Knoester Pieter D, Deckers Charles L P, Termeer Eveline H, Boendermaker Arjo J, Kotsopoulos Irene A W, de Krom Marc C T F M, Keyser Toine, Renier Willy O, Hekster Yechiel A, Severens Hans L
Erasmus MC, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Value Health. 2007 May-Jun;10(3):173-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00167.x.
To establish cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment strategies of newly diagnosed patients with epilepsy.
A decision analysis was carried out comparing effectiveness and treatment cost of six treatment strategies comprising carbamazepine (CBZ), lamotrigine (LTG), and valproate (VPA) as first-line and second-line drugs. Three outcome groups were defined: complete success, partial success, and failure. Data on seizure control and failure due to adverse effects were derived from the literature. Data on resource use and costs were collected for each outcome group by means of a patient survey.
Cost data were obtained from 71 patients. Cost increased from complete success to failure outcome groups. The probability of obtaining complete success varied from 64% (VPA-CBZ strategy) to 74% (LTG-VPA strategy). The strategy LTG-VPA was more effective than the least expensive strategy CBZ-VPA, but at higher costs per additional effectively treated patient. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings to be robust. Subsequent analysis showed that changing inclusion criteria used in the selection of the studies from the literature had a major effect on cost-effectiveness ratios of the various strategies. The probability that LTG first-line therapy is the most cost-effective option remains small, even defining a high cost-effectiveness threshold. Nevertheless, LTG second-line strategies can be cost-effective depending on the willingness to pay for patient improvement.
Only a few studies satisfied our inclusion criteria for employment in our decision model. Our model supports the use of conventional AEDs as first-line options for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. LTG second-line therapy is likely to be the most cost-effective option in case society is willing to pay more than Euro 6000 for an additional successfully treated patient. This study also illustrates that, with the data presently available, the outcome of decision analysis for AED treatment choice depends on the inclusion criteria used to select trials. Prospective real-life studies are needed in which first- and second-line treatment strategies are compared with respect to both effectiveness and costs.
确立新诊断癫痫患者抗癫痫药物(AED)治疗策略的成本效益。
进行决策分析,比较六种治疗策略(包括以卡马西平(CBZ)、拉莫三嗪(LTG)和丙戊酸盐(VPA)作为一线和二线药物)的有效性和治疗成本。定义了三个结果组:完全成功、部分成功和失败。癫痫发作控制及因不良反应导致治疗失败的数据来自文献。通过患者调查收集每个结果组的资源使用和成本数据。
从71名患者处获得了成本数据。成本从完全成功结果组到失败结果组逐渐增加。获得完全成功的概率从64%(VPA - CBZ策略)到74%(LTG - VPA策略)不等。LTG - VPA策略比最便宜的CBZ - VPA策略更有效,但每多成功治疗一名患者的成本更高。概率敏感性分析证实这些发现具有稳健性。后续分析表明,改变从文献中选择研究时使用的纳入标准对各种策略的成本效益比有重大影响。即使定义了较高的成本效益阈值,LTG一线治疗是最具成本效益选择的概率仍然很小。然而,根据为患者病情改善所愿意支付的费用,LTG二线策略可能具有成本效益。
只有少数研究符合我们在决策模型中使用的纳入标准。我们的模型支持将传统AED作为新诊断癫痫患者的一线选择。如果社会愿意为每多一名成功治疗的患者支付超过6000欧元,LTG二线治疗可能是最具成本效益的选择。本研究还表明,根据目前可用的数据,AED治疗选择的决策分析结果取决于用于选择试验的纳入标准。需要进行前瞻性实际研究,比较一线和二线治疗策略在有效性和成本方面的差异。