Health care resource utilization before and after perampanel initiation among patients with epilepsy in the United States

Airborne lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) risk in the U.S

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) risk is linked to environmental exposures. The National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database compiles mandatory reports of levels of airborne contaminants from a variety of stationary and mobile pollution sources across the U.S. The objective of this study was to identify airborne contaminants that may be associated with ALS etiology for future study. We geospatially estimated exposure to airborne contaminants as risk factors for ALS in a nationwide large de-identified medical claims database, the SYMPHONY Integrated Dataverse®. We extracted zip3 of residence at diagnosis of ~26,000 nationally distributed ALS patients and n = 3 non-ALS controls matched per case for age and sex. We individually aggregated the median levels of each of 268 airborne contaminants recorded in the NEI database for 2008 to estimate local residential exposure. We randomly broke the dataset into two independent groups to form independent discovery and validation cohorts. Contaminants associated with increased ALS risk in both the discovery and validation studies included airborne lead (false discovery rate (FDR) = 0.00077), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), such as heptachlorobiphenyl (FDR = 3.60E-05). Small aircraft were the largest source of airborne lead, while the PCB emissions came from certain power plants burning biomass, and from industrial boilers. Associations with residential history of lead exposure were confirmed in two additional cohorts (10 year top quartile in New Hampshire/Vermont OR 2.46 95% CI 1.46-2.80, and in Ohio OR 1.60 95% CI 1.28-1.98). The results of our geospatial analysis support neurotoxic airborne metals and PCBs as risk factors for ALS.

Update on Antiseizure Medications 2022

EDITORS NOTE

The article "Update on Antiseizure Medications 2022" by Dr Abou-Khalil was first published in the February 2016 Epilepsy issue of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology as "Antiepileptic Drugs," and at the request of the Editor-in-Chief was updated by Dr Abou-Khalil for the 2019 issue and again for this issue.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Adult Patients Diagnosed with Epilepsy Being Treated with Perampanel

Background

Epilepsy is a complex disorder that can affect patients’ medical, psychological, and social well-being. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), satisfaction, and adherence in adult patients diagnosed with epilepsy treated with perampanel in the United States (US).

Methods

A US-based, multicenter, observational cross-sectional survey was completed by 61 patients taking perampanel with or without other antiseizure medications (ASMs). Respondents were ≥18 years old, had a physician-confirmed diagnosis of epilepsy, used perampanel for ≥4 months, and provided informed consent. Patients responded to questions concerning their demographic characteristics, treatment history, experiences before perampanel, experiences while taking perampanel, HRQoL, treatment satisfaction, and medication adherence.

Results

Patients (N=61) were 42.8 years old on average; majority were female (63.9%) and white (75.4%). Mean time on perampanel was 2.5 years, with sodium channel blockers often (55.7%) used concomitantly with perampanel. Patients reported, on average, 5.5 (standard deviation [SD]=13.2) seizures/month after initiating perampanel, whereas these same patients reported experiencing 20.4 (SD=60.0) seizures/month prior to perampanel. When comparing their experience on perampanel with their experience with previous ASMs, more patients “strongly agreed” that perampanel allowed them to live a more normal life (36.1% vs 27.5%) and worked as intended if they missed taking a dose (16.4% vs 7.8%). Average satisfaction scores were high, with ratings of 71.8 for effectiveness, 84.0 for convenience, and 71.9 for global satisfaction (0–100 scores). Perampanel use was associated with improvements in HRQoL and fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety. The majority of patients were adherent (62.3%) to perampanel.

Discussion

Perampanel use was associated with reductions in number of seizures, better HRQoL, and high adherence rates. These results provide initial evidence that perampanel can be an effective, tolerable, and valid option for patients with epilepsy in the real world.

Real-world analysis of hospitalizations in patients with epilepsy and treated with perampanel

OBJECTIVES

(1) To evaluate risk of hospitalization following initiation of perampanel (pre- and post-analysis) and (2) to compare hospitalization rates following initiation of perampanel vs lacosamide.

METHODS

Patients were identified from Symphony Health's Patient Integrated Database if they had a prescription for perampanel (July 1, 2014-June 30, 2016). Patients 4-11 years of age with any partial-onset seizure (POS) or ≥12 years of age with any POS or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizure (GTCS) (pre-post); or ≥12 years of age (perampanel vs lacosamide). The first fill of perampanel ("index date") marked the start of the analysis period. Patients had ≥1 additional fill for perampanel and ≥2 diagnoses for epilepsy or nonfebrile convulsion diagnosis during pre-index (based on ICD-9/ICD-10 codes). Patients were matched using a 1:1 propensity scoring method for the perampanel vs lacosamide analysis. Primary outcome was hospitalization during the one year following medication initiation.

