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.

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.

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.

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 .

Cost-effectiveness of perampanel for the treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) in epilepsy: A Spanish perspective.

BACKGROUND: Persistent seizures are associated with physical injury, reduced quality of life, and psychosocial impairment. Perampanel is approved for the adjunctive treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of perampanel as adjunctive therapy to other antiepileptic drugs (AED) compared with AED maintenance therapy alone for the treatment of PGTCS. METHODS: We developed a Markov model for PGTCS where transitions were based on treatment response rates. The analysis was conducted over a 33-year time horizon from the Spanish National Health Service (NHS) and societal perspectives. Efficacy data were derived from clinical studies. Resource use, market shares, costs, and utilities were obtained from Kantar Health's National Health and Wellness Survey. Drug costs were obtained from the Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case analysis from the NHS perspective, perampanel was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €16,557/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) relative to AED maintenance therapy for the treatment of PGTCS. Incremental costs were €5475 and incremental QALYs were 0.33. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the ICERs were strongly influenced by discounting rate for costs and health effects, with little influence of other parameters, including perampanel cost and utilities. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probability of perampanel being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000/QALY was 89.3%. From the societal perspective, perampanel provided a cost-savings of €5288 per patient compared with AED maintenance therapy alone. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that perampanel is likely to be a cost-effective option.

The importance of botanical treatments in traditional societies and challenges in developing countries.

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions worldwide, with many affected persons found in Asia, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa. Relatedly, the large majority found in these regions does not receive the appropriate therapy with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), stemming from various reasons among which are lack of access to AEDs, social stigma, and negative cultural attitudes. The presence of epilepsy resistant to the available AEDs coupled with the frequent AED side effects has further fueled the widespread and growing use of botanicals as alternative therapy in several traditional societies in these developing countries since people with epilepsy (PWE) consider them as safe and effective. There have, however, been few botanicals that have been examined for their pharmacological activities related to traditional uses, and there is hardly any conclusive evidence regarding their efficacy in humans or knowledge about the exact mechanism(s) of action. This review discusses some botanical treatments that have been used for epilepsy in developing countries and the challenges faced. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled "Botanicals for Epilepsy".

Epilepsy biomarkers.

A biomarker is defined as an objectively measured characteristic of a normal or pathologic biologic process. Identification and proper validation of biomarkers of epileptogenesis (the development of epilepsy) and ictogenesis (the propensity to generate spontaneous seizures) might predict the development of an epilepsy condition; identify the presence and severity of tissue capable of generating spontaneous seizures; measure progression after the condition is established; and determine pharmacoresistance. Such biomarkers could be used to create animal models for more cost-effective screening of potential antiepileptogenic and antiseizure drugs and devices, and to reduce the cost of clinical trials by enriching the trial population, and acting as surrogate markers to shorten trial duration. The objectives of the biomarker subgroup for the London Workshop were to define approaches for identifying possible biomarkers for these purposes. Research to identify reliable biomarkers may also reveal underlying mechanisms that could serve as therapeutic targets for the development of new antiepileptogenic and antiseizure compounds.

Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines for HLA-B genotype and carbamazepine dosing.

Human leukocyte antigen B (HLA-B) is a gene that encodes a cell surface protein involved in presenting antigens to the immune system. The variant allele HLA-B*15:02 is associated with an increased risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) in response to carbamazepine treatment. We summarize evidence from the published literature supporting this association and provide recommendations for the use of carbamazepine based on HLA-B genotype (also available on PharmGKB: http://www.pharmgkb.org). The purpose of this article is to provide information to allow the interpretation of clinical HLA-B*15:02 genotype tests so that the results can be used to guide the use of carbamazepine. The guideline provides recommendations for the use of carbamazepine when HLA-B*15:02 genotype results are available. Detailed guidelines regarding the selection of alternative therapies, the use of phenotypic tests, when to conduct genotype testing, and cost-effectiveness analyses are beyond the scope of this document. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines are published and updated periodically on the PharmGKB website at (http://www.pharmgkb.org).

Prevalence of treated epilepsy in Korea based on national health insurance data.

