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.

Determination of the economically justifiable price of cenobamate in the treatment of focal-onset seizures in adult patients with drug-resistant epilepsy in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the economically justifiable price (EJP) of cenobamate to become a cost-effective alternative compared with third-generation anti-seizure medications in the treatment of focal-onset seizures (FOS) in adult patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in Spain. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis compared cenobamate with brivaracetam, perampanel, eslicarbazepine acetate, and lacosamide. Markov model simulation of treatment pathway over a 60-year time horizon is presented. We determined the effectiveness and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of health status and disutilities associated with treatment-related adverse events. Acquisition costs and use of medical resources were obtained from published literature and expert opinion. Base-case of cenobamate's EJP calculated applying a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €21,000/QALY. Analyses were performed at different thresholds, including dominant price scenario. Result robustness was assessed through sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Base-case shows that cenobamate's daily EJP of €7.30 is cost-effective for a threshold of €21,000/QALY. At a daily price of €5.45, cenobamate becomes dominant over all treatment alternatives producing cost-savings for the national health system (NHS). Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of base-case findings. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with cenobamate produces incremental clinical benefit over third-generation ASMs, and at the base-case, EJP could represent a cost-effective option for the adjunctive treatment of FOS in adult patients with DRE in Spain.

Identifying key unmet needs and value drivers in the treatment of focal-onset seizures (FOS) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in Spain through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is a serious neurological disease, ranking high in the top causes of disability. Approximately 40% of patients with epilepsy are pharmacoresistant after their seizures failed at least two antiseizure medications (ASMs). Adult patients experiencing focal-onset seizures (FOS) account for approximately 60% of all patients with epilepsy and they are more likely to become drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) than those with generalized onset. Drug-resistant epilepsy is associated with mortality, morbidity, and reduced quality of life. The information available on the clinical management, health outcomes, and unmet needs of the disease within the Spanish healthcare environment is very limited. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) allows determination of what represents value in a given indication considering all relevant criteria for healthcare decision-making in a transparent and systematic manner and from the perspective of relevant stakeholders. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify the burden of DRE (clinical, quality of life, and economic) and the unmet needs in Spain and to determine what represents value in the treatment of FOS in DRE patients from the perspective of Spanish epileptologists. METHODS: The steps taken to carry out the MCDA were based on previously published good methodological practices. A systematic literature review (combining biomedical databases and gray literature sources) was performed between March and April 2020. Results were reviewed and validated with three epileptologists in June 2020 and used to develop a MCDA value framework, adapted for FOS in DRE, composed of 12 quantitative criteria and 3 contextual criteria. A group of six Spanish epileptologists from four Spanish regions were trained in MCDA methodology before individually validating value criteria (and their definitions based on literature review findings) and assigned relative weights using an ordinal 6-points scale. Results were analyzed and discussed in a group meeting through reflective MCDA discussion methodology. RESULTS: Drug-resistant epilepsy is considered a very severe health problem with important unmet needs affecting a considerably sized population. While safety and impact on quality of life of available ASMs are considered adequate, efficacy remains insufficient for patients to achieve seizure freedom and maintain it over time. Hence, the therapeutic benefit of pharmacological treatments currently used is regarded as suboptimal. Drug-resistant epilepsy management is associated with moderate pharmacological, relevant direct medical and high indirect costs. Quality of evidence available for current treatments is moderate. It is considered that DRE does not currently stand as a key priority for the Spanish healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: Drug-resistant epilepsy is considered a very severe health problem associated with relevant unmet needs. These include the lack of availability of specific treatment protocols, the need to improve early diagnosis by increasing the number of referrals to specialized epilepsy units and the availability of specific ASMs with improved efficacy and safety profiles, allowing to reach treatment objectives. Reflective MCDA provided a standardized, transparent approach to evaluate multiple criteria ascertaining what represents value from a holistic point of view and from the perspective of clinical experts, facilitating decision-making.