Cost-effectiveness of add-on therapy with pregabalin in patients with refractory partial epilepsy

An economic evaluation of vagus nerve stimulation as an adjunctive treatment to anti-seizure medications for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy in England

INTRODUCTION

Anti-seizure medications (ASMs) are commonly used to prevent recurring epileptic seizures, but around a third of people with epilepsy fail to achieve an adequate response. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is clinically recommended for people with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) who are not suitable for surgery, but the cost-effectiveness of the intervention has not recently been evaluated. The study objective is to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with using VNS as an adjunct to ongoing ASM therapy, compared to the strategy of using only ASMs in the treatment of people with DRE, from an English National Health Service perspective.

METHODS

A cohort state transition model was developed in Microsoft Excel to simulate costs and QALYs of the VNS + ASM and ASM only strategies. Patients could transition between five health states, using a 3-month cycle length. Health states were defined by an expected percentage reduction in seizure frequency, derived from randomized control trial data. Costs included the VNS device as well as its installation, setup, and removal; ASM therapy; adverse events associated with VNS (dyspnea, hoarseness, and cough); and health-state costs associated with epilepsy including hospitalizations, emergency department visits, neurologist visits, and primary care visits. A range of sensitivity analyses, including probabilistic sensitivity analysis, were run to assess the impact of parameter and structural uncertainty.

RESULTS

In the base case, VNS + ASM had an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £17,771 per QALY gained compared to ASMs alone. The cost-effective ICER was driven by relative reductions in expected seizure frequency and the differences in health care resource use associated therewith. Sensitivity analyses found that the amount of resource use per epilepsy-related health state was a key driver of the cost component.

CONCLUSIONS

VNS is expected to be a cost-effective intervention in the treatment of DRE in the English National Health Service.

Cost-utility model of brivaracetam in the adjunctive treatment of patients with epilepsy in Spain

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the cost utility of Brivaracetam compared with the third-generation anti-epileptic drugs used as standard care.

METHODS

A cost utility analysis of Brivaracetam was carried out with other third-generation comparators. The treatment pathway of a hypothetical cohort over a period of 2 years was simulated using the Markov model. Data for effectiveness and the QALYs of each health status for epilepsy, as well as for the disutilities of adverse events of treatments, were analyzed through a studies review. The cost of the anti-epileptics and the use of medical resources linked to the different health statuses were taken into consideration. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using a Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

Brivaracetam was shown to be the dominant alternative, with Incremental Cost Utility Ratio (ICUR) values from -11,318 for Lacosamide to -128,482 for Zonisamide. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis validates these results. The ICUR sensitivity is greater for increases in the price of Brivaracetam than for decreases, and for Eslicarbizapine over the other adjunctives considered in the analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with Brivaracetam resulted in cost effective and incremental quality adjusted life years come at an acceptable cost.

Cost-utility analysis of alemtuzumab in comparison with interferon beta, fingolimod, and natalizumab treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS), a chronic progressive, demyelinating, inflammatory disease, affects 2.5 million people worldwide. Approximately 63% of cases are classified as relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) at the time of diagnosis. The aim of this cost-utility analysis is to evaluate alemtuzumab vs interferon beta (intramuscular [IM] interferon beta-1a, subcutaneous [SC] interferon beta-1a, SC interferon beta-1b, and SC pegylated interferon beta-1a) in previously treated, and vs SC interferon beta-1a, fingolimod, and natalizumab in untreated RRMS patients to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio among the treatment alternatives as prices, the route, and the frequency of administration of considered products vary significantly.

METHODS

The primary outcome was the modeled incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; €/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Markov modeling with a 10-year time horizon was carried out. During each 3-month cycle, patients maintained the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score or experienced progression, developed secondary progressive MS (SPMS), or showed EDSS progression in SPMS; experienced relapses; suffered from an adverse event (AE); changed treatment; or died. A published network meta-analysis (NMA) was used for indirect comparison. The possibility of a therapy switch was considered. Clinical input data and resource utilization data were derived from the literature. Costs were extracted from price lists published in Austria and were calculated from the payer's perspective.

RESULTS

In treatment naïve patients, alemtuzumab is associated with costs of €132,663 and 5.25 QALYs in a 10-year time horizon. Costs for SC interferon beta amount to €164,159 and generate 4.85 QALYs. Also, in the pre-treated patients, alemtuzumab dominated comparators by accumulating higher total QALYs (4.88) and lower total costs (€137.409) compared to interferon beta-1a (€200.133), fingolimod (€240.903), and natalizumab (€247.758).

