con búsqueda en sitios de NCPE (del inglés, National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics) de Irlanda, ATTC (su sigla del inglés, Advanced Therapy Treatment Centre) Gales. Se realizó en primer término una búsqueda sensible de fuentes secundarias de evidencia (revisiones sistemáticas) en Medline, con las siguientes palabras clave: (cannabidiol) AND (epilepsy), con el filtro Revisiones sistemáticas y luego de ensayos clìnicos controlados aleatorizados, y luego estudios observacionales, sin restricciones de fecha ni idioma. Ver estrategia de búsqueda en anexo I. También se buscó en Cochrane, en Tripdatabase, en Epistemonikos y en LILACS (ver diagrama de flujo). Se revisó en ClinicalTrial.gov la próxima o reciente publicación de nuevos estudios en marcha. Se buscaron informes en la Base de Informes de ETS BRISA de OPS-RedETSA y se consultó en la página de OMS la última versión 2021 del Listado de Medicamentos Esenciales y la existencia de Guías Clínicas sobre epilepsia. RESULTADOS: Luego de realizar la estrategia de búsqueda exhaustiva de estudios siguiendo los criterios establecidos en el apartado metodológico, se procedió a la eliminación de artículos que no cumplían con los criterios de interés planteados en la pregunta PICO, tanto a través de la lectura del título y del resumen (en una primera instancia) como de la lectura crítica completa de los trabajos potencialmente relevantes (segunda instancia). Se identificaron 2 Meta-Análisis de estudios controlados randomizados. Uno de ellos no se encontraba actualizado, existiendo un nuevo ECCA publicado que no se estaba incluido y el otro Meta-análisis identificado se enfocaba solamente en un problema de salud (SGL). Además, se identificaron 6 ECCA que comparaban al CBD con placebo en add-on therapy (ver Anexo). No se identificaron ECCA donde se haya comparado CBD con otros MAC, lo que resulta de gran trascendencia para la interpretación de la evidencia disponible. Se realizó un meta-análisis de elaboración propia en el software RevMan. Los puntos finales fueron dicotómicos en su mayoría (control de crisis, reducción del 50% de las crisis, status epiléptico, muerte, eventos adversos que llevan a la suspensión del tratamiento, eventos adversos totales, eventos adversos serios). Los puntos finales reducción del número de crisis diarias, y la calidad de vida medida en la escala QoL Childhood Epilepsy se abordaron en los ECA como diferencia de medias, utilizándose el mismo abordaje en el meta-análisis. El estudio de Thiele 2020 contaba con tres ramas comparando placebo y dos dosis distintas de CBD, donde se lo incluyó en el meta-análisis como dos estudios distintos con su población correspondiente a cada rama de tratamiento. Inicialmente todos los pacientes fueron incluidos en el meta-análisis, realizándose luego análisis de subgrupos según el síndrome epiléptico causal (Dravet, Lennox-Gastaut y Esclerosis Tuberosa). CONCLUSIONES: No se halló evidencia que compare cannabidiol contra otros medicamentos anticrisis, como tampoco evidencia a largo plazo contra el agregado de placebo. Evidencia de moderada certeza mostró que probablemente el agregado de CBD, como terapia complementaria (add-on therapy) a medicamentos anticrisis, logró una reducción del número de crisis diarias y una reducción del 50% del número de crisis frente al agregado de placebo en personas mayores de dos años de edad con epilepsia resistente a fármacos con Síndrome de Lennox-Gastaut, Síndrome de Dravet y Complejo Esclerosis Tuberosa al mediano plazo. Mientras que con evidencia de baja a moderada certeza no se observaron mejoras en la calidad de vida o reducción total de las convulsiones para esta comparación en la población y seguimiento mencionados. Para los eventos adversos evaluados, existe evidencia de moderada certeza que muestra que el agregado de cannabidiol probablemente aumente los eventos adversos totales, gastrointestinales, eventos que llevan a la suspensión del tratamiento y como también serios respecto a agregado de placebo en la población y seguimiento mencionados. El precio de venta al público de las presentaciones de cannabidiol disponible en Argentina son superiores al de sus comparadores, resultando el impacto presupuestario de su incorporación en un desembolso adicional anual que superaría el umbral de alto impacto presupuestario para nuestro sistema de salud en la población evaluada. Las recomendaciones y políticas de cobertura identificadas mayormente de países de altos ingresos recomiendan el empleo de esta tecnología como una opción en epilepsia resistente a fármacos con Síndrome de Lennox-Gastaut y Síndrome de Dravet. Las políticas de cobertura identificadas que dan cobertura son muy precisas en cuanto a los síndromes, grupos etarios y número de medicamentos anticrisis previos, como también los criterios de suspensión, para poder acceder al cannabidiol. Aunque, los países de la región identificados no lo aprueban o no lo mencionan, Argentina cuenta con el Programa Nacional de Investigación sobre los Usos Medicinales de Cannabis en el Ministerio de Salud de la Nación que brinda cobertura para la tecnología en las poblaciones evaluadas.

