Shakespeare A, Simeon G
MEDTAP International Inc., London, UK.
Seizure. 1998 Apr;7(2):119-25. doi: 10.1016/s1059-1311(98)80067-8.
New anti-epileptic drugs differ from existing standard therapies not in their clinical efficacy, but in their side-effects profiles. To determine the relative economic value of these agents, one must compare drug costs, costs of resources employed in the management of adverse events, and costs associated with therapeutic switching. In this economic analysis, carbamazepine (CBZ) and lamotrigine (LTG) are evaluated in monotherapy treatment of partial and/or general tonic-clonic seizures in the UK. Adverse event and tolerability data are obtained from a published randomized controlled trial of CBZ vs. LTG. A Delphi panel of clinicians advised treatment patterns for adverse events. Cost data are obtained from public sources. Results show that CBZ therapy costs about one-third of LTG therapy (pound sterling 179 for CBZ vs. pound sterling 522 for LTG) even after the costs associated with the management of adverse events and therapeutic switching are considered.
新型抗癫痫药物与现有标准疗法的不同之处不在于其临床疗效，而在于其副作用情况。为了确定这些药物的相对经济价值，必须比较药物成本、管理不良事件所使用资源的成本以及与治疗转换相关的成本。在这项经济分析中，对英国卡马西平（CBZ）和拉莫三嗪（LTG）在部分性和/或全身性强直阵挛性癫痫发作的单药治疗中的情况进行了评估。不良事件和耐受性数据来自一项已发表的CBZ与LTG对比的随机对照试验。一个由临床医生组成的德尔菲小组就不良事件的治疗模式提供了建议。成本数据来自公共来源。结果显示，即使考虑到与管理不良事件和治疗转换相关的成本，CBZ治疗的成本约为LTG治疗的三分之一（CBZ为179英镑，LTG为522英镑）。
