Cost evaluations in epilepsy: an update

Assessment of components included in published societal perspective or QALY outcome economic analyses for antiepileptic drug treatment in chronic epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments seek to control seizures with minimal or no adverse effects, effects which can substantially impact costs and outcomes for patients, caregivers, and third party payers. The First and Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommend inclusion of a societal reference case, even in studies conducted from a healthcare sector perspective, for comparability of findings across studies. Cost and outcome evaluation components include direct medical, non-direct medical-related (e.g. patient-time and transportation costs for treatment) and non-healthcare sectors (e.g. lost productivity).

AREAS COVERED

Guided by Second Panel recommendations, this review developed an overall impact inventory and detailed adverse effect impact inventory to assess the scope and methods in published economic evaluations of AED treatments for adults with chronic epilepsy. Societal perspective evaluations or evaluations that utilized quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as an outcome were reviewed. The majority of reviewed articles were healthcare sector perspective studies, methods for estimating QALYs varied widely, and a minority considered specific AED treatment adverse effects.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Only considering a healthcare sector perspective fails to provide full information for patients on AED treatments. Using an impact inventory to guide study scope and design will facilitate full reporting of costs and benefits.

Trends in resource utilization and prescription of anticonvulsants for patients with active epilepsy in Germany from 2003 to 2013 - A ten-year overview

This study evaluated trends in resource use and prescription patterns in patients with active epilepsy over a 10-year period at the same outpatient clinic of a German epilepsy center. We analyzed a cross-sectional patient sample of consecutive adults with active epilepsy over a 3-month period in 2013 and compared them with equally acquired data from the years 2003 and 2008. Using validated patient questionnaires, data on socioeconomic status, course of epilepsy, as well as direct and indirect costs were recorded. A total of 198 patients (mean age: 39.6±15.0years, 49.5% male) were enrolled and compared with our previous assessments in 2003 (n=101) and 2008 (n=151). In the 2013 cohort, 75.8% of the patients had focal epilepsy, and the majority were taking antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) (39.9% monotherapy, 59.1% polytherapy). We calculated epilepsy-specific costs of €3674 per three months per patient. Direct medical costs were mainly due to anticonvulsants (20.9% of total direct costs) and to hospitalization (20.8% of total direct costs). The proportion of enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants and 'old' AEDs decreased between 2003 and 2013. Indirect costs of €1795 in 2013 were mainly due to early retirement (55.0% of total indirect costs), unemployment (26.5%), and days off due to seizures (18.2%). In contrast to our previous findings from 2003 and 2008, our data show a stagnating cost increase with slightly reduced total costs and balanced direct and indirect costs in patients with active epilepsy. These findings are accompanied by an ongoing cost-neutral increase in the prescription of 'newer' and non-enzyme-inducing AEDs. However, the number and distribution of indirect cost components remained unchanged.

Direct and Indirect Costs of Refractory Epilepsy in a Tertiary Epilepsy Center in Germany

PURPOSE

There are only few studies on the costs of epilepsy in Germany. Therefore, we performed a pilot study to estimate the direct and indirect costs of refractory epilepsy in a German epilepsy center.

METHODS

A "prevalence-based," cross-sectional convenience sample of adults with active epilepsy attending the outpatient clinic of our tertiary epilepsy center was evaluated. Seizure-free patients and patients presenting with their first seizure were excluded. Direct and indirect costs were prospectively recorded over a three-month period using questionnaires and a patient diary. Cost driving factors were identified.

RESULTS

One hundred one patients were included (40.7+/-15.2 years; disease duration: 18.1+/-15.3 years; 6 patients had focal epilepsy with simple partial seizures only, 28 with complex partial seizures, 43 with secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures; 20 had idiopathic generalized epilepsy with generalized tonic-clonic seizures). The total costs of epilepsy per patient were in average euro 2610+/-4200 over the three-month period. Direct cost contributed 39% to the total costs. Costs of anticonvulsant medication were the main contributor to the direct costs while indirect costs were caused mainly by losses due to early retirement. Cost driving factors included higher seizure frequency, longer disease duration, ictal falls, and situationally inappropriate complex behavior during or after the seizure.

