Refine
Language
- English (13)
Has Fulltext
- yes (13)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (13)
Keywords
- Epilepsy (3)
- Seizure (3)
- epilepsy (3)
- Costs (2)
- levetiracetam (2)
- pharmacoresistance (2)
- Angiomyolipoma (1)
- Anti-seizure medication (1)
- Anticonvulsant (1)
- Depression (1)
Introduction: Dravet syndrome (DS) is a rare developmental and epileptic encephalopathy. This study estimated cost, cost-driving factors and quality of life (QoL) in patients with Dravet syndrome and their caregivers in a prospective, multicenter study in Germany.
Methods: A validated 3–12-month retrospective questionnaire and a prospective 3-month diary assessing clinical characteristics, QoL, and direct, indirect and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were administered to caregivers of patients with DS throughout Germany.
Results: Caregivers of 93 patients (mean age 10.1 years, ±7.1, range 15 months–33.7 years) submitted questionnaires and 77 prospective diaries. The majority of patients (95%) experienced at least one seizure during the previous 12 months and 77% a status epilepticus (SE) at least once in their lives. Over 70% of patients had behavioural problems and delayed speech development and over 80% attention deficit symptoms and disturbance of motor skills and movement coordination. Patient QoL was lower than in the general population and 45% of caregivers had some form of depressive symptoms. Direct health care costs per three months were a mean of €6,043 ± €5,825 (median €4054, CI €4935-€7350) per patient. Inpatient costs formed the single most important cost category (28%, €1,702 ± €4,315), followed by care grade benefits (19%, €1,130 ± €805), anti-epileptic drug (AED) costs (15%, €892 ± €1,017) and ancillary treatments (9%, €559 ± €503). Total indirect costs were €4,399 ±€ 4,989 (median €0, CI €3466-€5551) in mothers and €391 ± €1,352 (median €0, CI €195-€841) in fathers. In univariate analysis seizure frequency, experience of SE, nursing care level and severe additional symptoms were found to be associated with total direct healthcare costs. Severe additional symptoms was the single independently significant explanatory factor in a multivariate analysis.
Conclusions: This study over a period up to 15 months revealed substantial direct and indirect healthcare costs of DS in Germany and highlights the relatively low patient and caregiver QoL compared with the general population.
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in a severely drug refractory cohort of patients with epileptic encephalopathies (EE).
Method: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruiting all patients treated with EE who began treatment with BRV in an enrolling epilepsy center between 2016 and 2017.
Results: Forty-four patients (27 male [61%], mean age 29 years, range 6 to 62) were treated with BRV. The retention rate was 65% at 3 months, 52% at 6 months and 41% at 12 months. A mean retention time of 5 months resulted in a cumulative exposure to BRV of 310 months. Three patients were seizure free during the baseline. At 3 months, 20 (45%, 20/44 as per intention-to-treat analysis considering all patients that started BRV including three who were seizure free during baseline) were either seizure free (n = 4; 9%, three of them already seizure-free at baseline) or reported at least 25% (n = 4; 9%) or 50% (n = 12; 27%) reduction in seizures. An increase in seizure frequency was reported in two (5%) patients, while there was no change in the seizure frequency of the other patients. A 50% long-term responder rate was apparent in 19 patients (43%), with two (5%) free from seizures for more than six months and in nine patients (20%, with one [2 %] free from seizures) for more than 12 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events were predominantly of psychobehavioural nature and were observed in 16%.
Significance: In this retrospective analysis the rate of patients with a 50% seizure reduction under BRV proofed to be similar to those seen in regulatory trials for focal epilepsies. BRV appears to be safe and relatively well tolerated in EE and might be considered in patients with psychobehavioral adverse events while on levetiracetam.
Background Microdeletions are known to confer risk to epilepsy, particularly at genomic rearrangement “hotspot” loci. However, deciphering their role outside hotspots and risk assessment by epilepsy sub-type has not been conducted.
Methods We assessed the burden, frequency and genomic content of rare, large microdeletions found in a previously published cohort of 1,366 patients with Genetic Generalized Epilepsy (GGE) plus two sets of additional unpublished genome-wide microdeletions found in 281 Rolandic Epilepsy (RE) and 807 Adult Focal Epilepsy (AFE) patients, totaling 2,454 cases. These microdeletion sets were assessed in a combined analysis and in sub-type specific approaches against 6,746 ethnically matched controls.
Results When hotspots are considered, we detected an enrichment of microdeletions in the combined epilepsy analysis (adjusted-P= 2.00×10-7; OR = 1.89; 95%-CI: 1.51-2.35), where the implicated microdeletions overlapped with rarely deleted genes and those involved in neurodevelopmental processes. Sub-type specific analyses showed that hotspot deletions in the GGE subgroup contribute most of the signal (adjusted-P = 1.22×10-12; OR = 7.45; 95%-CI = 4.20-11.97). Outside hotspot loci, microdeletions were enriched in the GGE cohort for neurodevelopmental genes (adjusted-P = 4.78×10-3; OR = 2.30; 95%-CI = 1.42-3.70), whereas no additional signal was observed for RE and AFE. Still, gene content analysis was able to identify known (NRXN1, RBFOX1 and PCDH7) and novel (LOC102723362) candidate genes affected in more than one epilepsy sub-type but not in controls.
Conclusions Our results show a heterogeneous effect of recurrent and non-recurrent microdeletions as part of the genetic architecture of GGE and a minor to negligible contribution in the etiology of RE and AFE.