The Korean national health security system covers the entire population and all medical facilities. We aimed to estimate epilepsy prevalence, anticonvulsant utilization pattern and the cost. We identified prevalent epilepsy patients by the prescription of anticonvulsants under the diagnostic codes suggesting seizure or epilepsy from 2007 Korean National Health Insurance databases. The information of demography, residential area, the kind of medical security service reflecting economic status, anticonvulsants, and the costs was extracted. The overall prevalence of treated epilepsy patients was 2.41/1,000, and higher for men than women. The age-specific prevalence was the lowest in those in their thirties and forties. Epilepsy was more prevalent among lower-income individuals receiving medical aid. The regional prevalence was the highest in Jeju Island and lowest in Ulsan city. New anticonvulsants were more frequently used than old anticonvulsants in the younger age group. The total annual cost of epilepsy or seizure reached 0.46% of total medical expenditure and 0.27% of total expenditure on health. This is the first nationwide epidemiological report issued on epilepsy in Korea. Epilepsy prevalence in Korea is comparable to those in developed countries. Economic status and geography affect the prevalence of epilepsy.

[Off-label use of acetazolamide in a patient with familial hemiplegic migraine and concomitant psychotic episodes]. / Off-label-Behandlung eines Patienten mit rezidivierender familiärer hemiplegischer Migräne und begleitenden vorübergehenden psychotischen Episoden.

A 42-year-old patient with cognitive deficits due to childhood meningitis suffered from recurrent episodes of familial hemiplegic migraine. Additionally, he developed concomitant psychotic episodes requiring subsequent in-patient psychiatric treatment. Following combined neurological and psychiatric treatment he always recovered from the episodes within a few weeks time. Prophylactic treatment of migraine using topiramate and acetazolamide (off-label) prevented attacks for several months. When off-label compensation was refused and, as a consequence, the drug discontinued, hemiplegia relapsed within a few days. Hence, acetazolamide was prescribed again and the family paid for the medication. Since that time, the patient did not show severe attacks for at least 8 months apart from a transient attack induced by acute flu-like illness.

Cost-effectiveness of pregabalin versus venlafaxine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: findings from a Spanish perspective.

The objective of the present study was to describe a new model of the cost-effectiveness of treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and its application to a comparison of pregabalin versus venlafaxine extended-release (XR) from a Spanish healthcare perspective. Microsimulation techniques, including Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score, number of weeks with minimal or no anxiety (HAM-A

Economic burden of epilepsy in a developing country: a retrospective cost analysis in China.

PURPOSE: To study the cost of epilepsy in China, and, therefore, provide essential information on the burden of the disease to individuals and society. METHODS: A cost-of-illness study was performed on a retrospective cohort of medically treated patients. Data on clinical characteristics, utilization of sources, and costs were collected from 289 patients in a standardized format. RESULTS: Direct medical care costs was Chinese yuan, renminbi (RMB) 2,529 (USD 372) per year per patient, of which antiepileptic drugs (RMB 1,651 or USD 243) accounted for the major cost component. Nonmedical direct costs were much less than direct health care costs, averaging approximately RMB 756 (USD 111). Costs due to loss of productivity averaged approximately RMB 1,968 (USD 289) per patient per year. Taken together, the overall mean annual cost for epilepsy per patient in our series was approximately RMB 5,253 (USD 773), and these costs accounted for more than half of the mean annual income. Total cost was significantly associated with disease severity and different responses to drug treatment. In addition, new antiepileptic drugs and the number of drugs taken were closely related with the drug cost. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the economic burden of epilepsy to both Chinese patients and the nation is heavy, and the composition proportions of the costs in China have many similar features and some noteworthy differences with that of other countries.

Comparison of health care use and costs in newly diagnosed and established patients with fibromyalgia.

