RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Anticonvulsivantes/economia , Anticonvulsivantes/uso terapêutico , Epilepsia Generalizada/tratamento farmacológico , Epilepsia Generalizada/economia , Epilepsia Tônico-Clônica/tratamento farmacológico , Epilepsia Tônico-Clônica/economia , Piridonas/economia , Piridonas/uso terapêutico , Convulsões/tratamento farmacológico , Convulsões/economia , Anticonvulsivantes/efeitos adversos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Epilepsia Generalizada/mortalidade , Epilepsia Tônico-Clônica/mortalidade , Humanos , Cadeias de Markov , Modelos Econômicos , Programas Nacionais de Saúde , Nitrilas , Piridonas/efeitos adversos , Qualidade de Vida , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Espanha/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder, with over 80 % of cases found in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Studies from high-income countries find a significant economic burden associated with epilepsy, yet few studies from LMICs, where out-of-pocket costs for general healthcare can be substantial, have assessed out-of-pocket costs and health care utilization for outpatient epilepsy care. METHODS: Within an established health and socio-demographic surveillance system in rural South Africa, a questionnaire to assess self-reported health care utilization and time spent traveling to and waiting to be seen at health facilities was administered to 250 individuals, previously diagnosed with active convulsive epilepsy. Epilepsy patients' out-of-pocket, medical and non-medical costs and frequency of outpatient care visits during the previous 12-months were determined. RESULTS: Within the last year, 132 (53 %) individuals reported consulting at a clinic, 162 (65 %) at a hospital and 34 (14 %) with traditional healers for epilepsy care. Sixty-seven percent of individuals reported previously consulting with both biomedical caregivers and traditional healers. Direct outpatient, median costs per visit varied significantly (p < 0.001) between hospital (2010 International dollar ($) 9.08; IQR: $6.41-$12.83) and clinic consultations ($1.74; IQR: $0-$5.58). Traditional healer fees per visit were found to cost $52.36 (IQR: $34.90-$87.26) per visit. Average annual outpatient, clinic and hospital out-of-pocket costs totaled $58.41. Traveling to and from and waiting to be seen by the caregiver at the hospital took significantly longer than at the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Rural South Africans with epilepsy consult with both biomedical caregivers and traditional healers for both epilepsy and non-epilepsy care. Traditional healers were the most expensive mode of care, though utilized less often. While higher out-of-pocket costs were incurred at hospital visits, more people with ACE visited hospitals than clinics for epilepsy care. Promoting increased use and effective care at clinics and reducing travel and waiting times could substantially reduce the out-of-pocket costs of outpatient epilepsy care.
Assuntos
Assistência Ambulatorial/economia , Epilepsia Generalizada/economia , Gastos em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Cuidadores , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Estudos Transversais , Atenção à Saúde/economia , Demografia , Epilepsia Generalizada/terapia , Honorários e Preços , Feminino , Humanos , Renda , Lactente , Recém-Nascido , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pacientes Ambulatoriais , Saúde da População Rural/economia , África do Sul , Inquéritos e Questionários , Viagem/economia , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common health problem which carries a huge medical social psychological and economic impact for a developing country. The aim of this hospital-based study was to get an insight into the effectiveness and tolerability of low cost antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in Bangladeshi people with epilepsy. METHODS: This retrospective chart review was done from hospital records in weekly Epilepsy outdoor clinic of Department of Neurology, Dhaka Medical College Hospital (DMCH) from October 1998 to February 2013. A total of 854 epilepsy patients met the eligibility criteria (had a complete record of two years of follow up data) from hospital database. A checklist was used to take demographics (age and gender), epilepsy treatment and adverse event related data. At least two years of follow up data were considered for analysis. RESULTS: Out of 854 patients selected, majority of the patients attending outdoor clinic were >11-30 years age group (55.2%) with a mean age of 20.3 ± 9 years and with a male (53%) predominance. Focal epilepsy were more common (53%), among whom secondary generalized epilepsy was the most frequent diagnosis (67%) followed by complex partial seizure (21%). Among those with Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy (46%), generalized