CONCLUSIONS

Indirect costs were higher than direct costs in adult patients with active epilepsy attending a German epilepsy center. Medication contributed the most to the direct costs and early retirement was the main factor for the indirect costs. The costs of poorly controlled epilepsy in this German study were above average of the European costs of epilepsy.

Cost of Epilepsy in Patients Attending a Secondary‐level Hospital in India

The study objective was out to provide an estimate of cost of epilepsy in a secondary level hospital in northern India where a once a week epilepsy clinic is run. Cost data were based on existing information on costs of the hospital and market rates for drugs and investigations. Other necessary information was extracted from patient records for the year 2001. Both direct (consultation fees, cost of investigation, drugs and facility costs) and indirect (traveling and loss of productivity) were estimated. A 25% loss of productivity was assumed based on interviews with the epilepsy patients attending the clinic. There were a total of 184 patients attending the epilepsy clinic during the year 2001. The annual drug cost of epilepsy treatment using phenobarbitone was 11 US dollars. The cost of drugs was in the ratio 1:2:3:4 for phenobarbitone, phenytoin, carbamazepine and sodium valproate. The average annual cost of outpatient treatment of epilepsy was found to be 47 US dollars per patient. The annual cost incurred in emergency and inpatient management was estimated at 810.50 US dollars and 168.30 US dollars for all the patients attending the secondary hospital during the year 2001. The total annual treatment cost for patients attending the hospital was 11,470 US dollars. The annual productivity loss for the same patients was estimated at 20,475 US dollars. Applying these to the estimated 5 million epilepsy patients in India, it comes to about 0.2% of the GNP of the country. As disease cost is much lower than productivity loss, epilepsy treatment is a worthwhile investment for the society. Treating epilepsy patients at primary level using phenobarbitone will increase the treatment coverage and reduce treatment costs. Simultaneous efforts must be made to bring the epilepsy patients on mainstream so as to reduce the productivity loss.

Economic evaluation of antiepileptic drug therapy: a methodologic review

PURPOSE

The increasing number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) fostered the development of economic studies in epilepsy. We reviewed this literature to identify and discuss methodologic issues.

METHODS

We included all studies devoted to cost-based evaluation in epilepsy, published in English from 1989 to 2001, and identified via a Medline search.

RESULTS

We identified a series of methodologic problems. First, we reconsidered heterogeneity of concepts and estimating methods, often cited as the most critical problem, as they do not necessarily result from a failure to apply standard methods. One must distinguish "natural" sources of heterogeneity arising from the many unconstrained choices left open in the implementation of economic evaluation on the one hand, and imperfect information and observation-based sources of heterogeneity leading to constrained choices on the other hand. By their very nature, cost-of-illness studies are subject to this variety of choices and were used to illustrate our purpose. Second, cost-minimization studies were reviewed, as they raise additional problems related to study design and choice of an outcome measure. Finally, deficiencies were also identified in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies concerning attempts to incorporate patient's point of view in outcome measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

We agreed with previous reviews on the difficulty of compare results from economic studies in epilepsy due to heterogeneity in methods and concepts used. This is partly due to imperfect information and limits in observation as sources for data collection, as well as to unavailability of refined outcome measures. Therefore, improvements are possible in this field.

Economic burden of epilepsy in India

PURPOSE

The economic burden due to epilepsy is not adequately examined in developing countries. Cost estimates are very important in health care planning and delivery of services. We have estimated the direct and some of the indirect costs of epilepsy in India.

METHODS

Epilepsy centers attached to University hospitals in six states of India participated in this study. Data on clinical characteristics, utilization of medical services, and costs were collected in a standardized format.

RESULTS

There were 285 patients (mean age, 22.6 + 12.5 years) drawn from six centers in this study. The annual cost of epilepsy per patient was INR 13,755 (USD, 344). The direct cost was INR 3,725 (USD, 93), and the indirect cost was INR 10,031 (USD, 251). Direct cost included medical consultations (INR 329), laboratory services (INR 271), hospitalization charges (INR 316), and cost of travel to clinics (INR 659). The indirect cost included the cost of lost productivity due to seizures, its complications, or attendance to clinics. There are approximately 5 million people with epilepsy in India. The economic burden due to epilepsy to the nation is to the tune of INR 68.75 billion (USD, 1.7 billion).

CONCLUSIONS

The annual economic burden of epilepsy in India is 88.2% of GNP per capita and 0.5% of the GNP.