The direct costs of epilepsy in Russia. A prospective cost-of-illness study from a single center in Moscow

Composition and influencing factors of hospitalization expenses for epilepsy patients based on path analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to understand the composition and influencing factors of epilepsy patients' hospitalization expenses, thus providing a reference for reducing the disease burden of epilepsy patients in low- and middle-income developing countries.

METHODS

A total of 4206 hospitalized cases of epilepsy from 2018 to 2020 were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to understand the patient cost composition, path analysis was used to understand the direct and indirect factors of hospitalization expenses.

RESULTS

From 2018 to 2020, the average hospitalization expenses for epilepsy patients was 4,299.93 RMB yuan, and the average length of stay was 2.47 days. The highest proportion of hospitalization expenses was diagnosis costs (> 50%), followed by comprehensive medical service costs and drug costs. In terms of the total effect coefficient, the major factors affecting the hospitalization expenses were length of stay (0.880), emergency admission(0.463), and the comorbidities and complications(> 0.250). Hospital length of stay, discharge mode(death) and number of hospitalizations(2 times) affect hospitalization expenses through direct effect. Long-term hospitalization (> 30 days), admission routes(emergency), the comorbidities and complications, presence of drug allergy, and age also affect hospitalization expenses through indirect effects.

CONCLUSION

Diagnosis costs and length of stay are important factors affecting the medical expenses of epilepsy inpatients. In general, the quality control of the hospital is good, but it still needs to standardize the diagnosis and treatment behavior of medical staff through the clinical path.

Clinical and economic implications of epilepsy management across treatment lines in Spain: a real-life database analysis

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a chronic brain disease characterized by recurrent seizures. We investigated real-world management of epilepsy across treatment lines in Spain, including healthcare resource use (HRU) and associated costs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of real-life data from epilepsy patients prescribed antiseizure medication (ASM) between January 2016 and December 2021. Patients were grouped according to their line of treatment (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th +) during the recruitment period. Demographic and clinical characteristics, comorbidities and concomitant medications were analyzed during the baseline period (6 months before starting treatment line); antiepileptic treatments, concomitant medications, HRU and associated costs were analyzed during follow-up.

RESULTS

The study included 5006 patients. Treatment duration decreased as treatment lines progressed (mean ± SD progression time: 523.2 ± 279.1 days from 1st to 2nd line, 351.6 ± 194.4 days from 2nd to 3rd line; 272.7 ± 139.3 days from 3rd to 4th + line). Significant HRU differences were found with subsequent treatment lines, including an increase in hospital admissions and patients on sick leave. Mean (95% CI) adjusted total costs per patient were €2974/year (2773-3175) in the 1st line and €5735/year (5043-6428) in the 4th + line. There was an increase in adjusted direct and total costs with subsequent treatment lines; the mean difference in total costs between cohorts was €2761 (p < 0.001). The highest direct costs were associated with epilepsy medication, days at the hospital and specialist visits.

CONCLUSION

Our data revealed a progressive increase in the use of resources and associated costs across subsequent epilepsy treatment lines.

Epilepsy-Related Direct Medical and Direct Non-Medical Cost in Adult Patients Living with Epilepsy at a Tertiary Neurology Center in Rwanda

Objective

Up to one in four patients living with epilepsy (PwE) mentions financial constraints as a reason for loss to follow-up at the Ndera tertiary neuropsychiatry hospital. Therefore, we evaluated the annual direct medical cost (DMC) and direct non-medical cost (DnMC) of epilepsy and calculated costs assuming different follow-up frequency.

Materials and Methods

DMC data were obtained from a descriptive retrospective study of medical records, pharmacy dispensation and hospital logs of PwE, following their initial consultation in 2018 and who adhered to the normal clinical practice of monthly consultations for one year. DnMC data were collected through structured interviews of PwE in a cross-sectional cohort in August 2020. DnMC included biomedical care costs (eg, transportation, hospitality) and non-biomedical costs (traditional healer visits). We report weighted means for total costs, health insurance costs, and out-of-pocket costs (OoP).

