Dataset Information

Economic Value of Adjunctive Brivaracetam Treatment Strategy for Focal Onset Seizures in Finland.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:There is an unmet need for well-tolerated antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) that effectively control focal onset seizures. This study aimed to evaluate the economic value of new AEDs in the treatment of focal onset seizure, with or without secondary generalization, in Finnish adults and adolescents with epilepsy, comparing brivaracetam with perampanel as adjunctive AEDs. METHODS:Economic value was assessed using cost-utility analysis. Periods of AED initiation, titration, response assessment (seizure freedom,???50% reduction, no response), switching in no response or treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and death were simulated using a discrete-event simulation model. Responses and switching were simulated based on a comprehensive Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary modeled outcome was the 3%/year discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), payer costs (year 2017 Euro) per patient, and net monetary benefit (NMB) were secondary outcomes. Probabilistic and comprehensive deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS:Brivaracetam was more efficacious and had fewer TEAEs than perampanel and other AEDs. Modeled average 5-year QALYs and costs were 3.671 and €28,297 for brivaracetam and 3.611 and €27,979 for perampanel, respectively. The resulting ICER for brivaracetam versus perampanel was only €5345/QALY gained in a deterministic base case scenario. Brivaracetam had a positive NMB and high probability of cost-effectiveness of €1190 and 71% or €1944 and 80% with the assumed willingness to pay of €25,358 or €38,036/QALY gained, respectively. The primary result was robust, with a positive NMB persistent in all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When switching from brivaracetam to perampanel was excluded from the modeling or switching from perampanel to brivaracetam was included, brivaracetam was cost-saving and more effective than perampanel (dominant). CONCLUSION:These simulated comparisons demonstrated that brivaracetam was more effective and potentially also more affordable than perampanel. Thus, brivaracetam is likely a cost-effective and net beneficial alternative to perampanel for treatment of focal onset seizures. Plain language summary available for this article.

SUBMITTER: Vaatainen S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6979440 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Economic Value of Adjunctive Brivaracetam Treatment Strategy for Focal Onset Seizures in Finland.

Väätäinen Saku S Soini Erkki E Peltola Jukka J Charokopou Mata M Taiha Maarit M Kälviäinen Reetta R

Advances in therapy 20191205 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>There is an unmet need for well-tolerated antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) that effectively control focal onset seizures. This study aimed to evaluate the economic value of new AEDs in the treatment of focal onset seizure, with or without secondary generalization, in Finnish adults and adolescents with epilepsy, comparing brivaracetam with perampanel as adjunctive AEDs.<h4>Methods</h4>Economic value was assessed using cost-utility analysis. Periods of AED initiation, titration, re ...[more]

PMID: 31808053

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCenobamate is a novel tetrazole-derived carbamate compound with a dual mechanism of action. This drug can enhance the inactivated state of voltage-gated sodium channels, preferentially inhibiting the persistent component of the sodium channel current, and acts as a positive allosteric modulator of GABAA receptors, binding at a non-benzodiazepine site.ObjectiveWe assessed the efficacy and safety of adjunctive cenobamate for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in adult patients with epilepsy using meta-analytical techniques.MethodsWe systematically searched (May, week 4, 2020) MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ). There were no date limitations or language restrictions. Randomized, placebo-controlled, single or double-blinded, add-on trials of cenobamate in adult patients with uncontrolled focal-onset seizures were identified. Main outcomes included the proportion of patients with ??50 and 100% reduction in seizure frequency during the maintenance treatment period compared with baseline and the incidence of treatment withdrawal and adverse events (AEs). Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated for each outcome.ResultsTwo trials were included, overall enrolling 659 patients (442 for the add-on cenobamate group and 217 for the add-on placebo group). Seizure frequency reduction by at least 50% occurred during the maintenance phase in 50.1% of the patients randomized to cenobamate and 23.5% of the placebo-treated participants (RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.67-2.85; p?<?0.001). The pooled estimated RR to achieve seizure freedom for the cenobamate group in comparison with placebo was 3.71 (95% CI 1.93-7.14; p?<?0.001). Withdrawal from randomized treatment occurred in 16.7 and 11.1% of participants receiving cenobamate and placebo, respectively (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85-2.09; p?=?0.205). Treatment was discontinued due to AEs in 12.2 and 4.1% of the patients in the active and control arms (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.08-4.79; p?=?0.031). AEs were reported in 76.9 and 66.8% of the patients during treatment with cenobamate and placebo (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.26; p?=?0.021). The cenobamate-associated AEs included somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, balance disorder, and diplopia.ConclusionsAdjunctive cenobamate in adult patients with uncontrolled focal-onset seizures is associated with a greater reduction in seizure frequency and a higher rate of AEs than placebo.