tonic clonic seizure was encountered in 74% and absence seizure was observed in 13%. The number of patients on monotherapy and dual AED therapy were 67% and 24% respectively and polytherapy (i.e. >3 AEDs) was used only in 9%. CBZ (67%) was the most frequently prescribed AED, followed by VPA (43%), PHB (17%), and PHT (8%). CBZ was prescribed in 37% patients as monotherapy followed by VPA in 21% and PHB in 8% patients. Newer generation drugs eg lemotrigine and topiramate were used only as add on therapy in combination with CBZ and VPA in only 2% patients. The treatment retention rates over the follow up period for the AEDs in monotherapy varied between 86 and 91% and were highest for CBZ, followed by VPA. Most of the combination regimens had a treatment retention rate of 100%. The effectiveness of AED in terms of reduction of seizure frequency was highest for PHT (100%) and PHB (98%) followed by CBZ (96%) and VPA (95%). PHB and PHT were the cheapest of all AEDs (42 I$ and 56 I$/ year respectively). The costs of VPA and CBZ were two times and LTG and TOP were six to eight times higher. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) were observed among 140 (24.5%) of those with monotherapy. PHT (64%) was the most common drug to cause ADR, CBZ was at the bottom of the list to cause adverse effect (11.6%). VPA and PHB caused weight gain commonly. Adjustment of drug dose or withdrawal due to ADRs was necessary in 39% with PHT and 26% with PHB. CONCLUSION: Though PHT and PHB are cheapest and efficacious among all, CBZ and VPA are less costly, effective and well tolerated drug for seizure control in context of Bangladesh.
Assuntos
Anticonvulsivantes/uso terapêutico , Epilepsias Parciais/tratamento farmacológico , Epilepsia Generalizada/tratamento farmacológico , Convulsões/tratamento farmacológico , Adolescente , Adulto , Anticonvulsivantes/economia , Bangladesh , Carbamazepina/economia , Carbamazepina/uso terapêutico , Criança , Combinação de Medicamentos , Epilepsias Parciais/economia , Epilepsias Parciais/fisiopatologia , Epilepsia Generalizada/economia , Epilepsia Generalizada/fisiopatologia , Feminino , Seguimentos , Frutose/análogos & derivados , Frutose/economia , Frutose/uso terapêutico , Hospitais de Ensino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fenobarbital/economia , Fenobarbital/uso terapêutico , Fenitoína/economia , Fenitoína/uso terapêutico , Proibitinas , Estudos Retrospectivos , Convulsões/economia , Convulsões/fisiopatologia , Topiramato , Resultado do Tratamento , Ácido Valproico/economia , Ácido Valproico/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the International League Against Epilepsy recommend long term EEG monitoring (LTM) in patients for whom seizure or syndrome type is unclear, and in patients for whom it is proving difficult to differentiate between epilepsy and non-epileptic attack disorder (NEAD). The purpose of this study was to evaluate this recommended use of LTM in the setting of an epilepsy tertiary referral unit. METHODS: This study reviewed the case notes of all admissions to the Sir William Gowers Unit at the National Society for Epilepsy in the years 2004 and 2005. A record was made of the type, duration and result of all LTM performed both prior to and during the admission. Pre- and post-admission diagnoses were compared, and patients were divided according to whether LTM had resulted in a change in diagnosis, refinement in diagnosis or no change in diagnosis. The distinction between change and a refinement in the diagnosis was made on the basis of whether or not this alteration resulted in a change in management. RESULTS: 612 patients were admitted during 2004 and 2005, 230 of whom were referred for diagnostic clarification. Of these, LTM was primarily responsible for a change in diagnosis in 133 (58%) and a refinement of diagnosis in 29 (13%). In 65 (29%) patients the diagnosis remained the same after LTM. In those patients in whom there was a change in diagnosis, the most common change was in distinguishing epilepsy from NEAD in 73 (55%) and in distinguishing between focal and generalised epilepsy in 47 (35%). LTM was particularly helpful in differentiating frontal lobe seizures from generalised seizures and non-epileptic attacks. Inpatient ambulatory EEG proved as effective as video telemetry in helping to distinguish between NEAD, focal and generalised epilepsy. DISCUSSION: The study revealed that LTM led to an alteration in the diagnosis of 71% of patients referred to a tertiary centre for diagnostic clarification of possible epilepsy. Although LTM is relatively expensive, time consuming and of limited availability, this needs to be balanced against the considerable financial and social cost of misdiagnosed and uncontrolled seizures. This service evaluation supports the use of performing LTM (either video or ambulatory) in a specialist setting in patients who present diagnostic difficulty.