Results

Mean annual total cost was 389.4 US$, of which 226.2 US$ was covered by the Rwandan Health Insurance co-payment for DMC and 163.2 US$ was OoP paid by patients. Mean weighted annual DMC (n = 55) was 248.9 US$. Mean weighted annual DMC for medical consultations and antiseizure medication accounted for 30.7 US$ and 161.7 US$, respectively. Based on structured interviews (n = 69), mean weighted annual DnMC for biomedical care was 73.0 US$. Mean DnMC for traditional healer care was 67.6 US$. Weighted annual total OoP was 163.2 US$ or 20% of the GDP per capita. OoP consisted of 14% DMC co-payment, 45% biomedical DnMC, and 41% traditional healer DnMC.

Conclusion

Epilepsy-related costs at a tertiary center are an important economic burden for PwE and Rwandan Health Insurance. Biomedical and traditional healer DnMC constitute 86% of total OoP. Future prospective studies should evaluate outcomes and costs of reduced visit frequency, indirect costs, and costs of comorbidities.

Burden of illness in people with medically refractory epilepsy who suffer from daily to weekly seizures: 12-month follow-up of participants in the EPISODE study

BACKGROUND

A small group of people with epilepsy suffers from frequent seizures despite the available pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. The impact of epilepsy on these people extends beyond health-related quality of life (HRQoL), impacting a person's broader well-being and ability to participate in society. This study describes the burden of medically refractory epilepsy in people who suffer from daily to weekly seizures, in terms of HRQoL, well-being, and societal costs.

METHODS

Data from the EPISODE study on (cost-) effectiveness of seizure dogs for adults with severe medically refractory epilepsy were used, collected in 25 patients during the first 12 months before they were partnered with a certified seizure dog. Data comprised seizure diaries covering 365 days and five three-monthly surveys, including the EQ-5D-5L, QOLIE-31-P, and ICECAP-A to measure HRQoL and well-being. A societal perspective was applied to estimate costs using the iMCQ and iPCQ questionnaires about healthcare use, informal care, and productivity losses.

RESULTS

Daily seizure frequency and survey data were collected in 25 patients. A minimum of 114 observations was available for each instrument included in the survey. A total of 80% of participants experienced seizures on three or more days per week, with a median ranging from 1 to 17 seizures per seizure day. The mean EQ-5D-5L utility score was 0.682 (SD 0.235), which is considerably lower than the age-adjusted general population average. The mean QOLIE-31-P and ICECAP-A scores were 55.8 (SD 14.0) and 0.746 (SD 0.172), respectively. The average annual total cost amounted to €39,956 (range €3,804-€132,64). Informal care accounted for the largest share of costs (50%); those who received informal care reported, on average, 26 h per week (SD 30).

CONCLUSIONS

Severe medically refractory epilepsy is associated with a considerable burden of illness at the patient and societal level. People with this condition have significantly reduced HRQoL and well-being and are limited in their ability to work while having substantial medical costs and a strong dependency on informal care.

Not always that EASI: Validating the Russian version of the epilepsy anxiety survey instrument and its brief counterpart

OBJECTIVE

To develop a Russian version of The Epilepsy Anxiety Survey Instrument (EASI) and assess its psychometric properties in a Russian sample of patients with epilepsy (PWE). To compare the brief version of EASI with the General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) - the most common tool for a rapid anxiety screening.

METHODS

The study sample consisted of 181 consecutive Russian-speaking PWE. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview was used as a gold standard for diagnosing anxiety disorders. All patients completed the set of questionnaires - the Russian version of the GAD-7, The Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy (NDDI-E), and the EASI. Internal reliability of the EASI and brEASI, convergent and divergent validity of the brEASI with the GAD-7 and the NDDI-E, and factor structure assessment were performed.

RESULTS

Among 33.7% of patients with epilepsy diagnosed with any anxiety disorder, 16% had panic disorder, 10.5% had agoraphobia, 8.3% had social anxiety disorder, 21.0% had generalized anxiety disorder, and 13.3% had several comorbid anxiety disorders. The EASI factor structure differed from the original, revealing an additional factor with two items. Nevertheless, the brief version (brEASI) showed excellent screening properties - the AUC to detect any anxiety disorder was 0.916 with the optimal cutoff point > 7 points.

