Suppr超能文献

德国成年局灶性癫痫患者的真实药物治疗模式:对近期获批抗癫痫药物的纵向和横断面分析

Real life pharmaceutical treatment patterns for adult patients with focal epilepsy in Germany: a longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of recently approved anti-epileptic drugs.

作者信息

Groth Antje, Wilke Thomas, Borghs Simon, Gille Patrick, Joeres Lars

机构信息

Ingress Health GmbH, Wismar, Germany.

IPAM e.V., University of Wismar, Germany.

出版信息

Ger Med Sci. 2017 Jun 12;15:Doc09. doi: 10.3205/000250. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

: The aim of this study was to investigate the antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment of adults suffering from focal epilepsies (FE) in Germany. Of special interest was the number and percentage of the patients 16 years and older receiving no treatment with an AED, treatment with one AED (monotherapy), treatment with more than one AED, and treatment with a novel AED. The definition for "novel" was newly approved at the time of market entry since 2006 (last 10 years): eslicarbazepine (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), perampanel (PER), and retigabine (RTG). The analysis was based on a claims data set covering the years 2007 to 2014, provided by AOK PLUS, a German statutory health insurance. Two patient samples were defined: (1) prevalent patients suffering from FE (at least one in- or outpatient diagnosis of FE and at least one prescription of an AED), and (2) incident FE patients (first in- or outpatient diagnosis of FE without any previous diagnoses/AED prescriptions in the preceding 6 months). Patient observation started at date of first observed inpatient or outpatient focal epilepsy diagnosis within the analyzed period. Each patient was classified as a "no AED therapy", "AED monotherapy" or "more than one AED therapy". Patients were analyzed by number and type of concomitantly prescribed AEDs in yearly tranches (no, one, two, three, four, more than four AEDs; novel versus non-novel AEDs). A total of 34,422 patients diagnosed with FE aged 16 year or older (mean age 59.6 years, 48.7% female) were identified. The mean follow-up period was 1,891 days (5.2 years) since first confirmed diagnosis. The percentage of prevalent patients diagnosed with FE who received one AED (monotherapy) was stable overall and ranged between a minimum of 66.2% (2007) and a maximum of 68.9% (2010). The percentage of patients who received two AEDs ranged from 23.6% (2012) to 25.8% (2007). The remaining patients received therapies with three (6.0% in 2010 to 6.7% in 2007), four (1.0% in 2010 to 1.2% in 2009) or more than four AEDs (0.1% in 2014 to 0.3% in 2013). Between 8.1%-16.6% (2007; 2014) of the patients received no AED therapy in the observed period. In the first year after the diagnosis of FE (incident patients), 9.7% of patients didn't receive any AED therapy. Of those treated with at least one AED, 80.0% received one AED (monotherapy) only, 17.0% received therapy with two AEDs, 2.6% with three AEDs, 0.3% with four AEDs, and 0.1% with >4 AEDs during the respective observation time window and remained stable throughout the four-year follow-up period. Of prevalent patients with a diagnosis of FE, 1,889 (5.5%) received at least one prescription of a novel AED during the observation period; 98.6% of these patients received the novel AED in combination with at least one other AED. Of those patients, 269 (14.2%) received >1 novel AED. The analysis of the patients receiving novel AEDs by the time from the first confirmed diagnosis of FE until the prescription of a novel AED resulted in a mean duration of 4.0 years (SD 2.0) for ESL, 3.6 years (SD 2.2) for LCM, 5.7 years (SD 1.2) for PER, and 4.6 years (SD 0.8 years) for RTG. The mean number of AEDs prescribed before the novel AEDs were 3.2 for ESL, 2.4 for LCM, 5.0 for PER and 5.2 for RTG. Most patients aged 16 years or older, suffering from focal seizures, received AED monotherapy. Novel AEDs were prescribed in a small proportion of patients (<6%) and relatively late in the treatment course. These results are consistent with the recommendations of the German Society for Epileptology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Epileptologie, DGfE) which suggests a number of monotherapy options - these options do not include the novel AEDs described in this study.

摘要

本研究旨在调查德国成年局灶性癫痫(FE)患者的抗癫痫药物(AED)治疗情况。特别关注的是16岁及以上未接受AED治疗、接受一种AED治疗(单药治疗)、接受一种以上AED治疗以及接受新型AED治疗的患者数量和百分比。“新型”的定义为自2006年(过去10年)上市时新批准的药物:依斯立康唑(ESL)、拉科酰胺(LCM)、吡仑帕奈(PER)和瑞替加滨(RTG)。分析基于德国法定健康保险公司AOK PLUS提供的涵盖2007年至2014年的索赔数据集。定义了两个患者样本:(1)FE现患患者(至少有一次FE的门诊或住院诊断以及至少一次AED处方),以及(2)FE新发病例患者(首次FE门诊或住院诊断,且在之前6个月内无任何先前诊断/AED处方)。患者观察从分析期内首次观察到的住院或门诊局灶性癫痫诊断日期开始。每位患者被分类为“未接受AED治疗”、“AED单药治疗”或“一种以上AED治疗”。按每年开具的AED数量和类型(无、一种、两种、三种、四种、四种以上AED;新型与非新型AED)对患者进行分析。共识别出34422例16岁及以上诊断为FE的患者(平均年龄59.6岁,48.7%为女性)。自首次确诊以来的平均随访期为1891天(5.2年)。诊断为FE的现患患者接受一种AED(单药治疗)的百分比总体稳定,最低为66.2%(2007年),最高为68.9%(2010年)。接受两种AED治疗的患者百分比范围为23.6%(2012年)至25.8%(2007年)。其余患者接受三种(2010年为6.0%至2007年为6.7%)、四种(2010年为1.0%至2009年为1.2%)或四种以上AED治疗(2014年为0.1%至2013年为百分之0.3%)。在观察期内,8.1% - 16.6%(2007年;2014年)的患者未接受AED治疗。在FE诊断后的第一年(新发病例患者),9.7%的患者未接受任何AED治疗。在至少接受一种AED治疗的患者中,80.0%仅接受一种AED(单药治疗),17.0%接受两种AED治疗,2.6%接受三种AED治疗,0.3%接受四种AED治疗,0.1%接受>4种AED治疗,且在各自的观察时间窗口内保持稳定,在四年随访期内均如此。在诊断为FE的现患患者中,1889例(5.5%)在观察期内至少接受过一次新型AED处方;这些患者中有98.6%接受新型AED与至少一种其他AED联合使用。在这些患者中,269例(14.2%)接受>1种新型AED。对从首次确诊FE到开具新型AED的时间接受新型AED的患者进行分析,结果显示ESL的平均持续时间为4.0年(标准差2.0),LCM为3.6年(标准差2.2),PER为5.7年(标准差1.2),RTG为4.6年(标准差0.8年)。在开具新型AED之前开具的AED平均数量,ESL为3.2种,LCM为2.4种,PER为5.0种,RTG为5.2种。大多数16岁及以上患有局灶性癫痫发作的患者接受AED单药治疗。新型AED在一小部分患者(<6%)中开具,且在治疗过程中相对较晚。这些结果与德国癫痫学会(Deutsche Gesellschaft für Epileptologie,DGfE)的建议一致,该学会提出了一些单药治疗方案——这些方案不包括本研究中描述的新型AED。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9914/5469246/cdea46684c29/GMS-15-09-t-001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验