Cost-effectiveness of cenobamate for focal seizures in people with drug-resistant epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to estimate the cost-effectiveness of add-on cenobamate in the UK when used to treat drug-resistant focal seizures in adults who are not adequately controlled with at least two prior antiseizure medications, including at least one used adjunctively. METHODS: We estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for cenobamate compared to brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, and perampanel in the UK National Health Service over a lifetime time horizon. We used a Markov cohort structure to determine response to treatment, using pooled data from three long-term studies of cenobamate. A network meta-analysis informed the likelihood of response to therapy with brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, and perampanel relative to cenobamate. Once individuals discontinued treatment, they transitioned to subsequent treatment health states, including other antiseizure medicines, surgery, and vagus nerve stimulation. Costs included treatment, administration, routine monitoring, event management, and adverse events. Published evidence and expert opinion informed the likelihood of response to subsequent treatments, associated adverse events, and costs. Utility data were based on Short-Form six-dimension form utility. Discounting was applied at 3.5% per annum as per National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. Uncertainty was explored through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base case, cenobamate led to cost savings of £51 967 (compared to brivaracetam), £21 080 (compared to eslicarbazepine), £33 619 (compared to lacosamide), and £28 296 (compared to perampanel) and increased QALYs of 1.047 (compared to brivaracetam), 0.598 (compared to eslicarbazepine), 0.776 (compared to lacosamide), and 0.703 (compared to perampanel) per individual over a lifetime time horizon. Cenobamate also dominated the four drugs across most sensitivity analyses. Differences were due to reduced seizure frequency with cenobamate relative to comparators. SIGNIFICANCE: Cenobamate improved QALYs and was less costly than brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, and perampanel. Therefore, cenobamate may be considered as a cost-effective adjunctive antiseizure medication for people with drug-resistant focal seizures.

Number needed to treat and associated cost analysis of cenobamate versus third-generation anti-seizure medications for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is a serious neurological disease, ranking high in the top causes of disability. The main goal of its treatment is to achieve seizure freedom without intolerable adverse effects. However, approximately 40% of patients suffer from Drug-Resistant Epilepsy (DRE) despite the availability of the latest options called third-generation Anti-Seizure Medications(ASMs). Cenobamate is the first ASM approved in Spain for the adjunctive treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures (FOS) in adult patients with DRE. The introduction of a new drug increases the number of therapeutic options available, making it important to compare it with existing alternatives in terms of clinical benefit and efficiency. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the clinical benefit, in terms of the Number Needed to Treat (NNT), and the efficiency, in terms of Cost per NNT (CNT), associated with cenobamate versus third-generation ASMs used in Spain for the adjunctive treatment of FOS in patients with DRE. METHODS: The Number Needed to Treat data was calculated based on the ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom endpoints (defined as the percentage of patients achieving 50% and 100% reduction in seizure frequency, respectively), obtained from pivotal clinical trials performed with cenobamate, brivaracetam, perampanel, lacosamide, and eslicarbazepine acetate. The NNT was established as the inverse of the treatment responder rate minus the placebo responder rate and was calculated based on the minimum, mid-range Daily Defined Dose (DDD), and maximum doses studied in the pivotal clinical trials of each ASM. CNT was calculated by multiplying the annual treatment cost by NNT values for each treatment option. RESULTS: In terms of NNT, cenobamate was the ASM associated with the lowest values at all doses for both ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom compared with the alternatives. In terms of CNT, for ≥50% responder rate, cenobamate was the ASM associated with the lowest CNT values at DDD and lacosamide and eslicarbazepine acetate at the minimum and maximum dose, respectively. For seizure freedom, cenobamate was associated with the lowest CNT value at DDD and the maximum dose and lacosamide at the minimum dose. CONCLUSIONS: Cenobamate could represent the most effective ASM in all doses studied compared to the third-generation ASMs and the most efficient option at DDD for both ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom. This study could represent an important contribution towards informed decision-making regarding the selection of the most appropriate therapy for FOS in adult patients with DRE from a clinical and economical perspective in Spain.

Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment compared to medical treatment in patients with drug-refractory epilepsy: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Approximately 30% of epilepsy patients develop a drug-refractory epilepsy, that is, seizures cannot be controlled with antiepileptic drugs. Surgery has been evaluated as an effective but costly form of treatment. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment compared to medical treatment for these patients. METHOD: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database until September 2022. Title, abstract and full-text screening were conducted by two researchers. Original studies published in English or German analyzing the cost-effectiveness of surgical compared to medical treatment were included. Study characteristics, effectiveness measures, costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were extracted. The quality of studies was assessed using the Drummond checklist. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included. Most studies evaluated surgery as cost-effective. The ICER per patient seizure free ranged from dominant to purchasing power parity US dollars (PPP-USD) 479,275. The ICER per 1% seizure reduction ranged from PPP-USD 227 to PPP-USD 342. The ICER per year without seizures was PPP-USD 4202 and the ICER per quality-adjusted life-year ranged from dominant to PPP-USD 90,874. The studies varied greatly in their methodology and time horizon. CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment is cost-effective compared to medical treatment, especially when a lifetime horizon is adopted. It is concluded that all disease-specific costs should be considered over a long period when assessing the cost-effectiveness of epilepsy treatment. From an economic perspective, efforts should be made to improve access to surgical treatment for patients with drug-refractory epilepsy.

Canabidiol 200mg/ml para o tratamento de crianças e adolescentes com epilepsia refratária a medicamentos antiepilépticos / Cannabidiol 200mg/ml for the treatment of children and adolescents with epilepsy refractory to antiepileptic drugs

INTRODUÇÃO: Crianças e adolescentes com epilepsia enfrentam importantes impactos em qualidade de vida devido a interferência em atividades da vida diária e estigma social, além dos eventos adversos provocados pelos medicamentos antiepilépticos. O Protocolo Clínico e Diretrizes Terapêuticas para Epilepsia (2018) inclui os medicamentos: valproato de sódio, carbamazepina, clobazam, clonazepam, etossuximida, fenitoína, fenobarbital, gabapentina, lamotrigina, levetiracetam, primidona, topiramato e vigabatrina. Entretanto, cerca de 30% dos pacientes são considerados refratários aos medicamentos, quando permanecem apresentando crises epilépticas apesar do uso de pelo menos dois antiepilépticos, tanto em monoterapia como em combinação. Nesses casos, as alternativas disponíveis são o tratamento cirúrgico ou estimulação elétrica do nervo vago. Outras opções têm sido buscadas por pacientes, famílias e profissionais de saúde, destacando-se o uso medicinal da cannabis. TECNOLOGIA: Canabidiol. PERGUNTA: O canabidiol é eficaz, efetivo e seguro no tratamento de crianças e adolescentes com epilepsia refratária a medicamentos antiepilépticos? EVIDÊNCIAS CLÍNICAS: A evidência disponível de eficácia, efetividade e segurança do canabidiol em crianças e adolescentes com epilepsia refratária a medicamentos antiepilépticos é baseada em três ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECR), controlados por placebo, e suas extensões abertas, que incluíram pacientes com síndromes específicas de epilepsia refratária: Síndrome de Lennox-Gastaut (SLG) e Síndrome de Dravet (SD). Também foram identificados seis estudos observacionais sem grupo controle e uma revisão sistemática com meta-análise dos resultados dos ECR. Ao todo foram incluídos 1.487 pacientes, e acompanhamento entre 12 e 144 semanas. Observou-se benefício estatístico em qualidade de vida (QOFCE) após três meses de tratamento com canabidiol (diferença entre médias=8,12; desvio padrão=9,85; p< 0,001; n=48) e redução de cerca de 50% na frequência de crises epilépticas totais por até 2 anos. Nesse período, entre 40% e 60% dos pacientes atingem pelo menos 50% de redução na frequência de crises epilépticas totais e cerca de 30% dos pacientes atingem pelo menos 75% de redução. Menos de 10% dos pacientes chegam a ficar sem crises epilépticas. Foram relatados 22 óbitos entre os pacientes tratados por até 3 anos. Acima de 80% dos pacientes relatam eventos adversos ao longo de 3 anos de acompanhamento, sendo os mais comuns: sonolência, redução de apetite, diarreia, vômito e perda de peso. Entre 20% e 40% dos pacientes apresentaram eventos adversos graves nesse período, sendo o mais comum o estado de mal epiléptico. A perda de seguimento mostrou-se progressiva ao longo do acompanhamento, sendo de até 10% nos primeiros 6 meses, 24% em 2 anos e chegando a 65% em 3 anos. Cerca de 10% dos casos de interrupção do tratamento ocorrem devido a eventos adversos. A certeza da evidência foi considerada entre moderada e muito baixa a depender do desfecho. As penalizações ocorreram devido a evidência indireta (população e intervenção), risco de viés (no caso dos estudos observacionais sem grupo controle) e imprecisão. AVALIAÇÃO