Healthcare resource utilization and costs before and after lacosamide initiation as adjunctive therapy among patients with epilepsy in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate all-cause and epilepsy-specific healthcare resource utilization and costs following lacosamide (LCM) initiation as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of epilepsy. METHODS: A noninterventional retrospective database analysis was conducted that examined patients diagnosed as having epilepsy who added LCM to existing antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy between 2009 and 2016 (the first LCM prescription was the index event). This study used a single-case design whereby patients served as their own controls. Patients were further required to have a minimum of 12 months of continuous eligibility before (preindex period) and after (postindex period) their index event. In the 12-month postindex period, the only allowed AED regimen change was the addition of LCM. Demographic and clinical characteristics were measured at index and during the preindex period, respectively. All-cause and epilepsy-specific healthcare resource utilization and costs were measured and compared in the pre- and postindex periods. Paired t- and McNemar's tests were conducted to assess the significant differences between pre- and postindex. Univariate analyses were used to analyze the impact of LCM on specific subpopulations. RESULTS: The study sample comprised of 2171 patients: mean (standard deviation [SD]) age: 38.9 (19.3) years; 52.6% female. Just over half (56%) of these patients were on monotherapy before adding LCM. Prior to adding LCM, 28.8% of patients had an epilepsy-specific inpatient (IP) admission, and 35.7% of patients had an all-cause IP admission, compared with 18.2% and 26.1% of patients in the post-LCM period, respectively (both p < 0.0001). Likewise, 35.6% of patients had an epilepsy-specific emergency room (ER) visit, and 50.0% had an all-cause ER visit prior to adding LCM, compared with 23.8% and 42.1% in post-LCM, respectively (both p < 0.0001). After adding LCM, one-year mean [SD] epilepsy-specific IP admission costs decreased by 42.9% ($13,647 [$52,290] to $7788 [$32,321]), and all-cause IP admission costs decreased by 38.6% ($20,654 [$72,716] to $12,688 [$46,120]) (both p < 0.0001). One-year epilepsy-specific mean [SD] ER costs decreased by 35.2% ($691 [$1756] to $448 [$1909]; p < 0.0001), and all-cause ER cost decreased by 17.8% ($1217 [$3014] to $1000 [$2970]; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Epilepsy-related IP hospitalizations and ER visits (indicators of seizures) were significantly reduced in patients with epilepsy 12 months after adding LCM as an adjunctive therapy to existing AED treatment in a real-world setting, leading to reduced healthcare resource utilization and epilepsy costs.

Lacosamide as a first-line treatment option in focal epilepsy: a cost-utility analysis for the Greek healthcare system.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Epilepsy is the most common serious neurological disorder worldwide. Approximately 40% of patients with focal epileptic seizures remain uncontrolled with antiepileptic drug (AED) monotherapy or polytherapy. Lacosamide has been recently approved by the European Medicines Agency as monotherapy for the treatment of focal seizures. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lacosamide compared with zonisamide as first-line treatment of focal epilepsy in patients with epilepsy aged ≥ 16 years to inform clinical decision-making in Greece. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was adapted to reflect treatment pathways and resource use within the Greek national healthcare system, as specified by clinical experts. The model captures time-varying events and patient characteristics. Clinical inputs were sourced from pivotal trials and a network meta-analysis comparing lacosamide with other AEDs. The model predicts disease progression and seizures, relevant and most common adverse events, withdrawal due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, and epilepsy-specific and all-cause mortality over a 2-year time horizon. Unit costs were retrieved from published Greek sources. Health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); secondary outcome was the cost per seizure avoided. Robustness of the results was tested with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The lacosamide treatment pathway was associated with higher costs (i.e. €1,064) and an additional 0.119 QALYs when compared with zonisamide, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €8,938 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results are most sensitive to the efficacy and utility estimates. LIMITATIONS: There are a number of limitations which stem from the process of model adaptation and lack of local real-world evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Lacosamide is a cost-effective option at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY, representing a valuable monotherapy treatment option for patients with focal epileptic seizures in the Greek setting.

Meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness of second-line antiepileptic drugs for status epilepticus.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the cost and effectiveness of nonbenzodiazepine antiepileptic drugs (non-BZD AEDs) for treatment of BZD-resistant convulsive status epilepticus (SE). METHODS: Decision analysis model populated with effectiveness data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, and cost data from publicly available prices. The primary outcome was cost per seizure stopped ($/SS). Sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the results across a wide variation of the input parameters. RESULTS: We included 24 studies with 1,185 SE episodes. The most effective non-BZD AED was phenobarbital (PB) with a probability of SS of 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.88), followed by valproate (VPA) (0.71 [95% CI: 0.61-0.79]), lacosamide (0.66 [95% CI: 0.51-0.79]), levetiracetam (LEV) (0.62 [95% CI: 0.5-0.73]), and phenytoin/fosphenytoin (PHT) (0.53 [95% CI: 0.39-0.67]). In pairwise comparisons, PB was more effective than PHT (p = 0.002), VPA was more effective than PHT (p = 0.043), and PB was more effective than LEV (p = 0.018). The most cost-effective non-BZD AED was LEV (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: $18.55/SS), followed by VPA (ICER: $94.44/SS), and lastly PB (ICER: $847.22/SS). PHT and lacosamide were not cost-effective compared to the other options. Sensitivity analyses showed marked overlap in cost-effectiveness, but PHT was consistently less cost-effective than LEV, VPA, and PB. CONCLUSION: VPA and PB were more effective than PHT for SE. There is substantial overlap in the cost-effectiveness of non-BZD AEDs for SE, but available evidence does not support the preeminence of PHT, neither in terms of effectiveness nor in terms of cost-effectiveness.