Health care cost associated with the use of enzyme-inducing and non-enzyme-active antiepileptic drugs in the UK: a long-term retrospective matched cohort study

Implementing WHO's Intersectoral Global Action Plan for epilepsy and other neurological disorders in Southeast Asia: a proposal

The World Health Assembly approved the Intersectoral Global Action Plan for epilepsy and neurological disorders. Member states, including those in Southeast Asia, must now prepare to achieve IGAP's strategic targets by embracing novel approaches and strengthening existing policies and practices. We propose and present evidence to support four such processes. The opening course should engage all stakeholders to develop people-centric instead of outcome-centric approaches. Rather than caring for convulsive epilepsy alone, as currently done, primary care providers should also be skilled in diagnosing and treating focal and non-motor seizures. This could reduce the diagnostic gap as over half of epilepsies present with focal seizures. Currently, primary care providers lack knowledge and skills to manage focal seizures. Technology-enabled aids can help overcome this limitation. Lastly, there is need to add newer "easy to use" epilepsy medicines to Essential Medicines lists in light of emerging evidence for better tolerability, safety and user-friendliness.

Complications associated with the use of enzyme-inducing and non-enzyme-inducing anti-seizure medications in the Japanese population: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Enzyme-inducing anti-seizure medications (EIASMs) may contribute to the development of complications such as fracture and cardiovascular disease. The objective of the study was to determine whether the use of EIASMs is associated with a higher risk of fracture and cardiovascular outcome in young Japanese patients with epilepsy.

METHOD

Adult patients diagnosed with epilepsy and initiated a monotherapy with an anti-seizure medication (ASM) between 2008 and 2018 were included in the study. The primary outcomes were the occurrence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or stroke. The secondary outcome was fracture. We performed a propensity score-matched analysis (1:1) to control for imbalances in patient characteristics, and the matched hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULT

Of the 7115 eligible patients, 626 (8.79%) initiated treatment with EIASMs. The median age of the patients was 44 years (interquartile range: 31-54 years), and 56.2% were male. Propensity score matching generated 626 matched pairs of patients treated with EIASMs and non-EIASMs. There were no significant differences in the risk of stroke (EIASM group: n = 28[4.47%], non-EIASM group: n = 22[3.51%], HR: 1.47, 95% CI: 0.79-2.72, p = 0.22) or fracture (EIASM group: n = 7[1.12%], non-EIASM group: n = 5[0.80%], HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.29-3.45, p = 1.00) between the two groups. The hazard ratio for the occurrence of AMI could not be calculated due to the small number of events (EIASM group: n = 0[0.00], non-EIASM group: n = 2[0.32]).

SIGNIFICANCE

Our cohort study did not find increased risk of the occurrence of stroke, AMI, or fracture hospitalization with the use of enzyme-inducing ASMs. Although the findings suggested that exposure to EIASMs does not appear to increase the risk of complications in young patients, caution should be taken as patients with epilepsy tend to take medication in the long run.

Evaluation of two anti-seizure medication strategies in refractory epilepsy patients from a tertiary center with complementary insights from data visualization

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the healthcare resources in a tertiary center related to exclusive use of non-enzyme inducing anti-seizure medications relative to concomitant use of enzyme-inducing anti-seizure medications in patients with refractory epilepsy.

METHODS

In this retrospective case-time-control study, we compared the effects of two anti-seizure medication strategies: exclusively non-inducing anti-seizure medications (NIND) or a combination of NIND and inducing anti-seizure medications (IND+). The primary outcome parameter was the number of consultations with relevant healthcare professionals in our tertiary center, assessed with a negative binomial regression model, adjusting for several covariates like blood drug level and time interval (TI). Results from statistical models were visualized to explore the contribution of all covariates on the outcome in the total population and in subgroups.