ECONÔMICA: O uso de canabidiol como terapia adjuvante nas síndromes de Lennox-Gastaut e de Dravet resulta em benefício clínico aos pacientes, mediante incremento de gastos quando considerados parâmetros médios, resultando em RCEI de R$ 1,6 mil por crise evitada e de R$ 3,6 milhões por QALY ganho. Os valores foram considerados bastante elevados, considerando o baixo custo estimado para o tratamento da crise epiléptica ou ainda valores de limiar usualmente adotados para QALY (0,7 a 3 PIB per capita). Além disso, quando considerada incerteza, o benefício clínico não é confirmado tanto para crises evitadas, quanto para QALY ganho. ANÁLISE DE IMPACTO ORÇAMENTÁRIO: A partir da proposta de preço apresentada pela empresa Prati-Donaduzzi, de R$ 1.850,41 por unidade com incidência tributária ou R$ 1.497,42 sem incidência tributária, estimou-se um custo anual médio do tratamento de R$ 74.865 e R$ 60.584, respectivamente, por paciente. O impacto orçamentário foi estimado para pacientes com as Síndromes de Lennox-Gastaut e Dravet, com idade entre 2 e 17 anos, no âmbito do SUS, considerando apenas os custos diretos com a aquisição da tecnologia, em horizonte temporal de cinco anos (2021 a 2025). A população foi estimada a partir de demanda aferida, aplicando-se crescimento linear de 2% ao ano e restringindo-se a 30% a proporção de pacientes com resposta inadequada ou insuficiente aos medicamentos antiepilépticos disponíveis. A dose de canabidiol foi fixada em 20mg/kg/dia, com cálculo de peso baseado no percentil 50 das curvas de crescimento da OMS. Para o preço com impostos, estimou-se que para atender toda a população elegível, formada por cerca de 1.000 pacientes ao ano, o impacto orçamentário anual seria em torno de R$ 80 milhões, com R$ 416.358.156 acumulados em cinco anos. Com taxas de difusão chegando a 50% e 85% no quinto ano após a incorporação, o impacto acumulado seria de R$ 126.556.164 e R$ 231.470.061, respectivamente. Para o preço sem impostos, o impacto orçamentário anual para toda a população elegível seria de até R$ 70 milhões, com R$ 336.932.371 acumulados em cinco anos. O impacto orçamentário com as menores taxas de difusão foi estimado em R$ 102.413.914 com difusão mais lenta (até 50%) e R$ 187.314.108 com difusão intermediária (até 85%). MONITORAMENTO DO HORIZONTE TECNOLÓGICO: Foram identificados dois medicamentos potenciais para o tratamento de crianças e adolescentes com epilepsia refratária, em fase 3 ou 4 de pesquisa clínica: rituximabe e vatiquinona. Os medicamentos identificados não possuem registro na Anvisa, FDA ou EMA para essa indicação. CONSIDERAÇÕES FINAIS: Crianças e adolescentes com epilepsia refratária a medicamentos antiepilépticos correspondem a uma grande parcela de pacientes, com importante carga de doença. A evidência de melhor qualidade disponível inclui apenas pacientes com Síndrome de Lennox-Gastaut e Síndrome de Dravet, nos quais observou-se benefício em redução na frequência de crises epilépticas, com gastos incrementais para o SUS de R$ 1,6 mil por crise evitada. A partir do impacto orçamentário estimado apenas para essas síndromes, espera-se gasto anual de até R$ 80 milhões. RECOMENDAÇÃO PRELIMINAR DA CONITEC: Os membros do Plenário consideraram que as evidências disponíveis incluíram poucos pacientes e apresentaram benefício clínico questionável e aumento importante de eventos adversos e descontinuação do tratamento, com resultados de custo-efetividade e impacto orçamentário elevados. Assim, os membros do Plenário deliberaram que a matéria fosse disponibilizada em consulta pública com recomendação preliminar não favorável à incorporação no SUS do Canabidiol Prati-Donaduzzi 200mg/ml para tratamento de crianças e adolescentes com epilepsias refratárias aos tratamentos convencionais. Consulta pública: A Consulta Pública nº 12/2021 foi realizada entre os dias 23/02/2021 e 15/03/2021, e posteriormente reaberta entre os dias 22/03/2021 e 31/03/2021. Ao todo, foram recebidas 4.661 contribuições, sendo 779 pelo formulário para contribuições técnico-científicas e 3.882 pelo formulário para contribuições sobre experiência ou opinião. Não foram apresentadas contribuições de empresas produtoras da tecnologia avaliada. As evidências científicas apresentadas não alteraram o corpo de evidências já analisado no relatório. Observou-se receptividade positiva à disponibilização pelo SUS de produtos à base de cannabis, mas não como canabidiol isolado e comercializado exclusivamente por uma única indústria farmacêutica. As contribuições foram ao encontro das argumentações apresentadas na recomendação preliminar, a qual foi mantida. RECOMENDAÇÃO FINAL DA CONITEC: O Plenário da Conitec, em sua 97ª Reunião Ordinária, no dia 06 de maio de 2021, deliberou por unanimidade recomendar a não incorporação do canabidiol para crianças e adolescentes com epilepsia refratária a medicamentos antiepilépticos no SUS, sem prejuízo a novas solicitações de incorporação futuras. Os membros da Conitec consideraram que não há evidências suficientes para justificar a incorporação de um produto de cannabis específico, considerando: a) grande variabilidade de apresentação dos produtos de cannabis; b) não comprovação de intercambialidade ou equivalência entre os produtos disponíveis e os que foram utilizados nos estudos clínicos; c) incertezas quanto a eficácia e magnitude do