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

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

The epidemiology of drug-resistant epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The definition of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) affects case identification and treatment, and impacts prevalence or incidence estimates and health burden estimation in epidemiology. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the consistency between definitions of DRE in the literature and the official definition in the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) guidelines, and to estimate the incidence, prevalence, and risk factors for DRE. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for observational studies of DRE published between January 1980 and July 2015. The definitions of DRE in these studies were compared with the definition in the ILAE guidelines. Random-effect model meta-analyses were used to generate pooled estimates of prevalence or incidence and pooled odds ratios of the association with risk factors. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies met inclusion criteria, including 13 080 epilepsy patients and 3941 patients with DRE. The definition of DRE varied widely across studies, with only 12% meeting the requirements of the ILAE definition. The pooled prevalence proportion of DRE among epilepsy patients was 0.30 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.42), and the pooled incidence proportion was 0.15 (95% CI 0.11-0.19). Age at onset, symptomatic epilepsy, abnormal neuroimaging findings, abnormal electroencephalography results, history of mental retardation, neuropsychiatric disorders, febrile seizure, and status epilepticus increased risk for DRE. SIGNIFICANCE: There are limited high-quality data available on DRE. Lack of consistency in definitions limits the ability to obtain robust estimates on the burden of DRE. More data based on the ILAE definition from well-designed epidemiologic studies are needed to generate accurate and reliable results.

Health care cost associated with the use of enzyme-inducing and non-enzyme-active antiepileptic drugs in the UK: a long-term retrospective matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Some antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) induce expression of hepatic enzymes. This can contribute to comorbidities via interference with metabolic pathways and concomitant drug metabolization, thereby increasing the likelihood of health care interventions. Using medical records, we compared the direct health care cost in patients initiating epilepsy therapy with enzyme-inducing AEDs (EIAEDs) vs non-enzyme-active AEDs (nEAAEDs) over up to 12 years. METHODS: Patients with untreated epilepsy were indexed in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics database when prescribed a new EIAED or nEAAED between January 2001 and December 2010. Propensity score matching reduced confounding factors between cohorts. Patients were followed until cohort treatment failure or data cut-off. The primary outcome was the median standardized monthly direct health care cost during follow-up in 2014 £GBP, calculated using published reference costs and compared using a Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: The unmatched EIAED cohort (n = 2752) was older (54 vs 46 years), more likely to be male, had more comorbidities, and higher health care resource use/cost during the 1-year pre-index period (median £3014 vs £2516) than the nEAAED cohort (n = 2,137). The most common index EIAED and nEAAED were carbamazepine (63.3%) and lamotrigine (58.0%), respectively. After matching, cohorts had similar features (n = 951 each). Over up to 12 years of follow-up, the median standardized monthly direct health care cost was £229 for the EIAED and £188 for the nEAAED cohorts (p = 0.0091). The median cost was higher for the EIAED cohort in every year of follow-up. In the two cohorts, 25.1% and 20.1% of total mean cost during follow-up was epilepsy-related, with approximately 4.6% and 3.0% for AED acquisition, respectively. The median time to cohort treatment failure was shorter in the matched EIAED cohort (468 vs 1194 days). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the UK who initiated epilepsy therapy with an EIAED appeared to be at higher risk of complications associated with enzyme induction. In long-term matched cohort analyses, the median total direct health care cost associated with EIAED therapy was higher than with nEAAEDs. Changing current treatment practices could potentially improve patient outcomes and reduce costs.

Comparative effectiveness of levetiracetam, valproate and carbamazepine among elderly patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy: subgroup analysis of the randomized, unblinded KOMET study.