CONCLUSION

The analysis shows that alemtuzumab is a cost-saving alternative to treat RRMS in pre-treated and therapy naïve patients. From the patient perspective, alemtuzumab improves quality-of-life.

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.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of policies restricting access to pregabalin

BACKGROUND

Formularies often employ restriction policies to reduce pharmacy costs. Pregabalin, an alpha-2-delta ligand, is approved for treatment of fibromyalgia (FM); neuropathic pain (NeP) due to postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), spinal cord injury; and as adjunct therapy for partial onset seizures. Pregabalin is endorsed as first-line therapy for these indications by several US and EU medical professional societies. However, restriction policies such as prior authorization (PA) and step therapy (ST) often favor less costly generic pain medications over pregabalin.

METHODS

A structured literature search (PubMed, past 11 years) was conducted to evaluate whether restriction policies against pregabalin support real-world economic and healthcare utilization benefits.

RESULTS

Search criteria identified three claims analyses and a modeling study that evaluated patients with NeP and/or FM with and without PA restrictions; three other studies included patients with FM and NeP in plans with ST requirements, and one evaluated a mail order requirement program. All studies evaluated outcomes during follow-up periods of 6 months or longer. Overall, PA, ST, and mail order restriction policies effectively reduced pregabalin usage, but the effects were inconsistent with reducing pharmacy costs and were non-significant for total disease-related medical costs. Two studies (one PA; one ST) reported significantly higher disease-related costs in restricted plans. The modeling study failed to demonstrate cost savings with PA. Opioid usage was higher in PA-restricted plans (two studies). The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several professional NeP guidelines recommend opioid use only in cases when other non-opioid pain therapies have proven ineffective. New US Government taskforce guidelines now seek to reduce opioid exposure. Additionally, in both ST studies, gabapentin utilization (a common ST edit) was significantly increased. Both studies had substantial proportions of FM and pDPN patients and the only pain condition gabapentin is approved to treat in the United States is PHN.

CONCLUSION

PA and ST restriction policies significantly decrease utilization of pregabalin, but do not consistently demonstrate cost savings for US health plans. More research is needed to evaluate whether these policies may lead to increased opioid usage as found in some studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

N/A.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy

The increasing number of treatment options and the high costs associated with epilepsy have fostered the development of economic evaluations in epilepsy. It is important to examine the availability and quality of these economic evaluations and to identify potential research gaps. As well as looking at both pharmacologic (antiepileptic drugs [AEDs]) and nonpharmacologic (e.g., epilepsy surgery, ketogenic diet, vagus nerve stimulation) therapies, this review examines the methodologic quality of the full economic evaluations included. Literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Econlit, Web of Science, and CEA Registry. In addition, Cochrane Reviews, Cochrane DARE and Cochrane Health Technology Assessment Databases were used. To identify relevant studies, predefined clinical search strategies were combined with a search filter designed to identify health economic studies. Specific search strategies were devised for the following topics: (1) AEDs, (2) patients with cognitive deficits, (3) elderly patients, (4) epilepsy surgery, (5) ketogenic diet, (6) vagus nerve stimulation, and (7) treatment of (non)convulsive status epilepticus. A total of 40 publications were included in this review, 29 (73%) of which were articles about pharmacologic interventions. Mean quality score of all articles on the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC)-extended was 81.8%, the lowest quality score being 21.05%, whereas five studies had a score of 100%. Looking at the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), the average quality score was 77.0%, the lowest being 22.7%, and four studies rated as 100%. There was a substantial difference in methodology in all included articles, which hampered the attempt to combine information meaningfully. Overall, the methodologic quality was acceptable; however, some studies performed significantly worse than others. The heterogeneity between the studies stresses the need to define a reference case (e.g., how should an economic evaluation within epilepsy be performed) and to derive consensus on what constitutes "standard optimal care."

Welfare cost of childhood- and adolescent-onset epilepsy: A controlled national study

OBJECTIVES

Epilepsy is associated with a significant burden to patients and society. We calculated the factual excess in direct and indirect costs associated with childhood- and adolescent-onset epilepsy.

METHODS

Using records from the Danish National Patient Registry (1998-2002), we identified 3123 and 5018 patients with epilepsy aged 0-5years and 6-20years at the time of diagnosis, respectively. The two age groups of patients with epilepsy were matched to 6246 and 10,036 control persons without epilepsy, respectively, by gender, age, and geography. The controls were randomly chosen from the Danish Civil Registration System. Welfare costs included outpatient services, inpatient admissions, and emergency room visits based on the Danish National Patient Registry and information from the primary health-care sector based on data from the Danish Ministry of Health. This allowed the total health-care cost of epilepsy to be estimated. The use and costs of drugs were based on data from the Danish Medicines Agency. The frequencies of visits to outpatient clinics and hospitalizations and costs from primary sectors were based on data obtained from the National Patient Registry.