RESULTS

From the 21538 patients with refractory epilepsy referred to our center 1648 patients met the inclusion criteria. The regression model showed that the IND + strategy was significantly associated with fewer consultations compared to the NIND strategy (p < 0.001), reflected in an incidence risk ratio (IRR) of 0.844 (0.799-0.890). Visualization of subgroups, defined by anti-seizure medications strategy, revealed patterns in contribution of blood drug level measurements on the outcome. Although sex was not included as a covariate in the regression model, as it was eliminated by the backward-elimination approach, visualization of this subgroup showed differences in effects of blood drug level and TI.

CONCLUSION

For patients with refractory epilepsy in our tertiary center, treatment following the IND + strategy is associated with fewer consultations with healthcare professionals compared to the NIND strategy. Comprehensive visualization of the results facilitated the exploration of effects of covariates across subgroups.

Trends in oral anticoagulant co-prescription with antiepileptic drugs among adults with epilepsy, 2010-2018

Treatment considerations for epilepsy patients requiring anticoagulation are changing, and actual prescribing practices have not been characterized. We used the 2010-2018 Optum Clinformatics® Data Mart Database to estimate the annual prevalence and distinguish the patterns of oral anticoagulants (OACs) co-dispensed with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) among adults with epilepsy. Monotonic trends were assessed using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (ρ). Multivariable logistic regression models were built to evaluate the associations of sociodemographic characteristics. Among 345,892 adults with epilepsy (56.5% female; median age 61, IQR 46-74) on studied AEDs, the prevalence per thousand of concurrent OACs increased from 58.4 in 2010 to 92.0 in 2018 (OR 1.63, CI 1.58-1.69). Direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use rapidly increased from 2010 to 2018 (ρ = 1.00; P < 0.001), with a corresponding decrease in warfarin use (ρ = -0.97; P < 0.001). Among OAC/AED dispensings in 2018, warfarin was more likely to be co-dispensed with potentially interacting, enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EI-AEDs) versus presumably non-interacting, non-enzyme inducing antiepileptic drugs (OR 1.48, CI 1.38-1.59). Characteristics independently associated with concurrent OAC/EI-AED use included younger age, female sex, white race, net worth <$250 K, and lower education levels. Our findings demonstrate the expanding use and evolving patterns of OAC/AED co-dispensing, and ensuing critical need to further understanding regarding postulated interactions.

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.

Comparing healthcare cost associated with the use of enzyme-inducing and non-enzyme active antiepileptic drugs in elderly patients with epilepsy in the UK: a long-term retrospective, matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

In elderly patients (≥65 years of age) with epilepsy who take medications for comorbid conditions, some antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may alter the metabolism of other treatments and increase the risk of adverse consequences and healthcare utilisation. This analysis compares healthcare costs associated with enzyme-inducing AEDs (EIAEDs) and non-enzyme active AEDs (nEAAEDs) use in elderly patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

This retrospective matched cohort study used the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) of UK primary care medical records, linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database. Selected patients with epilepsy were ≥ 65 years and prescribed an EIAED or nEAAED between 2001 and 2010 (index) after ≥1 year without AEDs (baseline) and followed until the first occurrence of the following: end of HES data coverage, end of GP registration, or death; practice's up-to-standard status or addition of an AED belonging to another cohort or discontinuation of the last AED of that cohort. Propensity score matching reduced confounding factor effects between cohorts. Key outcomes included time to cohort treatment failure, time to index AED treatment failure, and direct healthcare costs in 2014 Pound Sterling (£) values.

RESULTS

Overall, 1425 elderly patients were included: 964 with EIAEDs and 461 with nEAAEDs. At baseline, the EIAED cohort was older (mean age, 76.2 vs. 75.1 years) and a higher proportion were male. Baseline direct healthcare costs were similar. After matching (n = 210 each), and over the entire follow-up period, median monthly direct healthcare costs were higher for patients taking EIAEDs than nEAAEDs (£403 vs. £317; p = 0.0150, Mann-Whitney U). Costs were higher for patients remaining in the EIAED cohort after 3 follow-up years. The median time to cohort treatment failure for the EIAED cohort was 1110 days vs. 1175 days for the nEAAED cohort.