efeito dos produtos de cannabis para a indicação proposta; d) incertezas quanto a custo-efetividade e impacto orçamentário, com potencial de expansão da utilização para indicações além da população-alvo avaliada; e) relato de representante de pacientes com a condição clínica específica, indicando coerência com os eventos adversos identificados na literatura científica; e f) contribuições à consulta pública com entendimento ao encontro das argumentações apresentadas na recomendação preliminar. Foi assinado o Registro de Deliberação nº 616/2021. DECISÃO: não incorporar o canabidiol para tratamento de crianças e adolescentes com epilepsias refratárias aos tratamentos convencionais, no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde ­ SUS, conforme Portaria nº 25, publicada no Diário Oficial da União nº 103, Seção 1, página 118, em 2 de junho de 2021.(AU)

Predictors of Quality of Life in Patients with Drug Resistant Epilepsy after Neurosurgical Treatment: One-Year Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Invasive neurosurgical treatment or minimally invasive neurosurgical treatment are methods of choice for the treatment of patients with drug resistant epilepsy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of neurosurgical treatment and the quality of life of patients with drug resistant epilepsy and to determine what are the potential predictors of quality of life of patients with drug resistant epilepsy one year after neurosurgical treatment. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The research was performed at the Referral Centre for Epilepsy, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Centre Zagreb from February 2015 to February 2020 with Ethics commitee approval. The study included 96 patients with drug resistant epilepsy who were examined for the quality of life before and one year after neurosurgical treatment using the form questionnaire "Quality of life in epilepsy" (QOILE-31) validated Croatian 1.0 version and the questionnaire to assess the degree of depression "Beck Depression Inventory I" (BDI-I) validated Croatian version. RESULTS: Of 96 patients with drug resistant epilepsy one year after neurosurgical treatment 46 (47.9%) patients remained completely free from epileptis seizures. Wilcoxon equivalent pair test showed that the number of epileptic seizures one year after neurosurgical treatment was significantly lower (median before neurosurgical treatment is 10; and after neurosurgical treatment is 1, p<0.001). The most informative potential statistically significant predictor variables of quality of life based on the criterion variables QOLIE-31 and BDI-I are: total disease duration in years (p=0.034), patient age (p=0.042), number of antiepileptics one year after neurosurgical treatment (p=0.001), the number of epileptic seizures per month (p=0.016), and social welfare rights (p=0.045). CONCLUSION: Neurosurgical treatment of patients with drug resistant epilepsy significantly reduces the number of epileptic seizures which significantly improves their overall quality of life one year after neurosurgical treatment.

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.

Quantifying the burden of generalized tonic-clonic seizures in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Compared to other seizure types, generalized tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures may be disproportionately related to increased morbidity, and reducing seizure frequency could translate into improvements across measures of morbidity in medically treated patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). The primary objective of this analysis was to quantify the burden of patients with DRE who experience GTC seizures (GTC+) compared to patients with DRE who do not experience GTC seizures (GTC-). METHODS: Adult patients from the Cleveland Clinic Epilepsy Center-Neurological Institute from 2012-2016 with DRE with epilepsy for at least 1 year were eligible for inclusion and were divided into GTC ± groups based on whether the patient had experienced a GTC seizure in the year preceding the first visit. Epilepsy duration, comorbidities, antiepileptic drug use, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and seizure type, frequency, and etiology were captured. Generalized linear models, negative binomial regression, logistic regression, and linear regression were used as appropriate for multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 379 patients met inclusion criteria and had data at 1-year follow-up after their baseline visit (192 GTC+ and 187 GTC-). Although DRE patients experiencing GTC seizures had fewer seizures per day over the preceding 6 months than those not experiencing GTC seizures, seizure severity and levels of depression and anxiety were greater. GTC+ patients who reported five or more seizures in the preceding 4 weeks had 82% lower odds (1-0.18 = 0.82) of working than patients with no seizures. SIGNIFICANCE: Patients with DRE experience a significant burden and decreased quality of life. Multivariate analysis is necessary to understand the complex relationship between seizure type, frequency, and impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and changes over time. Effective treatments to reduce the burden for DRE patients who experience GTC seizures continue to be needed.