CONCLUSION

The brEASI performed better than the GAD-7 in our sample and, therefore, may be considered a first-line screening tool for anxiety disorders in PWE.

Cost-effectiveness of perampanel as an adjunctive treatment for uncontrolled focal seizures in pediatric patients: a Chinese perspective

Background

The incidence of epilepsy is 41-187 per 100,000 person-year in children. The health care costs for children with uncontrolled epilepsy is a huge burden. Perampanel (PER) was effective, safety and well-tolerated as add-on therapy in pediatric patients aged 4 to <12 years with uncontrolled focal seizures. However, there is still limited evidence on cost-effectiveness of PER in pediatric patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PER as an add-on therapy for pediatric patients with uncontrolled focal seizures.

Methods

A Markov model was established to conduct an analysis from the perspective of the Chinese health system and society. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of patients using PER and conventional therapy versus patients using conventional therapy alone were estimated and compared. The transition probability of the response level, health state utility values, and costs were derived from clinical trials and the literature. Costs, including medical, drug, transportation and indirect costs, were calculated. We performed 1-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. A subgroup analysis of different ages was also conducted.

Results

The base-case analysis indicated that compared to maintaining conventional therapy, adding PER as an adjuvant drug therapy had an increased cost of $3,449.85 over 5 years, with an incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALY) value of 0.40, resulting in an ICER of $8,582.58 per additional QALY. The health state utility value had the greatest effect on the ICER. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of PER being cost-effective was 76.72% at a willingness-to-pay of $11,293/QALY. The ICER of the subgroup ranged from $7,167.95/QALY to $19,710.96/QALY.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that PER is a cost-effective add-on therapy for pediatric patients.

Prospective multisite cohort study of patient-reported outcomes in adults with new-onset seizures

Objective

New‐onset seizures affect up to 10% of people over their lifetime, however, their health economic impact has not been well‐studied. This prospective multicenter study will collect patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) from adults with new‐onset seizures seen in six Seizure Clinics across Melbourne, Australia and The University of Colorado, USA.

Methods

Approximately 450 eligible patients will be enrolled in the study at or following their initial attendance to Seizure Clinics at the study hospitals. Inclusion criteria for the study group are those with new‐onset acute symptomatic seizures, new‐onset unprovoked seizures, and new‐onset epilepsy. Inclusion criteria for the three comparator groups are those with noncardiac syncope, those with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures, as well as published PROMs data from the Australian general population. Exclusion criteria are those aged less than 18 years, those with a preexisting epilepsy diagnosis, and those with intellectual disabilities or other impairments which would preclude them from comprehending and completing the questionnaires. Patients will complete eight online questionnaires regarding the effect that their seizures (or seizure mimics) have had on various aspects of their life. These questionnaires will be readministered at 6 and 12 months. Patients with new‐diagnosis epilepsy will also be asked to share the reasons why they have accepted or declined antiseizure medications.

Analysis

Primary outcome measures will be quality of life, work productivity, informal care needs, and mood, at baseline compared to 6 and 12 months later for those with new‐onset seizures and comparing these outcomes to those in the three comparator groups. Secondary outcomes include mapping of QoLIE‐31 to the EQ‐5D‐5L in epilepsy, modelling indirect costs of new‐onset seizures, and exploring why patients may or may not wish to take antiseizure medications.

Significance

These data will form an evidence‐base for future studies that examine the effectiveness of various healthcare interventions for new‐onset seizure patients.

Ethics and dissemination

This study is approved by the Alfred Health Human Research Ethics Committee (SERP: 52 538, Alfred HREC: 307/19), the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/59148/Austin‐2019), and the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB) (COMIRB #20‐3028).

ANZCTR trial registration number

ACTRN12621000908831.

The economic burden of newly diagnosed epilepsy in Spain

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the hospital burden and economic impact of epilepsy in adults in Spain and identify characteristics associated with higher direct medical costs.