CONCLUSION

Newly treated elderly patients with epilepsy were more likely to be prescribed EIAEDs than nEAAEDs. In matched cohorts, elderly patients with epilepsy treated with EIAEDs had higher average total direct and epilepsy-related healthcare costs than nEAAED-treated patients; this difference was greater than previously reported in the overall adult population. Changing treatment practices could improve patient care and reduce costs.

Trends in antiepileptic drug treatment and effectiveness in clinical practice in England from 2003 to 2016: a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records

OBJECTIVE

To assess the evolution of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment patterns and seizure outcomes in England from 2003 to 2016.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study of electronic medical records from Clinical Practice Research Datalink and National Health Service Digital Hospital Episode Statistics databases. Patients newly diagnosed with epilepsy were identified and followed until end of data availability. Three eras were defined starting 1 April 2003 (first National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline); 1 September 2007 (Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs publication); and 1 January 2012 (second NICE guideline).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Time from diagnosis to first AED; AED sequence; time from first AED to first 1-year remission period (no new AED attempts and no seizure-related healthcare events); time from first AED to refractoriness (third AED attempt regardless of reason); Kaplan-Meier analysis of time-to-event variables.

RESULTS

4388 patients were included (mean follow-up: 6.8, 4.2 and 1.7 years by era). 84.6% of adults (≥16 years), 75.5% of children (<16) and 89.1% of elderly subgroup (65+) received treatment within 1 year; rates were generally stable over time. Treatment trends included reduced use of carbamazepine (adult first line, era 1: 34.9%; era 3: 10.7%) and phenytoin, earlier line and increased use of levetiracetam (adult first line, era 1: 2.6%; era 3: 26.2%) and lamotrigine (particularly in adults and elderly subgroup), and a larger number of different AEDs used. Valproate use shifted somewhat to later lines. Rates of 1-year remission within 2 years of starting treatment increased in adults (era 1: 71.9%; era 3: 81.4%) and elderly (era 1: 76.1%; era 3: 81.7%). Overall, 55.5% of patients relapsed after achieving 1-year remission. Refractoriness rates remained stable over time (~26% of adults within 5 years).

CONCLUSION

Treatment trends often were not aligned with era-relevant guidance. However, our results suggest a slight improvement in epilepsy treatment outcomes over the 13-year period.

Relative performance of brivaracetam as adjunctive treatment of focal seizures in adults: a network meta-analysis

Objective: To estimate the relative efficacy, safety and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam and other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) approach. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) identified randomized controlled trials of AEDs treating focal (partial-onset) seizures for ≥8 weeks and assessed them for inclusion in the NMA. Bayesian random-effects NMA was performed for several outcomes. All interventions within the licensed dose range were included in the network of evidence. Results: The SLR identified 82 studies; 65 were included in the NMA. These studies had baseline mean age 33.1-38.0 years, mean duration of epilepsy 18.7-23.0 years and median seizure frequency/28 days 8.1-11.8. All AEDs had significantly higher odds than placebo of achieving ≥50% responder rates (odds ratios 1.83-3.58) and all AEDs had a trend of higher odds than placebo of achieving seizure freedom (odds ratios 1.36-5.73), most being statistically significant. Tolerability outcomes were comparable between AEDs; most AEDs had higher odds than placebo of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation, serious AEs, nausea, fatigue, dizziness and somnolence. Conclusions: This NMA would appear to show relative equivalence in efficacy, safety and tolerability outcomes of the included AEDs. However, patient heterogeneity within trials and in clinical practice should be considered when interpreting these results. While NMAs are based on the best available evidence the authors suggest that, due to the inability of NMAs to capture unmeasured confounding factors and population heterogeneity, NMAs must not be the sole basis for comparative treatment recommendations.