Le régime cétogène dans le traitement de l'épilepsie réfractaire / The ketogenic diet in the treatment of refractory epilepsy

INTRODUCTION: L'épilepsie se définit comme un trouble cérébral caractérisé par une prédisposition durable à générer des crises épileptiques, lesquelles se manifestent par la présence transitoire de signes et/ou symptômes dus à une activité neuronale excessive ou synchrone anormale dans le cerveau. Les deux tiers des personnes épileptiques peuvent contrôler les crises en utilisant une médication anticonvulsive. Ceux pour qui deux médicaments ne réussissent pas à contrôler les crises ont une épilepsie dite réfractaire ou pharmacorésistante et doivent se tourner vers d'autres options thérapeutiques comme la chirurgie, la neuromodulation ou la thérapie nutritionnelle cétogène. Cette dernière consiste en un régime riche en lipides, adéquat en protéines et faible en glucides, dont la version originale classique a été développée il y a un siècle pour traiter l'épilepsie, mais dont diverses variantes (p. ex. le régime Atkins modifié ou le régime aux triglycérides à chaînes moyennes) ont été élaborées par la suite afin d'en améliorer la palatabilité, la tolérance et l'acceptabilité. En effet, le régime cétogène nécessite un suivi médical serré parce qu'il n'est pas sans effets indésirables, mais également un suivi par un nutritionniste, car la préparation des repas est complexe et laborieuse. Quelques formules cétogènes sont disponibles commercialement au Canada et ailleurs dans le monde. Avec leurs ratios « lipides : non-lipides ¼ prédéterminés, elles facilitent l'alimentation par un régime cétogène, notamment chez les bébés et les personnes nourris par voie parentérale, améliorant ainsi l'innocuité et l'observance du régime. MÉTHODOLOGIE CONFORMÉMENT: aux normes de l'INESSS, une RS a été réalisée dans le but d'obtenir un portrait plus juste de l'efficacité, de l'innocuité et de l'adhésion associées au régime cétogène en comparaison du traitement habituel sans régime particulier. Comme la demande concerne des formules commerciales ayant des ratios lipides : non-lipides de 4:1 et 3:1 typiques du régime cétogène classique, des données sur celui-ci comparées à celles d'autres variantes du régime ont également été recensées. À cela s'est ajoutée une RS des lignes directrices et recommandations de bonnes pratiques cliniques. La recherche de littérature scientifique a été effectuée dans les bases de données MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) et Evidence-Based Medical Reviews (Ovid), couvrant la période allant de la date de création des bases de données jusqu'en octobre 2019. La bibliographie des articles sélectionnés a été consultée pour y repérer davantage de publications pertinentes. RÉSULTATS: L'analyse des données scientifiques a révélé qu'un régime cétogène utilisé en complément au traitement antiépileptique diminue davantage la fréquence et la sévérité des crises épileptiques que ne le font les soins habituels sans régime particulier, tant chez la population pédiatrique que la population adulte. Cependant, les résultats des études comparant le régime cétogène classique à d'autres variantes sont mitigés et ne permettent pas de se prononcer sur l'efficacité de celui-ci comparativement à un régime moins strict comme le régime Atkins modifié et le régime avec triglycérides à chaînes moyennes (TCM), les trois régimes étant tous efficaces pour réduire la fréquence des crises. Par ailleurs, les données disponibles ne semblent pas indiquer une efficacité supérieure du régime cétogène classique 4:1 par rapport à des ratios lipides : non-lipides plus faibles. Quant à l'efficacité des formules cétogènes commerciales, il n'existe pas suffisamment d'études permettant de faire une comparaison avec celle des autres régimes cétogènes. CONCLUSIONS: Les travaux réalisés ont mis en perspective les données d'efficacité et d'innocuité concernant le régime cétogène dans un contexte de traitement de l'épilepsie réfractaire ainsi que le caractère déterminant du niveau d'observance et de persistance du régime pour en retirer les bénéfices cliniques. Bien que les données actuelles ne permettent pas de se prononcer sur la supériorité de l'une ou l'autre des variantes du régime cétogène, l'analyse effectuée confirme les bénéfices de ce type de régime, en complément du traitement pharmacologique, dans la réduction des fréquences des crises comparativement à une alimentation standard. Outre les limites méthodologiques des études cliniques, la diversité dans la composition du régime cétogène utilisé dans les essais de même que la multitude de types de crises et symptômes épileptiques étudiés génèrent un niveau d'hétérogénéité considérable, ce qui a freiné la réalisation de métaanalyses. Néanmoins, cet état des connaissances a permis d'éclairer le Comité scientifique permanent de l'évaluation des médicaments aux fins d'inscription de l'INESSS quant à la valeur du régime cétogène dans cette pathologie, et ce, afin de lui permettre de faire des recommandations au ministre au regard de l'inscription de formules nutritives conformes à ce régime.