RESULTS

Pre- and post-perampanel: N = 1771 (mean age 34 years, 55% female). One-year all-cause hospitalization risk ratio was 0.76 (P < .05) and 36.2% with hospitalization during the pre-period vs 29.5% in the follow-up. One-year epilepsy-related inpatient hospitalization risk ratio was 0.72 (P < .05) and 30.8% with hospitalization during the pre-period vs 23.9% during follow-up. In the perampanel and lacosamide cohorts, N = 1717 per cohort after matching, most baseline demographics were balanced. A higher percentage of subjects were prescribed ≥3 anti-seizure medications for perampanel vs lacosamide (60.5% vs 57.7%, P < .001). The perampanel cohort had a 9.6% reduction in all-cause hospitalizations vs 5.8% for the lacosamide cohort (P < .05). Epilepsy-related hospitalizations decreased from the pre-index rate by 9.9% for perampanel and 8.3% for lacosamide (P < .05). Among those with baseline hospitalizations, perampanel was associated with a 59.9% reduction in all-cause hospitalizations vs 48.6% for lacosamide (P < .05), and for epilepsy-related hospitalizations, a reduction of 65.0% vs 58.9%, respectively (P < .05).

SIGNIFICANCE

Perampanel was associated with a significant reduction in one-year hospitalization risk.

Real-world impact of antiepileptic drug combinations with versus without perampanel on healthcare resource utilization in patients with epilepsy in the United States

OBJECTIVES

Combination regimens of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) with various mechanisms of action (MOA) are commonly used in patients with refractory epilepsy. However, outcomes related to combination AEDs with novel MOA, such as perampanel (PER), are not well described. This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU) among recipients of PER-based combinations versus recipients of other non-PER-based combinations.

METHODS

This retrospective study used claims data from the Symphony Health's IDV® (Integrated Dataverse) database (August 2012 to July 2018). Patients were aged ≥12 years with epilepsy or non-febrile convulsions, were treated with AED combinations, and had ≥12 and ≥6 months pre- and post-index date, respectively (date of initiation of the second AED in the combination). AEDs were categorized based on MOA: selective non-competitive antagonist of AMPA receptors (i.e., PER), sodium channel blocker (SC), synaptic vesicle protein 2A binding (SV2), and gamma-aminobutyric acid analog (G). Patients were then classified into MOA-based cohorts: PER + SC, PER + SV2, PER + G, SC + SC, SC + SV2, SC + G, SV2 + G, and G + G. HRU outcomes were evaluated during follow-up and compared between PER-based cohorts and non-PER-based cohorts.

RESULTS

On average, patients in the PER + SC (N = 3,592), PER + SV2 (N = 2,200), and PER + G (N = 1,313) cohorts were younger and had a lower Quan-Charlson comorbidity index than those in non-PER-based cohorts. PER + SC and PER + SV2 users had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations than non-PER-based users (adjusted RR range: 0.66-0.89, all P < 0.05), while PER + G recipients had fewer all-cause hospitalizations than recipients of SV2 + G and G + G (adjusted RR range: 0.92-0.94). Similar trends were observed for epilepsy-related hospitalizations. Across all comparisons, PER-based combinations were associated with significantly lower rates of all-cause clinic/office/outpatient visits relative to non-PER-based combinations (adjusted RR range: 0.69-0.86, all P < 0.05).

SIGNIFICANCE

Results showed that patients treated with PER-based combinations had fewer all-cause and epilepsy-related hospitalizations, and fewer all-cause clinic/office/outpatient visits compared with patients treated with most other non-PER-based combinations.

Economic burden associated with tuberous sclerosis complex in patients with epilepsy

OBJECTIVES

Data on the economic burden associated with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) among patients with epilepsy in the United States (US) are limited. This study aimed to assess all-cause and epilepsy-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and healthcare costs in the US among patients with epilepsy and TSC compared with patients with epilepsy but without TSC.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted using the Symphony Health Solutions claims database (April 1, 2017-June 30, 2019). Patients with ≥1 medical claim with a diagnosis code representing epilepsy or seizures were assigned to the cohort with TSC if they had ≥1 medical claim for TSC; the remaining patients were assigned to the cohort without TSC. Patients in the cohort with TSC were exactly matched 1:5 on demographics to patients in the cohort without TSC. All-cause and epilepsy-related HRU, medical charges, prescription drug costs, and the use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were compared between the matched cohorts over the 1-year study period.

RESULTS

A total of 2028 patients with epilepsy and TSC were matched to 10,140 patients with epilepsy but without TSC. Patients with TSC were more likely to have a diagnosis code for refractory epilepsy (38.7% vs. 10.2%, p < 0.001) and more likely to have used an AED (89.5% vs. 71.2%, p < 0.001) than patients without TSC over the study period. On average, patients with TSC received 2.1 distinct AEDs versus 1.3 distinct AEDs among patients without TSC. Compared with patients without TSC, patients with TSC had numerically but not statistically higher incidence rates of all-cause outpatient, clinic, office, and other visits; significantly lower rates of all-cause inpatient and emergency room visits (p < 0.001); and statistically significantly higher incidence rates of epilepsy-related outpatient, inpatient, office, and other visits (p ≤ 0.001). All-cause prescription drug costs were significantly higher among patients with TSC than patients without TSC (cost difference per patient: $14,179, p < 0.001). All-cause medical service charges were numerically higher for patients with TSC, but the differences were not statistically significant (charge difference per patient: $4293 for medical services, p = 0.707). Epilepsy-related costs were significantly higher for patients with TSC; the cost difference per patient was $14,639 for prescription costs (p < 0.001), and the charge difference per patient was $16,838 for medical charges (p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study underscore the high epilepsy-related HRU and costs incurred by patients with epilepsy and TSC relative to those incurred by patients with epilepsy but without TSC.