BACKGROUND: Few clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) as initial monotherapy for elderly patients. METHODS: This post-hoc subgroup analysis of data from an unblinded, randomized, 52-week superiority study (KOMET) compared the effectiveness of levetiracetam (LEV) with extended-release sodium valproate (VPA-ER) and controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) as monotherapy in patients aged ≥ 60 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy. The physician chose VPA or CBZ as preferred standard treatment; patients were randomized to standard AEDs or LEV. The primary endpoint was time to treatment withdrawal. Results are exploratory, since KOMET was not powered for a subgroup analysis by age. RESULTS: Patients (n = 308) were randomized to LEV (n = 48) or VPA-ER (n = 53) in the VPE-ER stratum or to LEV (n = 104) or CBZ-CR (n = 103) in the CBZ-CR stratum. Mean age was 69.6 years, range 60.2-89.9 years (intention-to-treat population n = 307). Time to treatment withdrawal hazard ratio [HR] (95 % confidence interval [CI]) for LEV vs. standard AEDs was 0.44 (0.28-0.67); LEV vs. VPA-ER: 0.46 (0.16-1.33); LEV vs. CBZ-CR: 0.45 (0.28-0.72). Twelve-month withdrawal rates were: LEV vs. standard AEDs, 20.4 vs. 38.7 %; LEV vs. VPA-ER, 10.4 vs. 23.1 %; LEV vs. CBZ-CR, 25.0 vs. 46.6 %. Time to first seizure was similar between LEV and standard AEDs (HR: 0.92, 95 % CI: 0.63-1.35), LEV and VPA-ER (0.77, 0.38-1.56), and LEV and CBZ-CR (1.02, 0.64-1.63). Adverse events were reported by 76.2, 67.3, and 82.5 % of patients for LEV, VPA-ER, and CBZ-CR, respectively. Discontinuation rates due to AEs were 11.3, 10.2, and 35.0 % for LEV, VPA-ER, and CBZ-CR, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Time to treatment withdrawal was longer with LEV compared with standard AEDs. This finding was driven primarly by the result in the CBZ-CR stratum, which in turn was likely due to the more favorable tolerability profile of LEV. Results of this post-hoc analysis suggest that LEV may be a suitable option for initial monotherapy for patients aged ≥ 60 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00175903 ; September 9, 2005.

A noninterventional study evaluating the effectiveness and safety of lacosamide added to monotherapy in patients with epilepsy with partial-onset seizures in daily clinical practice: The VITOBA study.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence for the efficacy and safety of adjunctive lacosamide in the treatment of partial-onset seizures (POS) was gained during placebo-controlled clinical trials in patients with treatment-resistant seizures who were taking one to three concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). The VITOBA study (NCT01098162) evaluated the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide added to one baseline AED in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a 6-month observational study at 112 sites across Germany. Adult patients (≥ 16 years) with POS received lacosamide adjunctive to only one baseline AED. Seizure frequency reduction at the end of the observation period was compared with a 3-month retrospective baseline period. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-one patients received lacosamide at least once (Safety Set [SS]); 520 provided evaluable seizure records (Full Analysis Set [FAS]); and 499 took in-label dosages of lacosamide (up to 400 mg) and were evaluated for effectiveness (modified FAS). Median baseline seizure frequency was 2.0 per 28 days: 47.1% of patients (235/499, mFAS) took a concomitant sodium channel-blocking (SCB) AED; 38.1% (190/499) had only one lifetime AED; and 18.4% (92/499) were aged ≥ 65 years (mFAS). At the final visit, 72.5% (358/494) of patients showed a ≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline, 63.8% (315/494) showed a ≥ 75% reduction, and 45.5% (225/494) were seizure-free. Seizure freedom rates were higher in patients aged ≥ 65 years (56.7%) compared with patients aged <65 years (43.1%), in patients with ≤ 5 years epilepsy duration (52.5%) versus >5 years duration (41.0%), and when added to first monotherapy (60.5%) rather than as a later therapy option. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 48.5% (277/571) of patients (SS), with a profile similar to that observed in pivotal trials; 466 of patients (81.6%, SS) continued lacosamide therapy after the trial. SIGNIFICANCE: These results suggest that lacosamide use, added to one concomitant AED, was effective at improving seizure control and was well tolerated in patients treated in routine clinical practice.