High health care costs in minority groups of older US Medicare beneficiaries with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

To examine health care costs in diverse older Medicare beneficiaries with epilepsy.

METHODS

Using 2008-2010 claims data, we conducted a longitudinal cohort study of a random sample of Medicare beneficiaries augmented for minority representation. Epilepsy cases (n = 36 912) had ≥1 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition (ICD-9) 345.x or ≥2 ICD-9 780.3x claims, and ≥1 antiepileptic drug (AED) in 2009; new cases (n = 3706) had no seizure/epilepsy claims nor AEDs in the previous 365 days. Costs were measured by reimbursements for all care received. High cost was defined as follow-up 1-year cost ≥ 75th percentile. Logistic regressions examined association of high cost with race/ethnicity, adjusting for demographic, clinical, economic, and treatment quality factors. In cases with continuous 2-year data, we obtained costs in two 6-month periods before and two after the index event.

RESULTS

Cohort was ~62% African Americans (AAs), 11% Hispanics, 5% Asians, and 2% American Indian/Alaska Natives. Mean costs in the follow-up were ~$30 000 (median = $11 547; new cases, mean = $44 642; median = $25 008). About 19% white compared to 27% AA cases had high cost. AA had higher odds of high cost in adjusted analyses (odds ratio [OR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-1.29), although this was only marginally significant when adjusting for AED adherence (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.01-1.18, P = 0.03). Factors associated with high cost included ≥1 comorbidity, neurological care, and low AED adherence. Costs were highest at ~$17 000 in the 6 months immediately before and after the index event (>$29 000 for new cases).

SIGNIFICANCE

The financial sequelae of epilepsy among older Americans disproportionally affect minorities. Studies should examine contributors to high costs.

Budget Impact Analysis of Brivaracetam Adjunctive Therapy for Partial-Onset Epileptic Seizures in Valencia Community, Spain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

More than 30% of patients with epilepsy have inadequate control of seizures with drug therapy. The goal of this study is to determine the budget impact (BI) of the introduction of brivaracetam to the portfolio of approved drugs in Spain as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of partial-onset epilepsy in patients over 16 years old with a 5-year time horizon in the Valencia Community, a Spanish region with a population of 5 million.

METHODS

The BI model compares the pharmaceutical expenditure on antiepileptics in two scenarios: with and without brivaracetam. It assumes that the introduction and increased use of brivaracetam will lead to a proportional decrease in consumption of coexisting adjunctive antiepileptics and calculates the evolution of the consumption of brivaracetam over 5 years (2016-2020). The model was designed from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Data on the candidate population, consumption of antiepileptics, market share and pharmaceutical expenditure were obtained from real-world data. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was carried out on the set of variables involved in the evolution of costs using a Monte-Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

The model estimates that the target population eligible for adjunctive antiepileptics will hold at around 2352 between 2016 and 2020. Annual expenditure on antiepileptics is approximately €3.6 million. The number of patients eligible for treatment with brivaracetam would increase from 42 to 179 and annual savings of 0.09-0.37% would be created, representing €41,873 over 5 years (0.23% of the total budget). The sensitivity analysis corroborates that the probability of achieving savings with brivaracetam is around 84%.

CONCLUSIONS

Brivaracetam is a therapeutic alternative that allows savings for the health system in patients with non-controlled epilepsy in monotherapy, having a fixed, predictable annual cost (independent of dose) from the first day of treatment as the lack of need for titration means the patient is within a range of therapeutic doses from the first dose.