Healthcare utilization and associated costs following initiation of perampanel in patients with epilepsy

PURPOSE

We compared health service utilization and costs for patients with epilepsy before and after initiation of perampanel and compared with matched controls.

METHOD

Patients were selected from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Patients initiating perampanel were matched to controls initiating an alternate add-on therapy for the same underlying epilepsy subtype. First prescription defined index date. Primary and secondary care contacts and associated costs were aggregated in the 12 months before and after index date. Secondary care contacts were available for a subset (~60%) of patients.

RESULTS

Three hundred and forty-three patients treated with perampanel were identified. One hundred and eighty-three (53.4%) were male, mean age was 39.1 (sd: 16.0). Mean epilepsy duration was 21.1 (standard deviation (sd): 13.3) years. Two hundred and eighty-seven (83.7%) were matched to controls. Inpatient admissions with a primary diagnosis of epilepsy (0.5 versus 0.2 per patient-year (ppy), p = 0.002) and neurology specific outpatient appointments (3.2 versus 2.9 ppy, p = 0.041) were significantly reduced following initiation with perampanel. Total costs attributable to epilepsy (£1889 to 1477 ppy) and overall secondary costs (£2593 to £2102) were also significantly reduced. There was no significant difference in primary care, outpatient, or general inpatient admissions. Compared with controls, there was a significant reduction in primary epilepsy admissions (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.423; 95% Confidence intervals (CI): 0.198-0.835) but a significant increase in outpatient appointments (1.306; 95% CI: 1.154-1.478) and accident and emergency contacts (1.603; 95% CI: 1.081-2.390) for patients treated with perampanel.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with perampanel is associated with reduced epilepsy-related inpatient admissions and accident and emergency contacts.

Perampanel, an AMPA receptor antagonist: From clinical research to practice in clinical settings

Epileptic seizures are refractory to treatment in approximately one-third of patients despite the recent introduction of many newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Development of novel AEDs therefore remains a high priority. Perampanel is a first-in-class non-competitive selective AMPA receptor antagonist with a unique mechanism of action. Clinical efficacy and safety of perampanel as adjunctive treatment for focal seizures with/without secondary generalization (±SG) and primary generalized tonic-clonic (PGTC) seizures have been established in five phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and a long-term extension study, and perampanel is approved as monotherapy for focal seizures ±SG in the USA. In patients with focal seizures ±SG, add-on perampanel resulted in median percent reduction in seizure frequency 23.3%-34.5% and ≥50% responder rate 28.5%-37.6%; in PGTC seizures, these results were 76.5% and 64.2%, respectively. Efficacy among adolescents (reduction in seizure frequency 34.8%-35.6%; ≥50% responder rate 40.9%-45.0%) and elderly people (reduction in seizure frequency 12.5%-16.9%; ≥50% responder rate 22.2%-42.9%) is similar to those in adults, and results remain comparable between Asian (reduction in seizure frequency 17.3%-38.0%) and global populations. Perampanel has been extensively studied in real-world clinical practice, with similar efficacy and safety results to the RCTs (≥50% responder rate 12.8%-75.0%; adverse events of somnolence/sedation, dizziness, ataxia, and behavioral changes). Real-world observational studies suggest that perampanel tolerability can be improved by slow titration (2 mg every 2-4 weeks), and bedtime administration can mitigate somnolence and dizziness. Counseling about the potential for behavioral changes and close monitoring are recommended.

Nationwide Healthcare utilization among children with epilepsy in the United States: 2003-2014

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is particularly frequent among children, yet updated and nationwide healthcare utilization estimates are scanty in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze healthcare utilization among children with epilepsy.

METHODS

Data on children (≤17-year-old) were extracted from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) 2003-2014. Epilepsy was identified using the clinical classification code 83. Healthcare utilization (Inpatient admission, outpatient visits, prescription medication including refill, emergency room visits, and home health provider visits) was compared between children with epilepsy and those without epilepsy. A negative binomial model was used to assess the relationship between epilepsy and healthcare utilizations accounting for the influence of extraneous factors.

RESULTS

In all, a weighted 457,873 children (0.84%) had epilepsy in United States. The unadjusted proportion and the mean annual number of health care service utilization were higher in children with epilepsy compared to those without epilepsy. Children with epilepsy had almost 3.3 more outpatient visits (95% CI: 2.281-4.274), 7.9 more medication prescriptions including refills (95% CI: 6.058-9.662), nearly 0.4 more emergency department visits (95% CI: 0.278-0.438) and nearly 12 more home health provider visits (95% CI: 1.988-21.756) than those without epilepsy. The adjusted marginal effect of epilepsy on inpatient admission was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

unadjusted and adjusted healthcare utilization is considerably higher in children with epilepsy compared to those without epilepsy in the United States with heterogeneity across individual services.