Economic Value of Adjunctive Brivaracetam Treatment Strategy for Focal Onset Seizures in Finland

Impact of Third-Generation Antiseizure Medications on People with Epilepsy in a Low-Income Population: The Brivaracetam Experience in a Real-World Study

BACKGROUND

Third-generation antiseizure medications, such as brivaracetam, are recognized for their superior safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic profiles. However, their potential benefits are often limited in low-income populations because of challenges related to availability and affordability.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of brivaracetam for treating epilepsy in a low-income population, within a real-world setting.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included individuals with epilepsy from a low-income population in Bogotá, Colombia, who were treated with brivaracetam between January 2020 and July 2023. Effectiveness (mean seizure reduction and ≥ 50% seizure reduction) and safety (retention rate and adverse events) were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 106 individuals were included, with a median age of 33 years (interquartile range: 24-44). Most had focal epilepsy with a median disease duration of 25.4 years (standard deviation: 13.6). The baseline seizure frequency was 4 seizures per month (interquartile range: 2-15) and individuals had previously received a mean of 4.4 (standard deviation: 1.8) antiseizure medications. The mean percentage seizure reduction at 3, 6, and 12 months was 55.3%, 66.9%, and 63.8%, respectively. Additionally, 60%, 63.8%, and 65.9% of individuals achieved a ≥ 50% seizure reduction at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Retention rate at 3 months was 89% (n = 95) and 18.7% (n = 20) reported adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, brivaracetam has been shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of epilepsy in individuals from a low-income population. This study suggests that people with epilepsy living in this context can significantly benefit from the use of third-generation antiseizure medications.

Cost-Utility Analysis of the Integrated Care Models for the Management of Hypertension Patients: A Quasi-Experiment in Southwest Rural China

Background: Hypertension has become the second-leading risk factor for death worldwide. However, the fragmented three-level “county–township–village” medical and healthcare system in rural China cannot provide continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive health care for patients with hypertension, as a result of which rural China has a low rate of hypertension control. This study aimed to explore the costs and benefits of an integrated care model using three intervention modes—multidisciplinary teams (MDT), multi-institutional pathway (MIP), and system global budget and performance-based payments (SGB-P4P)—for hypertension management in rural China.

Methods: A Markov model with 1-year per cycle was adopted to simulate the lifetime medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients. The interventions included Option 1 (MDT + MIP), Option 2 (MDT + MIP + SGB–P4P), and the Usual practice (usual care). We used the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), net monetary benefit (NMB), and net health benefit (NHB) to make economic decisions and a 5% discount rate. One-way and probability sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness. Data on the blood pressure control rate, transition probability, utility, annual treatment costs, and project costs were from the community intervention trial (CMB-OC) project.

Results: Compared with the Usual practice, Option 1 yielded an additional 0.068 QALYs and an additional cost of $229.99, resulting in an ICER of $3,373.75/QALY, the NMB was –$120.97, and the NHB was −0.076 QALYs. Compared with the Usual practice, Option 2 yielded an additional 0.545 QALYs, and the cost decreased by $2,007.31, yielding an ICER of –$3,680.72/QALY. The NMB was $2,879.42, and the NHB was 1.801 QALYs. Compared with Option 1, Option 2 yielded an additional 0.477 QALYs, and the cost decreased by $2,237.30, so the ICER was –$4,688.50/QALY, the NMB was $3,000.40, and the NHB was 1.876 QALYs. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the most sensitive factors in the model were treatment cost of ESRD, human cost, and discount rate. The probability sensitivity analysis showed that when willingness to pay was $1,599.16/QALY, the cost-effectiveness probability of Option 1, Option 2, and the Usual practice was 0.008, 0.813, and 0.179, respectively.

Conclusions: The integrated care model with performance-based prepaid payments was the most beneficial intervention, whereas the general integrated care model (MDT + MIP) was not cost-effective. The integrated care model (MDT + MIP + SGB-P4P) was suggested for use in the community management of hypertension in rural China as a continuous, patient-centered care system to improve the efficiency of hypertension management.

Discrete-Event Simulation Modeling in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review

Discrete-event simulation (DES) is a stochastic modeling approach widely used to address dynamic and complex systems, such as healthcare. In this review, academic databases were systematically searched to identify 231 papers focused on DES modeling in healthcare. These studies were sorted by year, approach, healthcare setting, outcome, provenance, and software use. Among the surveys, conceptual/theoretical studies, reviews, and case studies, it was found that almost two-thirds of the theoretical articles discuss models that include DES along with other analytical techniques, such as optimization and lean/six sigma, and one-third of the applications were carried out in more than one healthcare setting, with emergency departments being the most popular. Moreover, half of the applications seek to improve time- and efficiency-related metrics, and one-third of all papers use hybrid models. Finally, the most popular DES software is Arena and Simul8. Overall, there is an increasing trend towards using DES in healthcare to address issues at an operational level, yet less than 10% of DES applications present actual implementations following the modeling stage. Thus, future research should focus on the implementation of the models to assess their impact on healthcare processes, patients, and, possibly, their clinical value. Other areas are DES studies that emphasize their methodological formulation, as well as the development of frameworks for hybrid models.

