Cost Effectiveness of Lacosamide in the Adjunctive Treatment of Patients with Refractory Focal Epilepsy in Belgium

Simoens, Steven; Naeyer, Liesbet De; Dedeken, Peter

doi:10.2165/11599240-000000000-00000

Cited by 10 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two articles compared lacosamide add-on with standard therapy and calculated an ICUR. Bolin et al 23 found an ICUR of €30,409 per QALY gained, and Simoens et al 24 demonstrated that standard AED therapy plus lacosamide dominated standard AED therapy. Another article compared lamotrigine add-on with standard therapy and calculated an ICER of €1,114 per patient with 50% or more seizure reduction.…”

Section: Aed As Add-on Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…25 There was one article comparing pregabalin add-on with standard therapy, calculating an ICUR of €50,193 per QALY and an ICER of €27 per seizure-free day. 26 Maltoni and Messori 27 compared topiramate add-on with standard therapy, calculating an ICUR of €36,831 per QALY gained (24); and Remak et al 28 compared topiramate add-on with clobazam, gabapentin, lamotrigine, and vigabatrin. They calculated an ICUR of €13,246 per QALY gained for topiramate compared with vigabatrin (vigabatrin dominated gabapentin, lamotrigine, and clobazam).…”

Section: Aed As Add-on Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three studies were identified that looked at the costeffectiveness of epilepsy surgery and compared it with 35 20 2 5 90.9 Beretta et al 47 15 5 7 75.0 Blais et al 36 19 2 6 90.5 Bolin et al 23 17 5 4 77.3 Bowen et al 40 22 1 4 95.7 Chisholm et al 20 16 7 4 69.6 Chisholm et al 21 14 9 4 60.9 Clements et al 39 19 4 4 82.6 Craig et al 32 12 11 4 52.2 De Kinderen et al 44 21 2 3 91.3 De Kinderen et al 43 19 1 7 95.0 Frew et al 33 16 6 5 72.7 Gharibnaseri et al 34 16 5 6 76.2 Gureje et al 22 5 17 5 22.7 Hawkins et al 29 22 0 4 100.0 Helmers et al 45 16 5 6 76.2 Jentink et al 66 31 18 5 4 78.3 Lee et al 51 22 1 4 95.7 Lee et al 52 19 3 5 86.4 Majoie et al 46 11 8 8 57.9 Maltoni and Messori 27 18 5 4 78.3 Marson et al 17 21 1 5 95.5 Noble et al 48 19 1 7 95.0 Oldham et al 42 9 11 7 45.0 Plumpton et al 49 16 6 5 72.7 Rane et al 50 4 16 7 20.0 Remak et al 16 18 5 4 78.3 Remak et al 28 16 5 6 76.2 Simoens et al 24 23 0 4 100.0 Spackman et al 30 20 3 4 87.0 Suh and Lee 37 18 4 5 81.8 Van Hout et al 15 11 11 5 50.0 Vera-Llonch et al 26 18 5 4 78.3 Verdian et al 38 23 0 4 100.0 Widjaja et al 41 18 4 5 81.8 Average quality score: 77.0 "Yes" indicates sufficiently/correctly described and conducted in the study; "No" indicates insufficient, wrong, or no information regarding the specific topic in the study; NA, not applicable. A full description of the items can be found in Appendix S2.…”

Section: Epilepsy Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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."

show abstract

Section: Aed As Add-on Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Aed As Add-on Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Epilepsy Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, as regards cost-effectiveness only a small number of studies have been published. Thus, the evidence cannot be said to point in any direction yet, even though the studies that have been publish hint that such treatment may be costeffective (6)(7)(8)(9)(10). The existing stock of evidence regarding cost-effectiveness of available adjunctive treatments is (so far) too narrow to support public-policy decisions in most settings, as concluded by a recent review of published cost-effectiveness evidence for newer AEDs (9).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retigabine as add-on treatment of refractory epilepsy - a cost-utility study in a Swedish setting

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One article included two time horizons (3 months and 2 years). Five studies included children and/or adolescents in addition to adults [38,39,42,48]. Jentink et al focused on teratogenic outcomes of AED treatments and included women intending to have children [41].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of components included in published societal perspective or QALY outcome economic analyses for antiepileptic drug treatment in chronic epilepsy

Roberts

Kindilien

Barqawi

et al. 2018

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments seek to control seizures with minimal or no adverse effects, effects which can substantially impact costs and outcomes for patients, caregivers, and third party payers. The First and Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommend inclusion of a societal reference case, even in studies conducted from a healthcare sector perspective, for comparability of findings across studies. Cost and outcome evaluation components include direct medical, non-direct medical-related (e.g. patient-time and transportation costs for treatment) and non-healthcare sectors (e.g. lost productivity). Areas covered: Guided by Second Panel recommendations, this review developed an overall impact inventory and detailed adverse effect impact inventory to assess the scope and methods in published economic evaluations of AED treatments for adults with chronic epilepsy. Societal perspective evaluations or evaluations that utilized quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as an outcome were reviewed. The majority of reviewed articles were healthcare sector perspective studies, methods for estimating QALYs varied widely, and a minority considered specific AED treatment adverse effects. Expert commentary: Only considering a healthcare sector perspective fails to provide full information for patients on AED treatments. Using an impact inventory to guide study scope and design will facilitate full reporting of costs and benefits.

show abstract

Cost Effectiveness of Lacosamide in the Adjunctive Treatment of Patients with Refractory Focal Epilepsy in Belgium

Abstract: In patients with difficult-to-treat epilepsy, standard anti-epileptic drug therapy plus lacosamide appears to be a cost-effective option in Belgium.

Cited by 10 publications

References 22 publications

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy

Retigabine as add-on treatment of refractory epilepsy - a cost-utility study in a Swedish setting

Assessment of components included in published societal perspective or QALY outcome economic analyses for antiepileptic drug treatment in chronic epilepsy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About