Changing the neurology policy landscape in the United States: Misconceptions and facts about epilepsy

Epilepsy has a relatively high prevalence, and diagnosis and treatment are often challenging. Seizure freedom without significant side effects is the ultimate goal for both physicians and patients, but not always achievable. In those cases, the treatment goals of patients and providers may differ. In the United States, many clinicians continue to prescribe older AEDs, even though newer AEDs have a more desirable safety and tolerability profile, fewer drug-drug interactions, and are associated with lower epilepsy-related hospital visits. Newer AEDs are more commonly prescribed by neurologists and epilepsy center physicians, highlighting the importance of access to specialty care. We report that antiepileptic drugs are not the dominant cost driver for patients with epilepsy and costs are considerably higher in patients with uncontrolled epilepsy. Poor drug adherence is considered a main cause of unsuccessful epilepsy treatment and is associated with increases in inpatient and emergency department admissions and related costs. Interventions and educational programs are needed to address the reasons for nonadherence. Coverage policies placing a higher cost burden on patients with epilepsy lead to lower treatment adherence, which can result in higher future health care spending. Epilepsy is lagging behind other neurological conditions in terms of funding and treatment innovation. Increased investment in epilepsy research may be particularly beneficial given current funding levels and the high prevalence of epilepsy.

Current state of the union of epilepsy care in the United States: Antiepileptic drugs - An introduction to the Connectors Project

PURPOSE

How antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are used in the United States (US) is one proxy public health indicator for the current state of epilepsy management. The use of phenytoin, other older AEDs, and newer AEDs may act as an indicator for the quality of epilepsy practice in addition to the current American Academy of Neurology quality measures. Data on AED used by states and populations can help identify which public health interventions are necessary to improve the status of epilepsy care. The Connectors Project, a collaboration between the Epilepsy Foundation and UCB Pharma, is a multiyear project designed to improve epilepsy awareness and management in underserved communities. The objective of the first phase of the Connectors Project was to assess geographic variation in epilepsy care and identify locations in need of improved epilepsy care by initially evaluating AED use in the US.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional administrative claim analysis was conducted using the QuintilesIMS™ database which included US longitudinal retail prescription and office medical claims data. Patients with a confirmed epilepsy diagnosis who were prescribed AEDs were identified. Patients with an AED prescription over a 3-year period from January 2013 to December 2015 were included if they had an epilepsy diagnosis in the 2-year period before their first AED prescription in the reporting period. The percentages of patients initially prescribed phenytoin, other older AEDs (carbamazepine and valproate), and newer AEDs (eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, topiramate) were calculated and stratified by US state and Washington, DC. Patients were considered newly treated if they had an epilepsy diagnosis code and had not received an epilepsy drug in the 1-year period preceding the first AED prescription in the reporting period. Data are reported using the moving annual total ending December 2015.

RESULTS

Approximately 2.5 million US patients with epilepsy and their AED prescriptions were identified from 2013 to 2015. Predictably, states with the largest population had the highest number of patients with epilepsy who were prescribed an AED, including California, Texas, Florida, and New York. Regions with the highest total proportion of phenytoin use with a low proportion of newer AED use were Mississippi (24.4% and 53.1%, respectively) and Washington, DC (24.7% and 58.1%). Montana had the lowest proportion of phenytoin use with the highest proportion of newer AED use (7.9% and 70.4%). Among newly treated patients (N=237,347), Hawaii (39.1%) and Alaska (38.8%) had the highest percentage of phenytoin use compared with all other states. Idaho (86.1%) and Montana (84.4%) had the highest proportion of newer AED use. Washington, DC (50.9%) and Hawaii (60.9%) had the lowest proportion of patients treated with newer AEDs. North Dakota (29.6%) and Washington, DC (27.9%) had the highest rates of other older AEDs use.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of newly treated US patients with epilepsy are underserved regarding newer AED use with Mississippi and Washington, DC having the highest proportion of phenytoin use relative to newer AED use. Understanding the socioeconomic and demographic barriers for these observations is essential in planning interventions to improve the quality of life and care for patients with epilepsy, including newly treated patients. These data provide a baseline to target educational and clinical interventions for improving the quality of US epilepsy care.