Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- seizure (3)
- SV2A (2)
- adverse events (2)
- antiseizure medication (2)
- epilepsy (2)
- levetiracetam (2)
- refractory (2)
- HEOR (1)
- SUDEP (1)
- burden of illness (1)
Institute
- Medizin (5)
Objective: This study was undertaken to quantify epilepsy-related costs of illness (COI) in Germany and identify cost-driving factors.
Methods: COI were calculated among adults with epilepsy of different etiologies and severities. Multiple regression analysis was applied to determine any epilepsy-related and sociodemographic factors that serve as cost-driving factors.
Results: In total, 486 patients were included, with a mean age of 40.5 ± 15.5 years (range = 18–83 years, 58.2% women). Mean 3-month COI were estimated at €4911, €2782, and €2598 for focal, genetic generalized, and unclassified epilepsy, respectively. The mean COI for patients with drug-refractory epilepsy (DRE; €7850) were higher than those for patients with non-DRE (€4720), patients with occasional seizures (€3596), or patients with seizures in remission for >1 year (€2409). Identified cost-driving factors for total COI included relevant disability (unstandardized regression coefficient b = €2218), poorer education (b = €2114), living alone (b = €2612), DRE (b = €1831), and frequent seizures (b = €2385). Younger age groups of 18–24 years (b = −€2945) and 25–34 years (b = −€1418) were found to have lower overall expenditures. A relevant disability (b = €441), DRE (b = €1253), frequent seizures (b = €735), and the need for specialized daycare (b = €749) were associated with higher direct COI, and poorer education (b = €1969), living alone (b = €2612), the presence of a relevant disability (b = €1809), DRE (b = €1831), and frequent seizures (b = €2385) were associated with higher indirect COI.
Significance: This analysis provides up-to-date COI data for use in further health economics analyses, highlighting the high economic impacts associated with disease severity, disability, and disease-related loss of productivity among adult patients with epilepsy. The identified cost drivers could be used as therapeutic and socioeconomic targets for future cost-containment strategies.
Objective: This study was undertaken to evaluate the long-term efficacy, retention, and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam (BRV) in clinical practice. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruited all patients who initiated BRV between February and November 2016, with observation until February 2021. Results: Long-term data for 262 patients (mean age = 40 years, range = 5–81 years, 129 men) were analyzed, including 227 (87%) diagnosed with focal epilepsy, 19 (7%) with genetic generalized epilepsy, and 16 (6%) with other or unclassified epilepsy syndromes. Only 26 (10%) patients had never received levetiracetam (LEV), whereas 133 (50.8%) were switched from LEV. The length of BRV exposure ranged from 1 day to 5 years, with a median retention time of 1.6 years, resulting in a total BRV exposure time of 6829 months (569 years). The retention rate was 61.1% at 12 months, with a reported efficacy of 33.1% (79/239; 50% responder rate, 23 patients lost-to-follow-up), including 10.9% reported as seizure-free. The retention rate for the entire study period was 50.8%, and at last follow-up, 133 patients were receiving BRV at a mean dose of 222 ± 104 mg (median = 200, range = 25–400), including 52 (39.1%) who exceeded the recommended upper dose of 200 mg. Fewer concomitant antiseizure medications and switching from LEV to BRV correlated with better short-term responses, but no investigated parameters correlated with positive long-term outcomes. BRV was discontinued in 63 (24%) patients due to insufficient efficacy, in 29 (11%) for psychobehavioral adverse events, in 25 (10%) for other adverse events, and in 24 (9%) for other reasons. Significance: BRV showed a clinically useful 50% responder rate of 33% at 12 months and overall retention of >50%, despite 90% of included patients having previous LEV exposure. BRV was well tolerated; however, psychobehavioral adverse events occurred in one out of 10 patients. Although we identified short-term response and retention predictors, we could not identify significant predictors for long-term outcomes. Key Points Long-term postmarketing data for brivaracetam in 262 patients showed an overall retention rate of 50.8%; At 12 months, the 50% responder rate for brivaracetam was 33.1%, with 10.9% reporting seizure freedom; Previous treatment with levetiracetam (90%) did not impact brivaracetam retention or efficacy; Levetiracetam treatment failure should not preclude brivaracetam introduction; No long-term efficacy predictors could be identified.