UNLABELLED: In 2004, the American Pain Society (APS) issued evidence-based fibromyalgia treatment recommendations. The objective of this claims database analysis is to describe prescription and medical use in patients with newly diagnosed and established fibromyalgia. Privately insured patients with 2+ myalgia/myositis claims (1999 to 2005) were categorized as newly diagnosed or established; this dichotomy involves comparisons between prediagnosis (S1) and postdiagnosis (S2) stages in the newly diagnosed and between newly diagnosed (S2) and established patients (S3). Use of APS guideline medications increased across stages: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (S1, S2, S3: 20.6%, 22.9%, 25.3%), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) (4.5%, 6.4%, 8.9%), pregabalin/gabapentin (5.4%, 7.4%, 8.8%), benzodiazepines (19.0%, 21.1%, 24.2%), non-benzodiazepine sedatives (9.1%, 11.5%, 13.7%) (all P < .0001), and opioids (39.5%, 43.3%, 43.9%; S1 vs S2, P < .0001; S2 vs S3, P = .2835). Use of multiple therapeutic classes also increased across stages: 3+ classes (7.1%, 9.6%, 11.8%) (all P < .0001). Office visits to providers increased, on average, after diagnosis: primary care (70.9%, 78.3%, 76.3%; all P < .0001), chiropractors (28.8%, 51.1%, 53.3%; all P < .0001), rheumatologists (4.2%, 9.9%, 10.5%; S1 vs S2, P < .0001; S2 vs S3, P = .0595), mental health (6.4%, 7.3%, 8.3%; S1 vs S2, P < .0001, S2 vs S3, P = .0003). Average health care costs rose after diagnosis in the newly diagnosed group (S1: $6555 vs S2: $8654, P < .0001). PERSPECTIVE: This paper investigates prescription drug and medical care use with respect to stages of fibromyalgia diagnosis. Established fibromyalgia patients use more medical resources and have higher rates of concomitant medication use than newly diagnosed fibromyalgia patients. Findings can help educate providers regarding optimal drug treatment patterns in this population.

Development of new antiepileptic drugs: challenges, incentives, and recent advances.

Despite the introduction of many second-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the past 15 years, a third of patients with epilepsy remain refractory to available treatments, and newer and more effective therapies are needed. Although our understanding of the mechanisms of drug resistance is fragmented, novel AED targets have been identified, and models of refractory epilepsy have been developed that can help to select candidate compounds for development. There are more than 20 compounds with potential antiepileptic activity in various stages of clinical development, and for many of these promising clinical trial results are already available. Several incentives justify further investment into the discovery of newer and more effective AEDs. Moreover, developments in clinical trial methodology enable easier completion of proof-of-concept studies, earlier definition of the therapeutic potential of candidate compounds, and more efficient completion of trials for various epilepsy indications.

The SANAD study of effectiveness of carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate for treatment of partial epilepsy: an unblinded randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Carbamazepine is widely accepted as a drug of first choice for patients with partial onset seizures. Several newer drugs possess efficacy against these seizure types but previous randomised controlled trials have failed to inform a choice between these drugs. We aimed to assess efficacy with regards to longer-term outcomes, quality of life, and health economic outcomes. METHODS: SANAD was an unblinded randomised controlled trial in hospital-based outpatient clinics in the UK. Arm A recruited 1721 patients for whom carbamazepine was deemed to be standard treatment, and they were randomly assigned to receive carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate. Primary outcomes were time to treatment failure, and time to 12-months remission, and assessment was by both intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN38354748. FINDINGS: For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was significantly better than carbamazepine (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95% CI 0.63-0.97]), gabapentin (0.65 [0.52-0.80]), and topiramate (0.64 [0.52-0.79]), and had a non-significant advantage compared with oxcarbazepine (1.15 [0.86-1.54]). For time to 12-month remission carbamazepine was significantly better than gabapentin (0.75 [0.63-0.90]), and estimates suggest a non-significant advantage for carbamazepine against lamotrigine (0.91 [0.77-1.09]), topiramate (0.86 [0.72-1.03]), and oxcarbazepine (0.92 [0.73-1.18]). In a per-protocol analysis, at 2 and 4 years the difference (95% CI) in the proportion achieving a 12-month remission (lamotrigine-carbamazepine) is 0 (-8 to 7) and 5 (-3 to 12), suggesting non-inferiority of lamotrigine compared with carbamazepine. INTERPRETATION: Lamotrigine is clinically better than carbamazepine, the standard drug treatment, for time to treatment failure outcomes and is therefore a cost-effective alternative for patients diagnosed with partial onset seizures.

[Management of epilepsy in developing countries]. / Prise en charge de l'épilepsie dans les pays en développement.