RESULTS

Children with epilepsy had higher welfare costs than controls. The highest cost was found one year after diagnosis, with higher costs up to 10years after diagnosis compared with controls. Children aged 0-5years incurred greater health-care costs than those aged 6-20years.

CONCLUSION

Epilepsy has major socioeconomic consequences for the individual person with epilepsy and for society.

Pharmacoeconomic outcomes for pregabalin: a systematic review in neuropathic pain, generalized anxiety disorder, and epilepsy from a Spanish perspective

INTRODUCTION

Pregabalin is an anticonvulsant approved in Europe for the treatment of neuropathic pain, as an adjunct therapy for epileptic seizures, and recently for generalized anxiety disorder. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin associated with the treatment of its labeled indications from a societal perspective in Spain.

METHODS

Data from the MEDLINE database were searched using algorithms to identify relevant economic evaluations published in English or Spanish on pregabalin for the management of neuropathic pain, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and epilepsy in Spanish patients over the last 10 years.

RESULTS

In total, 52 potentially relevant abstracts were identified from the MEDLINE database. Twenty manuscripts met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the selected papers (14/20) evaluated pregabalin for neuropathic pain from a societal perspective in Spain (5 economic models of pregabalin vs. gabapentin, 4 economic analyses of pregabalin in comparison with usual care, 4 economic evaluations comparing pregabalin monotherapy with add-on strategies, and one that evaluated different times of initiating pregabalin therapy). Five studies analyzed the use of pregabalin in Spain for the management of GAD (one cost-effectiveness model that compared pregabalin with venlafaxine, 2 secondary analyses in benzodiazepine-refractory patients, and 2 studies evaluating pregabalin vs. usual care in patients refractory to standard regimens). The last manuscript described a cost-effectiveness model that compared pregabalin versus levetiracetam use for the treatment of refractory partial epilepsy.

CONCLUSION

The majority of published evidence supports the possibility that pregabalin could be a cost-effective and/or cost-saving alternative for the treatment of refractory epilepsy, GAD, and neuropathic pain, in both treatment-naïve patients and in those who have demonstrated inadequate response or intolerance to previous therapy.

Retigabine as add-on treatment of refractory epilepsy--a cost-utility study in a Swedish setting

OBJECTIVES

To calculate comparative incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per quality-adjusted life year, QALY) and net marginal benefits for retigabine as add-on treatment for patients with uncontrolled focal seizures as compared to add-on lacosamide treatment and no add-on treatment, respectively.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Calculations were performed using a validated decision-tree model. The study population consisted of adult patients with focal-onset epilepsy in published randomized placebo-controlled add-on trials of retigabine or lacosamide. Healthcare utilization and QALY for each treatment alternative were calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using the specification of this model as a basis for Monte Carlo simulations. 2009 prices were used for all costs.

RESULTS

Results were reported for a 2-year follow-up period. Retigabine add-on treatment was both more effective and less costly than lacosamide add-on treatment, and the cost per additional QALY for the retigabine no add-on (standard) therapy comparison was estimated at 2009€ 15,753. Using a willingness-to-pay threshold for a QALY of € 50,000, the net marginal values were estimated at 2009€ 605,874 for retigabine vs lacosamide and 2009€ 2,114,203 for retigabine vs no add-on, per 1,000 patients. The probabilistic analyses showed that the likelihood that retigabine treatment is cost-effective is at least 70%.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimated cost per additional QALY, for the retigabine vs no add-on treatment comparison, is well within the range of newly published estimates of willingness to pay for an additional QALY. Thus, add-on retigabine treatment for people with focal-onset epilepsy with no/limited response to standard antiepileptic treatment appears to be cost-effective.

The cost effectiveness of newer epilepsy treatments: a review of the literature on partial-onset seizures

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders, affecting more than 3 million people in Europe. This paper reviews the published evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of second-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed, using the databases Academic Search Complete, Econlit, EMBASE and MEDLINE. Health economic evaluations of newer (second-generation) AEDs, published as full-length journal articles, were searched for. We focused on evaluations of newer AEDs as treatment for partial-onset seizures. 470 studies were initially identified and 19 were finally included. Information regarding (i) AEDs studied, (ii) cost effectiveness, and (iii) a variety of health economic modelling specifics was extracted from each study. Then, the included studies were summarized and a quality assessment was performed, according to the British Medical Journal's guidelines for economic studies.

