Sarangi Sudhir C, Kaur Nivendeep, Tripathi Manjari
Department of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Department of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Saudi Pharm J. 2020 Oct;28(10):1228-1237. doi: 10.1016/j.jsps.2020.08.013. Epub 2020 Aug 21.
Newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are expected to have less adverse effects (AEs) and drug interactions as compared to conventional AEDs but the high cost is the major limitation for their use. This study evaluated variation in the cost of treatment with newer and conventional AEDs through its correlation with treatment efficacy and AEs in persons with epilepsy (PWE).
This cross-sectional study included PWE (28.9 ± 9.9 years) having focal and generalized seizures on conventional [valproate, carbamazepine, phenytoin] or newer AEDs [levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine] for >6 months. Seizure frequency during the study (6 months) was compared to that within 6 months before the study. Other parameters assessed were Quality of life in epilepsy, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Gastrointestinal Quality of life Index, and Liverpool AEs Profile. The cost of treatment was determined as direct, indirect, and intangible costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) analysis was also performed.
Out of 214 PWE, 51.4% were on newer AEDs. Newer and conventional AEDs did not differ significantly in seizure frequency reduction (60.29 vs. 53.09%), quality of life parameters, though these were improved significantly during the study period. The direct medical cost and total cost of treatment were lesser with conventional AEDs (p < 0.001 in both) than newer AEDs, but the intangible cost did not differ. The total cost of treatment was significantly influenced by factors (as per regression analysis) including the type of AEDs (significant difference between valproate, carbamazepine, and levetiracetam), frequency of seizures, cost of medicine (70.34% of total cost), hospital admission, and treatment of AEs. As per ICER, newer AEDs need an additional USD 8.39 per unit reduction in seizure frequency.
Newer AEDs have comparatively better efficacy, though not significant than conventional AEDs. However, the additional cost per unit improvement is quite high with newer AEDs, necessitating pharmacoeconomic consideration in epilepsy treatment.
与传统抗癫痫药物(AEDs)相比,新型抗癫痫药物预计不良反应(AEs)和药物相互作用更少,但高成本是其使用的主要限制因素。本研究通过将其与癫痫患者(PWE)的治疗效果和不良反应进行关联,评估新型和传统AEDs治疗成本的差异。
这项横断面研究纳入了年龄为28.9±9.9岁、使用传统药物[丙戊酸盐、卡马西平、苯妥英]或新型AEDs[左乙拉西坦、奥卡西平]治疗局灶性和全身性癫痫发作超过6个月的PWE。将研究期间(6个月)的癫痫发作频率与研究前6个月内的发作频率进行比较。评估的其他参数包括癫痫患者生活质量、匹兹堡睡眠质量指数、胃肠道生活质量指数和利物浦不良反应概况。治疗成本确定为直接成本、间接成本和无形成本。还进行了增量成本效益比(ICER)分析。
在214例PWE中,51.4%使用新型AEDs。新型和传统AEDs在降低癫痫发作频率(60.29%对53.09%)、生活质量参数方面没有显著差异,尽管在研究期间这些参数有显著改善。传统AEDs的直接医疗成本和总治疗成本低于新型AEDs(两者均p<0.001),但无形成本没有差异。治疗总成本受到多种因素(根据回归分析)的显著影响,包括AEDs类型(丙戊酸盐、卡马西平和左乙拉西坦之间存在显著差异)、癫痫发作频率、药物成本(占总成本的70.34%)、住院和不良反应治疗。根据ICER,新型AEDs每降低一个癫痫发作频率单位需要额外8.39美元。
新型AEDs疗效相对较好,虽然不比传统AEDs显著。然而,新型AEDs每单位改善的额外成本相当高,因此在癫痫治疗中需要进行药物经济学考量。