The Integrated Effects of Brivaracetam, a Selective Analog of Levetiracetam, on Ionic Currents and Neuronal Excitability

Brivaracetam (BRV) is recognized as a novel third-generation antiepileptic drug approved for the treatment of epilepsy. Emerging evidence has demonstrated that it has potentially better efficacy and tolerability than its analog, Levetiracetam (LEV). This, however, cannot be explained by their common synaptic vesicle-binding mechanism. Whether BRV can affect different ionic currents and concert these effects to alter neuronal excitability remains unclear. With the aid of patch clamp technology, we found that BRV concentration dependently inhibited the depolarization-induced M-type K⁺ current (I_K(M)), decreased the delayed-rectifier K⁺ current (I_K(DR)), and decreased the hyperpolarization-activated cation current in GH3 neurons. However, it had a concentration-dependent inhibition on voltage-gated Na⁺ current (I_Na). Under an inside-out patch configuration, a bath application of BRV increased the open probability of large-conductance Ca²⁺-activated K⁺ channels. Furthermore, in mHippoE-14 hippocampal neurons, the whole-cell I_Na was effectively depressed by BRV. In simulated modeling of hippocampal neurons, BRV was observed to reduce the firing of the action potentials (APs) concurrently with decreases in the AP amplitude. In animal models, BRV ameliorated acute seizures in both OD-1 and lithium-pilocarpine epilepsy models. However, LEV had effects in the latter only. Collectively, our study demonstrated BRV’s multiple ionic mechanism in electrically excitable cells and a potential concerted effect on neuronal excitability and hyperexcitability disorders.

Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary and Peripheral Artery Disease Antithrombotic Treatments in Finland

Introduction

Currently, 15–20% of individuals with coronary artery disease (chronic coronary syndrome [CCS]) or peripheral artery disease (PAD) receiving routine treatment experience cardiovascular events (CVEs) within 3–4 years. Using PICOSTEPS (Patients-Intervention-Comparators-Outcomes-Setting-Time-Effects-Perspective-Sensitivity analysis) reporting, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of recently approved rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily in combination with acetylsalicylic acid 100 mg daily (RIV + ASA) for the prevention of CVEs among Finns with CCS or symptomatic PAD.

Methods

Myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, acute limb ischemia, amputations, major extracranial bleeding, venous thromboembolism, and cardiovascular deaths were modeled in a Markov model examining a cohort of patients with CCS or symptomatic PAD. Relative effects of the intervention (RIV + ASA) and comparator (ASA) were based on the COMPASS trial. The primary outcome was 3%/year discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as cost (2019 euros) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in the Finnish setting over a lifetime horizon. In addition to nonfatal and fatal CVEs, the effects factored Finnish non-CVE mortality, quality of life, and direct costs from a public payer perspective. Disaggregated costs and QALYs, costs per life year gained (LYG), and ischemic strokes avoided, net monetary benefit (NMB), expected value of perfect information (EVPI), economic value-added (EVA), cost-effectiveness table, and acceptability frontier were examined. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results

In the deterministic comparison with ASA over a lifetime horizon, RIV + ASA resulted in a benefit of 0.404 QALYs and 0.474 LYGs for an additional cost of €3241, resulting in an ICER of €8031/QALY. The probabilistic ICER was €4313/QALY (EVPI €1829/patient). RIV + ASA had positive NMB (€8791/patient), low EVPI (€88/patient), high EVA (€8703/patient), and 91% probability of cost-effectiveness using the willingness-to-pay of €25,254/QALY. The primary result was conservative and robust for RIV + ASA.

Conclusion

RIV + ASA was a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with ASA in patients with CCS or symptomatic PAD in Finland.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01398-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Finland lacks published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of approved interventions for the prevention of cardiovascular events among individuals with chronic coronary syndrome (stable coronary artery disease) or symptomatic peripheral artery disease at risk of cardiovascular complications. Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus acetylsalicylic acid 100 mg once daily is indicated and reimbursed in Finland for the prevention of cardiovascular events for patients with stable coronary artery disease or symptomatic peripheral artery disease. We assessed the effectiveness and costs of treatment with rivaroxaban plus acetylsalicylic acid in comparison with treatment with acetylsalicylic acid. That is, we examined whether rivaroxaban is cost-effective when prescribed in combination with acetylsalicylic acid.

Cardiovascular events with their associated costs and impact on quality of life were modeled over the lifetime of patients. The main effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life years (modeled survival multiplied by the expected quality of life), and costs included those relevant to the Finnish public payer in 2019. Extensive sensitivity analyses were carried out to evaluate the impacts of different model inputs and rationale.

Rivaroxaban plus acetylsalicylic acid had high probability of being cost-effective, compared with acetylsalicylic acid. By valuing quality-of-life benefit with a plausible willingness-to-pay, net cost savings of €8791 per patient could be gained or economic value added by €8703 per patient if rivaroxaban was used.