Assuntos
Eletroencefalografia , Epilepsias Parciais/diagnóstico , Epilepsia do Lobo Frontal/diagnóstico , Epilepsia Generalizada/diagnóstico , Telemetria , Gravação em Vídeo , Anticonvulsivantes/economia , Anticonvulsivantes/uso terapêutico , Estudos de Coortes , Custos e Análise de Custo , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Eletroencefalografia/economia , Epilepsias Parciais/tratamento farmacológico , Epilepsias Parciais/economia , Epilepsia do Lobo Frontal/tratamento farmacológico , Epilepsia do Lobo Frontal/economia , Epilepsia Generalizada/tratamento farmacológico , Epilepsia Generalizada/economia , Epilepsia do Lobo Temporal/diagnóstico , Epilepsia do Lobo Temporal/tratamento farmacológico , Epilepsia do Lobo Temporal/economia , Hospitais Universitários/economia , Humanos , Londres , Assistência de Longa Duração/economia , Auditoria Médica , Monitorização Ambulatorial/economia , Admissão do Paciente/economia , Encaminhamento e Consulta/economia , Telemetria/economia , Gravação em Vídeo/economiaRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Ambulâncias , Anticonvulsivantes/uso terapêutico , Medicamentos Genéricos/uso terapêutico , Serviços Médicos de Emergência , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Epilepsias Parciais/tratamento farmacológico , Epilepsia Generalizada/tratamento farmacológico , Isoxazóis/uso terapêutico , Admissão do Paciente , Adulto , Anticonvulsivantes/efeitos adversos , Anticonvulsivantes/economia , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Redução de Custos , Custos de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Medicamentos Genéricos/efeitos adversos , Medicamentos Genéricos/economia , Epilepsias Parciais/diagnóstico , Epilepsias Parciais/economia , Epilepsia Generalizada/diagnóstico , Epilepsia Generalizada/economia , Feminino , Humanos , Isoxazóis/efeitos adversos , Isoxazóis/economia , Masculino , Medicaid/economia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Razão de Chances , Estudos Retrospectivos , Equivalência Terapêutica , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos , Adulto Jovem , ZonisamidaRESUMO
New anti-epileptic drugs differ from existing standard therapies not in their clinical efficacy, but in their side-effects profiles. To determine the relative economic value of these agents, one must compare drug costs, costs of resources employed in the management of adverse events, and costs associated with therapeutic switching. In this economic analysis, carbamazepine (CBZ) and lamotrigine (LTG) are evaluated in monotherapy treatment of partial and/or general tonic-clonic seizures in the UK. Adverse event and tolerability data are obtained from a published randomized controlled trial of CBZ vs. LTG. A Delphi panel of clinicians advised treatment patterns for adverse events. Cost data are obtained from public sources. Results show that CBZ therapy costs about one-third of LTG therapy (pound sterling 179 for CBZ vs. pound sterling 522 for LTG) even after the costs associated with the management of adverse events and therapeutic switching are considered.