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of epileptic surgery compared with medical treatment in children with drug-resistant epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy surgery is an alternative to continued antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in children with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to measure, model, and compare the medical costs and impacts on health-related quality of life (HRQL) of epilepsy surgery versus continued medical treatment with AEDs in children with DRE. METHODS: A decision analytic model was created to estimate the cost-effectiveness of epilepsy surgery relative to continued medical treatment with AEDs. The model was based on costing and effectiveness data collected from 105 children with DRE who were operated on at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. The mean cost of conducting epilepsy surgery was AU$ 61,417 per person. Effectiveness of continued medical treatment was sourced from best available literature. In the absence of published utility values for pediatric patients with epilepsy and ethical approval to contact patients directly, HRQL was estimated by four clinicians using the Child Health Utility 9 Dimension (CHU9D). Outcome measures were seizure freedom and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: The costs over 7.6 years of follow-up were AU$ 219,297 for the surgical treatment group compared with AU$ 170,583 for the medical treatment group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for surgically vs medical treatment was AU$ 76,538 per additional patient attaining seizure freedom and AU$ 75,541 per additional QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Epilepsy surgery resulted in a greater reduction of seizures and improvement in HRQL but was more expensive than continued medical treatment with AEDs. Including benefits outside of a healthcare perspective would likely lead to a more compelling cost-effective argument.

Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Drug-resistant epilepsy affects about one-third of children with epilepsy and is associated with high costs to the healthcare system, yet the cost effectiveness of most treatments is unclear. Use of cannabis-based products for epilepsy is increasing, and the cost effectiveness of such strategies relative to conventional pharmacologic treatments must be considered. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to identify economic evaluations of cannabis-based treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy. We also sought to identify and appraise decision models that have been used in economic evaluations of pharmacologic treatments (i.e., antiepileptic drugs) in this population. METHODS: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library, as well as a targeted grey literature search, were undertaken (11 June 2018). Model-based full economic evaluations involving cannabis-based treatments or pharmacologic treatments for drug-resistant epilepsy in children were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion, and study quality was assessed by use of the Drummond and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklists. Study findings, as well as model characteristics, are narratively summarized. RESULTS: Nine economic evaluations involving children with drug-resistant epilepsy were identified; however, none involved cannabis-based treatments. All studies involved pharmacologic treatments compared with other pharmacologic treatments or non-pharmacologic treatments (i.e., ketogenic diet, epilepsy surgery, vagus nerve stimulation). Few studies have assessed the cost effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments in specific drug-resistant epilepsy syndromes, including Dravet and Lennox-Gastaut syndromes. Five included studies involved use of Markov models with a similar structure (i.e., health states based on seizure frequency relative to baseline). There was a wide range of methodological quality, and few studies fully addressed context-specific issues such as weight gain and treatment switching. CONCLUSION: Whether cannabis-based treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy represent good value for money has yet to be investigated. Economic evaluations of such treatments are needed and should address issues of particular importance in pediatric epilepsy, including weight gain over time, switching or discontinuation of treatments, effectiveness of interventions and comparators, and long-term effectiveness beyond the duration of available clinical studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42018099591.