Project description:Introduction: China has ~6 million patients with active epilepsy every year, around 60% of whom suffer from partial-onset seizures. Perampanel (PER) is a novel anti-epileptic drug for partial-onset seizures. PER has been included in the latest Chinese National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) in 2020. However, there is still a lack of evaluation evidence on the value of PER in China. Methods: This study selected a health system perspective. A Markov model was established to simulate the lifelong transition of different response levels and calculate the number of seizures in Chinese patients. Based on the utility value and mortality risk, the life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of patients using PER vs. lacosamide (LCM) were estimated. Efficacy data were derived from clinical trials and the literature. Cost data (in US dollars) included drug costs and medical service costs. A lifetime horizon was adopted. Health outcomes and costs were discounted at an annual discount rate of 5%. Deterministic sensitivity analysis, probability sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were performed. The impact of the inclusion of PER in the NRDL on the medical insurance budget over 3 years (2021-2023) was also estimated. Results: Cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that 8 mg/day of PER increases QALYs by 0.054 and saves costs by $2,390 compared with 400 mg/day of LCM. 4 mg/day of PER increases QALYs by 0.010 and saves costs by $860 compared with 200 mg/day of LCM. Deterministic sensitivity analysis reveals that utility value and the extreme discount rate are the factors with the greatest impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis show that the results are robust. Budget impact analysis indicates that after inclusion of PER in the NRDL, the incremental budget would be $1.28, $2.83, and $4.56 million from 2021 to 2023, respectively, but covering more eligible epileptic patients in the same time (1,918, 4,287, and 8,983, respectively). Conclusion: PER (8 or 4 mg/day) is of relatively high value as an add-on therapeutic regimen for partial-onset seizures in China because of its dominate advantage of cost-effectiveness over LCM and acceptable budget impact.

Project description:Background: Seizures are common among hospitalized patients. Levetiracetam (LEV), a synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A) ligand, is a common intravenous (IV) anti-seizure medication option in hospitals. Brivaracetam (BRV), a selective SV2A ligand for treatment of focal seizures in patients ≥16 years, has greater binding affinity, higher lipophilicity, and faster brain entry than IV LEV. Differences in clinical outcomes and associated costs between IV BRV and IV LEV in treating hospitalized patients with seizure remain unknown. Objectives: To compare the clinical outcomes, costs, and healthcare resource utilization between patients with seizure treated with IV BRV and those with IV LEV within hospital setting. Design/Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using chargemaster data from 210 United States hospitals in Premier Healthcare Database. Adult patients (age ≥18 years) treated intravenously with LEV or BRV (with or without BZD) and a seizure discharge diagnosis between July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019 were included. The cohorts were propensity score-matched 4:1 on baseline characteristics. Outcomes included intubation rates, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of stay (LOS), all-cause and seizure-related readmission, total hospitalization cost, and in-hospital mortality. A multivariable regression analysis was performed to determine the association between treatment and main outcomes adjusting for unbalanced confounders. Results: A total of 450 patients were analyzed (IV LEV, n = 360 vs. IV BRV, n = 90). Patients treated with IV BRV had lower crude prevalence of ICU admission (14.4 vs. 24.2%, P < 0.05), 30-day all-cause readmission (1.1 vs. 6.4%, P = 0.06), seizure-related 30-day readmission (0 vs. 4.2%, P < 0.05), similar mean total hospitalization costs ($13,715 vs. $13,419, P = 0.91), intubation (0 vs. 1.1%, P = 0.59), and in-hospital mortality (4.4 vs. 3.9%, P = 0.77). The adjusted odds for ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.31, 1.16; P = 0.13), 30-day all-cause readmission (aOR = 0.17; 95% CI:0.02, 1.24; P = 0.08), and in-hospital mortality (aOR = 1.15; 95% CI:0.37, 3.58, P = 0.81) were statistically similar between comparison groups. Conclusion: The use of IV BRV may provide an alternative to IV LEV for management of seizures in hospital setting due to lower or comparable prevalence of ICU admission, intubation, and 30-day seizure-related readmission. Additional studies with greater statistical power are needed to confirm these findings.

Dataset Information

Economic Value of Adjunctive Brivaracetam Treatment Strategy for Focal Onset Seizures in Finland.

Publications

Economic Value of Adjunctive Brivaracetam Treatment Strategy for Focal Onset Seizures in Finland.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets