Value of Perampanel as Adjunctive Treatment for Partial-Onset Seizures in Epilepsy: Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis

Real-world cost- effectiveness analysis: Tumor Treating Fields for newly diagnosed glioblastoma in China

BACKGROUND

Glioblastoma (GBM) stands as the most aggressive and prevalent primary brain malignancy. Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields), an innovative therapy complementing chemotherapy for GBM treatment, which can significantly enhance overall survival, disease progression-free survival, and patient's quality of life. However, there is a dearth of health economics evaluation on TTFields therapy both domestically and internationally.

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of TTFields + temozolomide (TMZ) in comparison to TMZ alone for newly diagnosed GBM patients. The intent is to provide robust economic evidence to serve as a foundation for policymaking and decision-making processes in GBM treatment.

METHODS

We estimated outcomes for newly diagnosed GBM patients over a lifetime horizon using a partitioned survival model with three states: Progression-Free Survival, Progression Disease, and Death. The survival model was derived from a real-world study in China, with long-term survival data drawn from GBM epidemiology literature. Adverse event rates were sourced from the EF-14 trial data. Cost data, validated by expert consultation, was obtained from public literature and databases. Utility values were extracted from published literature. Using Microsoft Excel, we calculated expected costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 15 years from a health system perspective. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at three times the Chinese per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2022, amounting to CN¥242,928 (US$37,655) /QALY. A 5% discount rate was applied to costs and utilities. Results underwent analysis through single factor and probability sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

TTFields + TMZ demonstrated a mean increase in cost by CN¥389,326 (US$57,859) and an increase of 2.46 QALYs compared to TMZ alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was CN¥157,979 (US$23,474) per QALY gained. The model exhibited heightened sensitivity to changes in the discount rate. Probability sensitivity analysis indicates that, under the existing threshold, the probability of TTFields + TMZ being economical is 95.60%.

CONCLUSIONS

This cost-effectiveness analysis affirms that incorporating TTFields into TMZ treatment proves to be cost-effective, given a threshold three times the Chinese per capita GDP.

Efficacy, tolerability and safety of add-on third-generation antiseizure medications in treating focal seizures worldwide: a network meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled trials

Background

Adjunctive newer antiseizure medications (ASMs) are being used in patients with treatment-resistant focal-onset seizures (FOS). An updated network meta-analysis (NMA) was necessary to compile evidence in this critical area.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus from their inception until 17 January 2024, evaluating the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of rufinamide (RUF), brivaracetam (BRV), cenobamate (CNB), eslicarbazepine (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), retigabine (RTG), and perampanel (PER) as adjunctive treatments for FOS. Efficacy outcomes included seizure response and seizure freedom. Tolerability was assessed by discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). Safety outcomes were evaluated based on the number of patients experiencing at least one AE and serious adverse events (SAEs). This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023485130).

Findings

A total of 29 studies involving 11,750 participants were included. For seizure response, all ASMs were significantly superior to placebo, with RTG ranking highest, followed by CNB. Considering dosage, CNB 400 mg/d was top-ranked, followed by RTG 1200 mg/d. For seizure freedom, BRV was highest-ranked, followed by CNB, with BRV 100 mg/d leading, followed by CNB 400 mg/d. Regarding tolerability, LCM 600 mg/d had the lowest ranking, followed by CNB 400 mg/d. For the safety outcome of AEs, ESL 1200 mg/d was ranked lowest, followed by CNB 400 mg/d. Regarding SAEs, LCM 400 mg/d was ranked lowest, followed by RTG 1200 mg/d.

Interpretation

ASMs at different dosages have varying efficacy and tolerability profiles. We have provided hierarchical rankings of ASMs for efficacy and safety outcomes. Our findings offer the most comprehensive evidence available to inform patients, families, physicians, guideline developers, and policymakers about the choice of ASMs in patients with treatment-resistant FOS.

Funding

None.

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) has become the primary route for drug reimbursement in China. More recently, the authority has made pharmacoeconomic evaluation an integral part of the application for NRDL inclusion. The underlying financial conflict of interests (FCOI) of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, however, has the potential to influence evidence generated and thus subsequent decision-making yet remains poorly understood.

METHODS

We searched for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 on the 174 drugs added to the 2017-2020 NRDLs after successful negotiation. We categorised the study's FCOI status into no funding, industry funding, non-profit funding and multiple fundings based on authors' disclosure and assessed the reporting quality of included studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. We compiled descriptive statistics of funding types and study outcomes using t-tests and χ2 tests and conducted multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 378 records and our final sample included 92 pharmacoeconomic evaluations, among which 69.6% were conducted with at least one funding source. More than half (57.6%) of the evaluations reached favourable conclusions towards the intervention drug and 12.6% reached a dominant result of the intervention drug over the comparison from model simulation. The reporting quality of included studies ranged from 19 to 25 (on a scale of 28), with an average of 22.3. The statistical tests indicated that industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to conclude that the intervention therapy was economical (p<0.01) and had a significantly higher proportion of resulting target drug economically dominated the comparison drug (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that FCOI bias is common in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations conducted in Chinese settings and could significantly influence the study's economical results and conclusions through various mechanisms. Multifaceted efforts are needed to improve transparency, comparability and reporting standardisation.

Efficacy and safety of perampanel as early add-on therapy in Chinese patients with focal-onset seizures: a multicenter, open-label, single-arm study

Background

No interventional study has been conducted in China to assess efficacy and safety of perampanel in treating Chinese patients with epilepsy, nor has there been any study on perampanel early add-on therapy in China. This interventional study aimed to assess efficacy and safety of perampanel as an early add-on treatment of focal-onset seizures (FOS) with or without focal-to-bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) in Chinese patients.

Methods

In this multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 4 interventional study, Chinese patients ≥ 12 years old with FOS with or without FBTCS who failed anti-seizure medication (ASM) monotherapy from 15 hospitals in China were enrolled and treated with perampanel add-on therapy (8-week titration followed by 24-week maintenance). The primary endpoint was 50% responder rate. Secondary endpoints included seizure-freedom rate and changes in seizure frequency from baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and drug-related TEAEs were recorded.

Results

The full analysis set included 150 patients. The mean maintenance perampanel dose was 5.9 ± 1.5 mg/day and the 8-month retention rate was 72%. The 50% responder rate and seizure-freedom rate for all patients during maintenance were 67.9 and 30.5%, respectively. Patients with FBTCS had higher 50% responder rate (96.0%) and seizure-freedom rate (76.0%) during maintenance. Patients on concomitant sodium valproate had a significantly higher seizure-freedom rate than those on concomitant oxcarbazepine. Eight-six (55.1%) patients experienced treatment-related TEAEs, and the most common TEAEs were dizziness (36.5%), hypersomnia (11.5%), headache (3.9%), somnolence (3.2%), and irritability (3.2%). Withdrawal due to TEAEs occurred to 14.7% of the patients.

Conclusion

Perampanel early add-on was effective and safe in treating Chinese patients≥12 years old with FOS with or without FBTCS.Clinical trial registrationwww.chictr.org.cn, Identifier ChiCTR2000039510.

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.