Clinical and economic implications of epilepsy management across treatment lines in Spain: a real-life database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a chronic brain disease characterized by recurrent seizures. We investigated real-world management of epilepsy across treatment lines in Spain, including healthcare resource use (HRU) and associated costs. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of real-life data from epilepsy patients prescribed antiseizure medication (ASM) between January 2016 and December 2021. Patients were grouped according to their line of treatment (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th +) during the recruitment period. Demographic and clinical characteristics, comorbidities and concomitant medications were analyzed during the baseline period (6 months before starting treatment line); antiepileptic treatments, concomitant medications, HRU and associated costs were analyzed during follow-up. RESULTS: The study included 5006 patients. Treatment duration decreased as treatment lines progressed (mean ± SD progression time: 523.2 ± 279.1 days from 1st to 2nd line, 351.6 ± 194.4 days from 2nd to 3rd line; 272.7 ± 139.3 days from 3rd to 4th + line). Significant HRU differences were found with subsequent treatment lines, including an increase in hospital admissions and patients on sick leave. Mean (95% CI) adjusted total costs per patient were €2974/year (2773-3175) in the 1st line and €5735/year (5043-6428) in the 4th + line. There was an increase in adjusted direct and total costs with subsequent treatment lines; the mean difference in total costs between cohorts was €2761 (p < 0.001). The highest direct costs were associated with epilepsy medication, days at the hospital and specialist visits. CONCLUSION: Our data revealed a progressive increase in the use of resources and associated costs across subsequent epilepsy treatment lines.

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.

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.