Cost of epilepsy-related health care encounters in the United States

Short-Term Impact of Seizures and Mitigation Opportunities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The burden of epilepsy is complex and consists of elements directly related to acute seizures as well as those associated with living with a chronic neurologic disorder. The purpose of this systematic review was to characterize short-term burdens of seizures and to explore the potential value of acute treatments to mitigate these burdens apart from reducing the risk of status epilepticus.

RECENT FINDINGS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed to identify articles published from January 1, 2017, to June 22, 2023, that described short-term burdens and acute treatments of seizures. Primary outcomes included those related to short-term burdens of seizures and the benefits of acute treatments to reduce short-term burdens. Of the 1332 articles identified through PubMed and 17 through other sources, 27 had relevant outcomes and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Seizure emergencies negatively affected short-term quality of life and the ability to conduct normal daily living activities and were associated with physical (injury) and financial (emergency transport, hospitalization) burdens. The use of acute treatment was associated with a rapid return (≤ 1 h) to normal function/self for both patients and caregivers and potentially lower healthcare utilization and costs. Seizure action plans may improve knowledge and comfort with seizure care, empowering patients and caregivers. The short-term burden of seizures can create a substantial negative impact on patients and caregivers. Acute treatments may reduce the short-term burdens of seizures in addition to their well-described role to reduce seizure activity and the risk for status epilepticus.

Real-world antiseizure medication treatment outcomes in drug-resistant focal epilepsy patients

OBJECTIVE

To gather real-world evidence on antiseizure medications (ASMs) treatment patterns and related outcomes in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

METHODS

Medical insurance claims from the start of 2014 till the end of 2019 were used. Patient selection criteria included International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes followed by documented ASM use. Baseline patient demographics along with ASM and rescue medication use patterns and related patient outcome were documented for first (index) ASM regimen. Patients who failed the first regimen and then failed the second regimen were considered drug resistant. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify risks and other characteristics for positive or negative treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

Study cohort consisted of 46 474 patients with a mean age of 47.23 (SD: 16.94). Levetiracetam was the most first-encountered ASM (37.94%). At baseline, 87.14% were treated with ASMs prior to having study-confirmed diagnoses. Mental comorbidities were present in 37.86% of patients. After first-year ASM treatment, 34.61% of patients persisted on their index regimen and 5.91% were seizure-free. Patients failing first ASM regimen numbered 12 868 (27.69%). Drug-resistant patients who failed first and then second ASM regimens numbered 6335 (49.23%). Percentages of patients who had successful second treatment and seizure-free were 21.32 and 3.65, respectively. Initiating patients on lamotrigine or carbamazepine (relative to levetiracetam), baseline use of index ASM, rescue medications, and older age or male gender all lowered the risk for treatment failure. Having higher comorbidity, comorbid mental illness, headache, or neoplasty increased such a risk. Baseline use of index ASM, depressive episode, or anxiety disorder all entailed higher risk of failing second ASM treatment.

SIGNIFICANCE

Overall, reported findings indicated that patient history at baseline and the early selection of an ASM all influenced treatment outcomes. Findings pointed to the complex nature of ASM treatment in drug-resistant focal epilepsy patients calling for additional research to identify the optimal treatment to achieve beneficial patient outcomes.

Economic aspects of treating seizure clusters

Seizure clusters may initiate a chain of events that have economic as well as clinical consequences. The potential economic consequences of seizure clusters must be weighed against the cost of medication to attenuate them. This is true both for individual patients and for society. Data needed for economic analyses include the chance that a cluster will progress to an adverse outcome, such as a need for emergency care, the costs of such an outcome, the cost of a rescue medication (RM), and the effectiveness of the RM. Indirect costs, such as lost employment for patients and caregivers, must also be considered. Several types of economic analyses can be used to determine costs and benefits of a medical intervention. There are studies comparing different RMs from an economic perspective, but there is little direct information on the costs of using an RM versus allowing clusters to run their course. However, the high expense of consequences of seizure clusters makes it likely that effective RMs will make economic as well as medical sense for many patients.

Trends in resource utilization and cost of illness in patients with active epilepsy in Germany from 2003 to 2020

OBJECTIVE

To calculate epilepsy-related direct, indirect, and total costs in adult patients with active epilepsy (ongoing unprovoked seizures) in Germany and to analyze cost components and dynamics compared to previous studies from 2003, 2008 and 2013. This analysis was part of the Epi2020 study.

METHODS

Direct and indirect costs related to epilepsy were calculated with a multicenter survey using an established and validated questionnaire with a bottom-up design and human capital approach over a 3-month period in late 2020. Epilepsy-specific costs in the German health care sector from 2003, 2008 and 2013 were corrected for inflation to allow for a valid comparison.

RESULTS

Data on the disease-specific costs for 253 patients in 2020 were analyzed. The mean total costs were calculated at € 5,551 (± € 5,805; median: € 2,611; range: € 274 to € 21,667) per three months, comprising mean direct costs of € 1,861 (± € 1,905; median: € 1,276; range: € 327 to € 13,158) and mean indirect costs of € 3,690 (± € 5,298; median: € 0; range: € 0 to € 11,925). The main direct costs components were hospitalization (42.4%), anti-seizure medication (42.2%) and outpatient care (6.2%). Productivity losses due to early retirement (53.6%), part-time work or unemployment (30.8%) and seizure-related off-days (15.6%) were the main reasons for indirect costs. However, compared to 2013, there was no significant increase of direct costs (-10.0%), and indirect costs significantly increased (p<0.028, +35.1%), resulting in a significant increase in total epilepsy-related costs (p<0.047, +20.2%). Compared to the 2013 study population, a significant increase of cost of illness could be observed (p=0.047).

SIGNIFICANCE

The present study shows that disease-related costs in adult patients with active epilepsy increased from 2013 to 2020. As direct costs have remained constant, this increase is attributable to an increase in indirect costs. These findings highlight the impact of productivity loss caused by early retirement, unemployment, working time reduction and seizure-related days off.

Cost-effectiveness of perampanel as an adjunctive treatment for uncontrolled focal seizures in pediatric patients: a Chinese perspective

Background

The incidence of epilepsy is 41-187 per 100,000 person-year in children. The health care costs for children with uncontrolled epilepsy is a huge burden. Perampanel (PER) was effective, safety and well-tolerated as add-on therapy in pediatric patients aged 4 to <12 years with uncontrolled focal seizures. However, there is still limited evidence on cost-effectiveness of PER in pediatric patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PER as an add-on therapy for pediatric patients with uncontrolled focal seizures.

Methods

A Markov model was established to conduct an analysis from the perspective of the Chinese health system and society. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of patients using PER and conventional therapy versus patients using conventional therapy alone were estimated and compared. The transition probability of the response level, health state utility values, and costs were derived from clinical trials and the literature. Costs, including medical, drug, transportation and indirect costs, were calculated. We performed 1-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. A subgroup analysis of different ages was also conducted.

Results

The base-case analysis indicated that compared to maintaining conventional therapy, adding PER as an adjuvant drug therapy had an increased cost of $3,449.85 over 5 years, with an incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALY) value of 0.40, resulting in an ICER of $8,582.58 per additional QALY. The health state utility value had the greatest effect on the ICER. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of PER being cost-effective was 76.72% at a willingness-to-pay of $11,293/QALY. The ICER of the subgroup ranged from $7,167.95/QALY to $19,710.96/QALY.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that PER is a cost-effective add-on therapy for pediatric patients.