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus (EcLiPSE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Phenytoin is the recommended second-line intravenous anticonvulsant for treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus in the UK; however, some evidence suggests that levetiracetam could be an effective and safer alternative. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of phenytoin and levetiracetam for second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. METHODS: This open-label, randomised clinical trial was undertaken at 30 UK emergency departments at secondary and tertiary care centres. Participants aged 6 months to under 18 years, with convulsive status epilepticus requiring second-line treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive levetiracetam (40 mg/kg over 5 min) or phenytoin (20 mg/kg over at least 20 min), stratified by centre. The primary outcome was time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (excluding those who did not require second-line treatment after randomisation and those who did not provide consent). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN22567894. FINDINGS: Between July 17, 2015, and April 7, 2018, 1432 patients were assessed for eligibility. After exclusion of ineligible patients, 404 patients were randomly assigned. After exclusion of those who did not require second-line treatment and those who did not consent, 286 randomised participants were treated and had available data: 152 allocated to levetiracetam, and 134 to phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) children in the levetiracetam group and in 86 (64%) in the phenytoin group. Median time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus was 35 min (IQR 20 to not assessable) in the levetiracetam group and 45 min (24 to not assessable) in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1·20, 95% CI 0·91-1·60; p=0·20). One participant who received levetiracetam followed by phenytoin died as a result of catastrophic cerebral oedema unrelated to either treatment. One participant who received phenytoin had serious adverse reactions related to study treatment (hypotension considered to be immediately life-threatening [a serious adverse reaction] and increased focal seizures and decreased consciousness considered to be medically significant [a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction]). INTERPRETATION: Although levetiracetam was not significantly superior to phenytoin, the results, together with previously reported safety profiles and comparative ease of administration of levetiracetam, suggest it could be an appropriate alternative to phenytoin as the first-choice, second-line anticonvulsant in the treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The direct cost of seizure events in severe childhood-onset epilepsies: A retrospective claims-based analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the direct cost of medically treated seizure events in severe childhood-onset epilepsies. Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS), Dravet syndrome (DS), and tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) are representative conditions associated with frequent intractable seizures. METHODS: Commercial and Medicaid insurance claims from 2010 to 2015 were queried to identify patients with possible LGS, possible DS, or TSC, having ≥2 years of continuous insurance from the date of first epilepsy/seizure diagnosis or antiepileptic drug (AED) fill (index date). Utilization and cost data in patients with and without seizure events requiring acute treatment were evaluated for two years postindex. Medically treated seizure events resulting in minor, moderate, severe, and no injury were included. Average costs were normalized to 2017 dollars at 3% per annum and reported for each cohort, by insurance type and degree of injury. RESULTS: Among 9754 patients, 55.4-58.8% of LGS, 47.7-55.8% of DS, and 13.7-28.0% of TSC cohorts had ≥1 medically treated seizure event, depending on insurance type. Events during two-year postindex averaged 2.8-3.3 in LGS, 3.1-3.3 in DS, and 1.9-2.2 in TSC; cost per event averaged $8147-$14,759 in LGS, $4637-$8751 in DS, and $5335-$9672 in TSC. In patients with events, average all-cause costs per-patient-per-year (PPPY) were $71,512-$84,939 in LGS; $31,278-$43,758 in DS; and $42,997-$48,330 in TSC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with intractable seizures having at least one medically treated seizure event incur substantial all-cause costs. Our results can be used to inform cost effectiveness and budget impact models to estimate the value of existing and future treatments for these and similar conditions.

Cost-effectiveness of cannabinoids for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy: protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Drug-resistant epilepsy negatively impacts the quality of life and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and high costs to the healthcare system. Cannabis-based treatments may be effective in reducing seizures in this population, but whether they are cost-effective is unclear. In this systematic review, we will search for cost-effectiveness analyses involving the treatment of pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy with cannabis-based products to inform decision-making by public healthcare payers about reimbursement of such products. We will also search for cost-effectiveness analyses of other pharmacologic treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, as well as estimates of healthcare resource use, costs, and utilities, for use in a subsequent cost-utility analysis to address this decision problem. METHODS: We will search the published and gray literature for economic evaluations of cannabis-based products and other pharmacologic treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, as well as resource utilization and utility studies. Two independent reviewers will screen the title and abstract of each identified record and the full-text version of any study deemed potentially relevant. Study and population characteristics, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), as well as total costs and benefits, will be extracted, and quality will be assessed by use of the Drummond and CHEERS checklists; context-specific issues will also be considered. From model-based cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses, we will extract and summarize the model structure, including health states, time horizon, and cycle length. From resource utilization studies, we will extract data about the frequency of resource use (e.g., neurology visits, emergency department visits, admissions to hospital). From utility studies, we will extract the utility for each health state, the source of the preferences (e.g., child, parent, patient, general public), and the method of elicitation. DISCUSSION: Drug-resistant epilepsy in children is associated with important costs to the healthcare system, and decision-makers require high-quality evidence on which to base reimbursement decisions. The results of this review will be useful to both decision-makers considering the decision problem of whether to reimburse cannabis-based products through public formularies and to analysts conducting studies in this area. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no.: CRD42018099591 .