Epilepsy is a major public health problem in developing countries. In addition to the high prevalence of epilepsy in some regions, there is an acute shortage of trained personnel, clinical equipment, and antiepileptic drugs. As a result of these problems, most patients do not have access to adequate treatment. Despite wake-up calls from the WHO, LICE, and BIE in 2001 using the slogan "Bring epilepsy out of the shadows", few national epilepsy control programs have been implemented in developing countries. Nevertheless reports describing several recent pilot projects have demonstrated that effective screening and management of the disease is feasible through primary health care systems. Phenobarbital should be the first choice for treatment of epilepsy in developing countries.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for children with epilepsy. A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for epilepsy in children: gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, tiagabine, topiramate and vigabatrin. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Drug company submissions. REVIEW METHODS: For the systematic review of clinical and cost-effectiveness, studies were assessed for inclusion according to predefined criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment were also undertaken. A decision-analytic model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the newer agents in children with partial seizures, the only condition where there were sufficient trial data to inform a model. RESULTS: The quality of the randomised controlled trial (RCT) data was generally poor. For each of the epilepsy subtypes considered in RCTs identified for this review (partial epilepsy with or without secondary generalisation, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, infantile spasms, absence epilepsy and benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes), there is some evidence from placebo-controlled trials that the newer agents tested are of some value in the treatment of these conditions. Where active controls have been used, the limited evidence available does not indicate a difference in effectiveness between newer and older drugs. The data are not sufficient to inform a prescribing strategy for any of the newer agents in any of these conditions. In particular, there is no clinical evidence to suggest that the newer agents should be considered as a first-choice treatment in any form of epilepsy in children. Annual drug costs of the newer agents ranges from around 400 pound to 1200 pound, depending on age and concomitant medications. An AED that is ineffective or has intolerable side-effects will only be used for a short period of time, and many patients achieving seizure freedom will successfully withdraw from drug treatment without relapsing. The results of the decision-analytic model do not suggest that the use of the newer agents in any of the scenarios considered is clearly cost-effective but, similarly, do not indicate that they are clearly not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis for children diagnosed with epilepsy is generally good, with a large proportion responding well to the first treatment given. A substantial proportion, however, will not respond well to treatment, and for these patients the clinical goal is to find an optimal balance between the benefits and side-effects of any treatment given. For the newly, or recently, diagnosed population, the key question for the newer drugs is how soon they should be tried. The cost-effectiveness of using these agents early, in place of one of the older agents, will depend on the effectiveness and tolerability of these agents compared with the older agents; the evidence from the available trial data so far suggests that the newer agents are no more effective but may be somewhat better tolerated than the older agents, and so the cost-effectiveness for early use will depend on the trade-off between effectiveness and tolerability, both in terms of overall (long-term) treatment retention and overall utility associated with effects on seizure rate and side-effects. There are insufficient data available to estimate accurately the nature of this trade off either in terms of long-term treatment retention or utility. Better information is required from RCTs before any rational evidence-based prescribing strategy could be developed. Ideally, RCTs should be conducted from a 'public health' perspective, making relevant comparisons and incorporating outcomes of interest to clinicians and patients, with sufficiently long-term follow-up to determine reliably the clinical utility of different treatments, particularly with respect to treatment retention and the balance between effectiveness and tolerability. RCTs should mirror clinical practice with respect to diagnosis, focusing on defined syndromes or, where no syndrome is identified, on groups defined by specific seizure type(s) and aetiology. Epilepsy in children is a complex disease, with a variety of distinct syndromes and many alternative treatment options and outcomes. Diagnosis-specific decision-analytic models are required; further research may be required to inform parameter values adequately with respect to epidemiology and clinical practice.

[Medical and medico-social case management of drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Specific implementation of long-term antiepileptic treatment in the adult]. / Prise en charge médicale et médico-sociale des EPPR. Conduite spécifique du traitement antiépileptique au long cours chez l'adulte.

Medical treatment of refractory localisation-related epilepsies in adults should always be considered with regard to surgical possibilities. When long-term therapy with antiepileptic drugs is necessary, the treatment tries to achieve maximal efficacy with the lowest unavoidable toxicity. Until an evidence-based choice can be made, the management is currently based on empirical knowledge. In this article, the available literature on effectiveness and monitoring of long term antiepileptic therapy is reviewed.