METHOD

Patients newly diagnosed with epilepsy at the outpatient epilepsy unit of a tertiary hospital in Spain in 2012 were included. Sociodemographic and clinical data and use of health resources were collected retrospectively from electronic medical records from the time of diagnosis to the end of follow-up (2019). Direct costs (in 2012 Euro) were estimated and linear regression models built to explore predictors of higher costs.

RESULTS

We studied 110 patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Their mean (SD) age was 52.6 (19.6) years and 53.6% were men. Eighty-nine patients (80.9%) had focal epilepsy and 45 (40.9%) had an unknown etiology. At 6 months, 79.1% of patients were classified as responders and 17.6% as having drug-resistant epilepsy. The mean direct cost in the first year of epilepsy diagnosis was €3816.06, 49.7% of which was due to hospital admissions. The mean annual cost per patient was €2584.17, 51.4% of which was due to anti-seizure medications (ASMs). Focal epilepsy and poor response in the first 6 months of treatment predicted higher annual costs, while focal epilepsy and pre-existing comorbidities predicted higher costs in the first year.

CONCLUSIONS

The direct cost of newly diagnosed epilepsy in adults in our area is €2584 per patient/year. Anti-seizure medication use is the main cost driver. Focal epilepsy, comorbidities, and poor response to ASMs are independent predictors of higher costs.

Cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and impact of antiepileptic drugs on the risk of fracture in patients with epilepsy: A nationwide cohort study

PURPOSE

Although nonenzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (nEIAEDs) are accepted for the treatment of epilepsy, few studies have examined the costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of nEIAEDs in relation to the incidence of fracture among patients with epilepsy. In the present study, we performed cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses comparing the influence of enzyme-inducing AEDs (EIAEDs) and nEIAEDs on the risk of fracture in this population.

METHODS

A total of 4864 patients with epilepsy were classified into EIAED and nEIAED groups. Propensity score matching was applied to reduce the influence of selection bias. Clinical outcomes were measured in relation to AED fee, medical expenses associated with epilepsy and fracture, and the total number of fractures. Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses were performed for all patients.

RESULTS

Patients in the unmatched EIAED cohort (n = 3686) were older and had more comorbidities. After matching, the cohorts exhibited similar features (n = 2432 each). Fracture risk was lower in the nEIAED group than in the EIAED group (HR = 0.70). The additional medical expense of nEIAEDs in fractures and epilepsy for 2 years per person was 107,731 New Taiwan dollars (NT$). The additional cost for nEIAEDs to reduce one event of fracture was $14,789,421 NT$.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with epilepsy using nEIAEDs had a lower risk of fracture than those using EIAEDs. However, the cost-benefit ratio and cost-effectiveness of such treatment were lower in the nEIAED group than in the EIAED group.

The direct and indirect costs of epilepsy in Poland estimates for 2014-2016 years

BACKGROUND

According to the current data, around 1% of the Poland population have epilepsy, which comprises about 400,000 people. This group of patients requires life-long therapy including both drug therapy and hospitalization. The character of the epilepsy has a significant impact on the expenses borne by individual patients, and the prevalence of the disease has a significant impact on the health care system.

METHODS

This article aims to measure the direct and indirect costs of epilepsy in Poland estimates for the years 2014-2016 (top-down approach). We use a modified human capital approach and a unique dataset provided by the number of Polish institutions including National Health Fund, Social Insurance Institution, and Central Statistical Office.

RESULTS

Epilepsy burden in Poland is significant. In the years 2014-2016, the total direct cost of epilepsy amounted to, respectively, 355 mln PLN (84 mln EUR), 368 mln PLN (87 mln EUR), and 373 mln PLN (88 mln EUR), but the total indirect cost amounted to 1 bn PLN (239 mln EUR), 949 mln PLN (224 mln EUR), and 848 mln PLN (200 mln EUR).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct and indirect costs of epilepsy can be a useful input for health technology analyses of drugs or economic impact assessments of public health programs.