Direct medical costs for patients seeking emergency care for losses of epilepsy control in a U.S. managed care setting.

The objective of this retrospective claims database study was to compare the costs of care from a U.S. payer perspective before and after epilepsy treatment in emergent care settings and, secondarily, to describe the frequency of toxic effects and physical injuries occurring on the date of the emergent care. Nine and four-tenths percent of patients receiving emergent care for epilepsy (114/1213) had an injury or adverse antiepileptic drug effect on the same date. The majority of incidents were superficial injuries and contusions (28%), fractures (21%), open wounds or injury to blood vessels (19%), intracranial injury (10%), and/or medication toxicity (10%). Both non-epilepsy-related (US$12,745.56) and epilepsy-related (US$2013.62) direct medical costs of care pre-index were significantly different from those post-index (US$15,274.95 and US$7087.53, respectively). The cost of care for possible reestablishment of epilepsy control and treatment of co-occurring injuries is significant when compared with that for the period prior to seizure.

Case-control analysis of ambulance, emergency room, or inpatient hospital events for epilepsy and antiepileptic drug formulation changes.

PURPOSE: Although antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) with multisource generic alternatives are becoming more prevalent, no case-control studies have been published examining multisource medication use and epilepsy-related outcomes. This study evaluated the association between inpatient/emergency epilepsy care and the occurrence of a recent switch in AED formulation. METHODS: A case-control analysis was conducted utilizing the Ingenix LabRx Database. Eligible patients were 12-64 years of age, received >or=145 days of AEDs in the preindex period, had continuous eligibility for 6 months preindex, and no prior inpatient/emergency care. Cases received care between 7/1/2006 and 12/31/2006 in an ambulance, emergency room, or inpatient hospital with a primary epilepsy diagnosis. Controls had a primary epilepsy diagnosis in a physician's office during the same period. The index date was the earliest occurrence of care in each respective setting. Cases and controls were matched 1:3 by epilepsy diagnosis and age. Odds of a switch between "A-rated" AEDs within 6 months prior to index were calculated. RESULTS: Cases (n = 416) had 81% greater odds of having had an A-rated AED formulation switch [odds ratio (OR) = 1.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.25 to 2.63] relative to controls (n = 1248). There were no significant differences between groups regarding demographics or diagnosis. Significant differences were found with regard to medical coverage type (case Medicaid = 4.6%, control Medicaid = 1.8%, p = 0.002). Post hoc analysis results excluding Medicaid recipients remained significant and concordant with the original analysis. DISCUSSION: This analysis found an association between patients receiving epilepsy care in an emergency or inpatient setting and the recent occurrence of AED formulation switching involving A-rated generics.

Risk of treatment-emergent diabetes mellitus in patients receiving antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus has been reported during antipsychotic treatment. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the potential risk of treatment-emergent diabetes mellitus among patients receiving antipsychotic medications. METHODS: The MEDLINE and Psychinfo databases were searched using the key words antipsychotic (including individual drug names), diabetes, risk, and incidence for all English-language articles published between 1966 and 2005. Risk calculations were performed using data obtained from pharmacoepidemiologic studies that met the following criteria: (1) cohort design, (2) determination of preexisting diabetes, (3) inclusion of antipsychotic monotherapy as an exposure variable, and (4) comparison with exposure to first-generation antipsychotics. Studies meeting these criteria were used to calculate incidence, attributable risk between agents, and number needed to harm. RESULTS: A total of 25 observational pharmacoepidemiologic studies were found comparing antipsychotics on the outcome of diabetes mellitus. Sufficient information was provided in 15 of the reports to be able to estimate attributable risk. Attributable risk for individual second-generation antipsychotics relative to first-generation antipsychotics ranged from 53 more to 46 fewer new cases of diabetes per 1000 patients. Little observable difference was noted between the individual second-generation antipsychotics versus first-generation antipsychotics on this outcome. However, few of the studies controlled for body weight, race or ethnicity, or the presence of diabetogenic medications. None adjusted for familial history of diabetes, levels of physical activity, or diet, as this information is not usually available in the databases used in pharmacoepidemiologic studies. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the published pharmacoepidemiologic reports reviewed, the avoidance of diabetes as an outcome cannot be predictably achieved with precision by choice of a second-versus a first-generation antipsychotic. Risk management for new-onset diabetes requires the assessment of established risk factors such as family history, advancing age, non-white ethnicity, diet, central obesity, and level of physical activity.