Objective: This study was undertaken to evaluate the long-term efficacy, retention, and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam (BRV) in clinical practice. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruited all patients who initiated BRV between February and November 2016, with observation until February 2021. Results: Long-term data for 262 patients (mean age = 40 years, range = 5–81 years, 129 men) were analyzed, including 227 (87%) diagnosed with focal epilepsy, 19 (7%) with genetic generalized epilepsy, and 16 (6%) with other or unclassified epilepsy syndromes. Only 26 (10%) patients had never received levetiracetam (LEV), whereas 133 (50.8%) were switched from LEV. The length of BRV exposure ranged from 1 day to 5 years, with a median retention time of 1.6 years, resulting in a total BRV exposure time of 6829 months (569 years). The retention rate was 61.1% at 12 months, with a reported efficacy of 33.1% (79/239; 50% responder rate, 23 patients lost-to-follow-up), including 10.9% reported as seizure-free. The retention rate for the entire study period was 50.8%, and at last follow-up, 133 patients were receiving BRV at a mean dose of 222 ± 104 mg (median = 200, range = 25–400), including 52 (39.1%) who exceeded the recommended upper dose of 200 mg. Fewer concomitant antiseizure medications and switching from LEV to BRV correlated with better short-term responses, but no investigated parameters correlated with positive long-term outcomes. BRV was discontinued in 63 (24%) patients due to insufficient efficacy, in 29 (11%) for psychobehavioral adverse events, in 25 (10%) for other adverse events, and in 24 (9%) for other reasons. Significance: BRV showed a clinically useful 50% responder rate of 33% at 12 months and overall retention of >50%, despite 90% of included patients having previous LEV exposure. BRV was well tolerated; however, psychobehavioral adverse events occurred in one out of 10 patients. Although we identified short-term response and retention predictors, we could not identify significant predictors for long-term outcomes. Key Points Long-term postmarketing data for brivaracetam in 262 patients showed an overall retention rate of 50.8%; At 12 months, the 50% responder rate for brivaracetam was 33.1%, with 10.9% reporting seizure freedom; Previous treatment with levetiracetam (90%) did not impact brivaracetam retention or efficacy; Levetiracetam treatment failure should not preclude brivaracetam introduction; No long-term efficacy predictors could be identified.
Objective: Despite increased awareness of the serious epilepsy complication sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), a substantial population of people with epilepsy (PWE) remain poorly informed. Physicians indicate concern that SUDEP information may adversely affect patients' health and quality of life. We examined SUDEP awareness and the immediate and long-term effects of providing SUDEP information to PWE.
Methods: Baseline knowledge and behaviors among PWE and behavioral adjustments following the provision of SUDEP information were evaluated in a prospective, multicenter survey using the following validated scales: Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy for depression symptoms, the EuroQoL five-dimension scale for health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a visual analog scale for overall health, the revised Epilepsy Stigma Scale for perceived stigma, and the Seizure Worry Scale for seizure-related worries. The prospective study collected data through semiquantitative interviews before (baseline), immediately after, and 3 months after the provision of SUDEP information.
Results: In total, 236 participants (mean age = 39.3 years, range = 18-77 years, 51.7% women) were enrolled, and 205 (86.9%) completed long-term, 3-month follow-up. One patient died from SUDEP before follow-up. No worsening symptoms from baseline to 3-month follow-up were observed on any scale. At baseline, 27.5% of participants were aware of SUDEP. More than 85% of participants were satisfied with receiving SUDEP information. Three quarters of participants were not concerned by the information, and >80% of participants recommended the provision of SUDEP information to all PWE. Although most patients reported no behavioral adjustments, 24.8% reported strong behavioral adjustments at 3-month follow-up.
Significance: The provision of SUDEP information has no adverse effects on overall health, HRQoL, depressive symptoms, stigma, or seizure worry among PWE, who appreciate receiving information. SUDEP information provision might improve compliance among PWE and reduce but not eliminate the increased mortality risk.
Objective: This study was undertaken to calculate epilepsy-related direct, indirect, and total costs in adult patients with active epilepsy (ongoing unprovoked seizures) in Germany and to analyze cost components and dynamics compared to previous studies from 2003, 2008, and 2013. This analysis was part of the Epi2020 study.
Methods: Direct and indirect costs related to epilepsy were calculated with a multicenter survey using an established and validated questionnaire with a bottom-up design and human capital approach over a 3-month period in late 2020. Epilepsy-specific costs in the German health care sector from 2003, 2008, and 2013 were corrected for inflation to allow for a valid comparison.
Results: Data on the disease-specific costs for 253 patients in 2020 were analyzed. The mean total costs were calculated at €5551 (±€5805, median = €2611, range = €274–€21 667) per 3 months, comprising mean direct costs of €1861 (±€1905, median = €1276, range = €327–€13 158) and mean indirect costs of €3690 (±€5298, median = €0, range = €0–€11 925). The main direct cost components were hospitalization (42.4%), antiseizure medication (42.2%), and outpatient care (6.2%). Productivity losses due to early retirement (53.6%), part-time work or unemployment (30.8%), and seizure-related off-days (15.6%) were the main reasons for indirect costs. However, compared to 2013, there was no significant increase of direct costs (−10.0%), and indirect costs significantly increased (p < .028, +35.1%), resulting in a significant increase in total epilepsy-related costs (p < .047, +20.2%). Compared to the 2013 study population, a significant increase of cost of illness could be observed (p = .047).
Significance: The present study shows that disease-related costs in adult patients with active epilepsy increased from 2013 to 2020. As direct costs have remained constant, this increase is attributable to an increase in indirect costs. These findings highlight the impact of productivity loss caused by early retirement, unemployment, working time reduction, and seizure-related days off.
