Cost-effectiveness of adding-on new antiepileptic drugs to conventional regimens in controlling intractable seizures in children

Cost-Effectiveness of Zonisamide Versus Levetiracetam in Newly Diagnosed Focal Onset Epilepsy in Serbia

OBJECTIVES

When choosing initial therapy for epilepsy, the decision should be supported by studies that include both treatment outcome and costs. This is especially important for developing countries with restricted budgets because such circumstances are also characterized by higher epilepsy prevalence rates. The aim of this study was to compare cost-utility of zonisamide (ZNS) and levetiracetam (LEV) in patients with newly diagnosed focal-onset epilepsy in the Republic of Serbia.

METHODS

A 5-state, 3-month-cycle Markov model was created to compare ZNS and LEV. The model assumed that patients whose seizures were not controlled by treatment with either ZNS or LEV would be continued on carbamazepine in controlled-release form in the second cycle and would then be treated with a pregabalin add-on if still not adequately controlled. The perspective of the Serbian Republic Health Insurance Fund was chosen, and the time horizon was 15 years. Model results were obtained after Monte Carlo microsimulation of a sample with 1000 virtual patients. Both multiple one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

After base-case analysis, LEV was dominated by ZNS because the net monetary benefit was positive (16 940.78 ± 22 572.26 Serbian dinars; €144.09 ± €191.99) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 Serbian gross domestic products per capita per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Multiple one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the results of the base-case simulation.

CONCLUSIONS

ZNS has a more beneficial cost-effectiveness ratio than LEV for the treatment of newly diagnosed focal epilepsy in Serbian milieu.

Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

BACKGROUND

Drug-resistant epilepsy affects about one-third of children with epilepsy and is associated with high costs to the healthcare system, yet the cost effectiveness of most treatments is unclear. Use of cannabis-based products for epilepsy is increasing, and the cost effectiveness of such strategies relative to conventional pharmacologic treatments must be considered.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to identify economic evaluations of cannabis-based treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy. We also sought to identify and appraise decision models that have been used in economic evaluations of pharmacologic treatments (i.e., antiepileptic drugs) in this population.

METHODS

Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library, as well as a targeted grey literature search, were undertaken (11 June 2018). Model-based full economic evaluations involving cannabis-based treatments or pharmacologic treatments for drug-resistant epilepsy in children were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion, and study quality was assessed by use of the Drummond and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklists. Study findings, as well as model characteristics, are narratively summarized.

RESULTS

Nine economic evaluations involving children with drug-resistant epilepsy were identified; however, none involved cannabis-based treatments. All studies involved pharmacologic treatments compared with other pharmacologic treatments or non-pharmacologic treatments (i.e., ketogenic diet, epilepsy surgery, vagus nerve stimulation). Few studies have assessed the cost effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments in specific drug-resistant epilepsy syndromes, including Dravet and Lennox-Gastaut syndromes. Five included studies involved use of Markov models with a similar structure (i.e., health states based on seizure frequency relative to baseline). There was a wide range of methodological quality, and few studies fully addressed context-specific issues such as weight gain and treatment switching.

CONCLUSION

Whether cannabis-based treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy represent good value for money has yet to be investigated. Economic evaluations of such treatments are needed and should address issues of particular importance in pediatric epilepsy, including weight gain over time, switching or discontinuation of treatments, effectiveness of interventions and comparators, and long-term effectiveness beyond the duration of available clinical studies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42018099591.

Quality Assessment of Published Articles in Iranian Journals Related to Economic Evaluation in Health Care Programs Based on Drummond's Checklist: A Narrative Review

Health economic evaluation research plays an important role in selecting cost-effective interventions. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of published articles in Iranian journals related to economic evaluation in health care programs based on Drummond's checklist in terms of numbers, features, and quality. In the present review study, published articles (Persian and English) in Iranian journals related to economic evaluation in health care programs were searched using electronic databases. In addition, the methodological quality of articles' structure was analyzed by Drummond's standard checklist. Based on the inclusion criteria, the search of databases resulted in 27 articles that fully covered economic evaluation in health care programs. A review of articles in accordance with Drummond's criteria showed that the majority of studies had flaws. The most common methodological weakness in the articles was in terms of cost calculation and valuation. Considering such methodological faults in these studies, it is anticipated that these studies would not provide an appropriate feedback to policy makers to allocate health care resources correctly and select suitable cost-effective interventions. Therefore, researchers are required to comply with the standard guidelines in order to better execute and report on economic evaluation studies.

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."

Cost-effectiveness analysis review of exemestane in the treatment of primary and advanced breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Exemestane was approved in 2005 for adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. In this study, we aimed to assess whether it is cost-effective in comparison to available alternatives.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

To evaluate the efficacy of exemestane, a systematic review was conducted by searching electronic databases. The outcomes of interest were "clinical benefit", "overall response" and "disease-free survival rate". To evaluate the cost of treatments, costs of both domestic generic and imported brand medicines were taken into account, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for each comparison.

RESULTS

Regarding primary breast cancer, based upon available evidence, exemestane could not be considered as a cost-effective medicine either in generic or brand form compared with placebo (ICER: 119,100 and 215,525), with tamoxifen after 2-3 years of therapy (ICER: 35,150 and 82,400) and with sequential treatment by tamoxifen and exemestane (dominated because of lower effectiveness and higher cost). In metastatic breast cancer, exemestane was not considered a cost-effective treatment compared with both anastrozole and megestrol acetate (dominated) and was highly cost-effective compared with tamoxifen (ICERs: 2,208 and 4,326 dollars per one more patient with an overall response for generic and brand medicines) although even in this case it was not cost-effective in terms of the 1-year survival rates (dominated).

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding current evidence and related costs in terms of Iranian pharmaceutical market prices, exemestane could not be considered a cost-effective treatment in primary and advanced breast cancer compared with available alternatives. However, more evidence is still needed for more certain decisions.