RESULTS

The results were as follows: (i) the cost per additional QALY for newer AEDs used as adjunctive treatment, compared with standard therapy, ranged between $US19 139 (levetiracetam) and $US57 210 (pregabalin) [year 2010 values]; no cost-effectiveness evidence was identified for felbamate, eslicarbazepine, oxcarbazepine or tiagabine; and (ii) all studies met at least 60% of the British Medical Journal's guidelines criteria, and seven studies were found to satisfy more than 80% of the criteria. Guidelines criteria not met involve inadequate reporting of input data and modelling details, including validation and availability of models used for cost-effectiveness calculations.

CONCLUSIONS

Although failure to meet good practice guidelines influences the reliability of the presented evidence adversely, a sufficient number of the included studies were found to comply enough with the guidelines in order for the qualitative content of the cost-effectiveness results - that some of the newer AEDs are cost effective - to be reliable. In fact, this conclusion is likely to be relatively robust, since the effect of improved seizure control on labour market performance was not included in the base-case results in any of the included studies and improved seizure control need only to have a moderate effect on sickness absenteeism in order for the corresponding treatment to be cost effective even when willingness to pay for an additional QALY is low. However, the cost effectiveness of newer AEDs has only been studied for a small number of settings, and hence future studies incorporating additional settings are needed.

New and investigational antiepileptic drugs

In the last fifteen years, new antiepileptic medications have been offered for the treatment of patients with epilepsy. Nevertheless, despite optimal medical treatment, up to 30% of patients still experience recurrent seizures and the challenge for new, more efficacious and better-tolerated drugs continues. New antiepileptic drugs include the evolution of pre-existing drugs and new compounds identified through the investigation of additional molecular targets, such as SV2A synaptic vesicle protein, voltage-gated potassium channels, ionotropic and metabotropic glutamate receptors, and gap junctions. This paper reviews the available information on various classes of molecules that are in the pipeline as well as on the innovative approaches to the treatment of epilepsy.

Cost-effectiveness of pregabalin versus venlafaxine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: findings from a Spanish perspective

The objective of the present study was to describe a new model of the cost-effectiveness of treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and its application to a comparison of pregabalin versus venlafaxine extended-release (XR) from a Spanish healthcare perspective. Microsimulation techniques, including Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score, number of weeks with minimal or no anxiety (HAM-A <or= 9), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), were used to predict treatment outcomes for patients with moderate-to-severe GAD who would be treated with pregabalin vs venlafaxine XR. Expected levels of healthcare utilization and unit cost of care are derived from Spanish published sources. We express cost-effectiveness alternatively in terms of incremental cost per additional week with minimal or no anxiety, and incremental cost per QALY gained [in 2007 Euros (euro)]. Considering costs of drug treatment only, the incremental cost [mean (95% confidence interval)] of pregabalin (vs venlafaxine XR) would be euro96 (euro86, euro107) per additional week with minimal or no anxiety, and euro32,832 (euro29,656, euro36,308) per QALY gained. When other medical care costs are considered, cost-effectiveness ratios decline to euro70 (euro61, euro80) per additional week with no or minimal anxiety, and euro23,909 (euro20,820, euro27,006) per QALY gained. We conclude that, using a new microsimulation model of the treatment of GAD, pregabalin appears to be cost-effective vs venlafaxine XR in a Spanish healthcare setting.

Pregabalin in the management of partial epilepsy

Pregabalin is a new antiepileptic medication that works by binding to alpha 2 delta subunit of the voltage-dependent calcium channels present in presynaptic neurons. Its pharmacokinetic advantages include rapid and almost complete absorption, lack of protein binding, linear kinetics, absence of enzyme induction, and absence of interactions with other drugs. Pregabalin was found effective as adjunctive therapy for refractory partial-onset seizures, with up to 51% responder at a dose of 600 mg/day. The lowest effective dose was 150 mg/day. Pregabalin is also approved for treatment of painful diabetic polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia and pain with fibromyalgia. Studies also suggest a beneficial effect on sleep and generalized anxiety disorders. Its main adverse effects in randomized adjunctive trials in adults have been mild to moderate. Most common side effects were dizziness, ataxia, somnolence and diplopia. Weight gain was not prominent in pivotal pregabalin trials, but was more problematic in long-term postmarketing analyses in epilepsy patients. Pregabalin, with its potent antiseizure effect, favorable pharmacokinetic profile, and effectiveness in common co-morbidities is an important addition to the treatment of epilepsy.