Accounting for repeat intervention costs in the economic comparison of laser interstitial thermal therapy and anterior temporal lobectomy for treatment of refractory temporal lobe epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) is an alternative to anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) for the treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy that has been found by some to have a lower procedure cost but is generally regarded as less effective and sometimes results in a subsequent procedure. The goal of this study is to incorporate subsequent procedures into the cost and outcome comparison between ATL and LITT. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective cohort study includes 85 patients undergoing ATL or LITT for temporal lobe epilepsy during the period September 2015 to December 2022. Of the 40 patients undergoing LITT, 35 % (N = 14) underwent a subsequent ATL. An economic cost model is derived, and difference in means tests are used to compare the costs, outcomes, and other hospitalization measures. RESULTS: Our model predicts that whenever the percentage of LITT patients undergoing subsequent ATL (35% in our sample) exceeds the percentage by which the LITT procedure alone is less costly than ATL (7.2% using total patient charges), LITT will have higher average patient cost than ATL, and this is indeed the case in our sample. After accounting for subsequent surgeries, the average patient charge in the LITT sample ($103,700) was significantly higher than for the ATL sample ($88,548). A second statistical comparison derived from our model adjusts for the difference in effectiveness by calculating the cost per seizure-free patient outcome, which is $108,226 for ATL, $304,052 for LITT only, and $196,484 for LITT after accounting for the subsequent ATL surgeries. SIGNIFICANCE: After accounting for the costs of subsequent procedures, we found in our cohort that LITT is not only less effective but also results in higher average costs per patient than ATL as a first course of treatment. While cost and effectiveness rates will vary across centers, we also provide a model for calculating cost effectiveness based on individual center data.

High-Value Epilepsy Care in the United States: Predictors of Increased Costs and Complications from the National Inpatient Sample Database 2016-2019.

BACKGROUND: For patients with medically refractory epilepsy, newer minimally invasive techniques such as laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) have been developed in recent years. This study aims to characterize trends in the utilization of surgical resection versus LITT to treat medically refractory epilepsy, characterize complications, and understand the cost of this innovative technique to the public. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample database was queried from 2016 to 2019 for all patients admitted with a diagnosis of medically refractory epilepsy. Patient demographics, hospital length of stay, complications, and costs were tabulated for all patients who underwent LITT or surgical resection within these cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 6019 patients were included, 223 underwent LITT procedures, while 5796 underwent resection. Significant predictors of increased patient charges for both cohorts included diabetes (odds ratio: 1.7, confidence interval [CI]: 1.44-2.19), infection (odds ratio: 5.12, CI 2.73-9.58), and hemorrhage (odds ratio: 2.95, CI 2.04-4.12). Procedures performed at nonteaching hospitals had 1.54 greater odds (CI 1.02-2.33) of resulting in a complication compared to teaching hospitals. Insurance status did significantly differ (P = 0.001) between those receiving LITT (23.3% Medicare; 25.6% Medicaid; 44.4% private insurance; 6.7 Other) and those undergoing resection (35.3% Medicare; 22.5% Medicaid; 34.7% private Insurance; 7.5% other). When adjusting for patient demographics, LITT patients had shorter length of stay (2.3 vs. 8.9 days, P < 0.001), lower complication rate (1.9% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.385), and lower mean hospital ($139,412.79 vs. $233,120.99, P < 0.001) and patient ($55,394.34 vs. $37,756.66, P < 0.001) costs. CONCLUSIONS: The present study highlights LITT's advantages through its association with lower costs and shorter length of stay. The present study also highlights the associated predictors of LITT versus resection, such as that most LITT cases happen at academic centers for patients with private insurance. As the adoption of LITT continues, more data will become available to further understand these issues.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of epilepsy surgery in children and adolescents with drug resistant focal epilepsy at three years in a tertiary care epilepsy center in Thailand.

Epilepsy surgery is proven as a cost-effective treatment in developed countries, especially in adults with drug resistant epilepsy (DRE). This study is aimed to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of epilepsy surgery in children and adolescents with DRE at three years compared with those who were eligible for surgery but received medical treatment. This study was conducted from January 2014 to December 2018. Clinical data were obtained from a retrospective chart review. Direct medical costs, including epilepsy surgery, inpatient and outpatient treatment were retrieved from the finance department. Direct non-medical costs were collected from the family interview. The effectiveness was determined by percent seizure reduction and quality of life assessed by EQ-5D scores. Decision tree analysis using TreeAge Pro® 2018 was deployed to determine the cost-effectiveness. Seventeen patients had epilepsy surgery and 19 were in the medical group. Seizure freedom was noted in 52% and 16% in the surgical and medical groups, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 743,040 THB (22,793 USD) per 1 QALY and 3302 THB (101 USD) per 1% seizure reduction. The study did not demonstrate cost-effectiveness of epilepsy surgery in the short term compared with Thailand's threshold (160,000 THB (4908 USD) per 1 QALY). Epilepsy surgery may be cost-effective if evaluated beyond three years.

An Initial Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Magnetic Resonance-Guided Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy in Pediatric Epilepsy Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) is a new technology that provides a clinically efficacious and minimally invasive alternative to conventional microsurgical resection. However, little data exist on how costs compare to traditional open surgery. The goal of this paper is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of MRgLITT in the treatment of pediatric epilepsy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of pediatric patients who underwent MRgLITT via the Visualase® thermal therapy system (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) between December 2013 and September 2017. Direct costs associated with preoperative, operative, and follow-up care were extracted. Benefit was calculated in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the cost-effectiveness was derived from the discounted total direct costs over QALY. Sensitivity analysis on 4 variables was utilized to assess the validity of our results. RESULTS: Twelve consecutive pediatric patients with medically refractory epilepsy underwent MRgLITT procedures. At the last postoperative follow-up, 8 patients were seizure free (Engel I, 66.7%), 2 demonstrated significant improvement (Engel II, 16.7%), and 2 patients showed worthwhile improvement (Engel III, 16.7%). The average cumulative discounted QALY was 2.11 over the lifetime of a patient. Adjusting for inflation, MRgLITT procedures had a cost-effectiveness of USD 22,211 per QALY. Our sensitivity analysis of cost variables is robust and supports the procedure to be cost--effective. CONCLUSION: Our data suggests that MRgLITT may be a cost-effective alternative to traditional surgical resection in pediatric epilepsy surgery.

Vagus nerve stimulation with tachycardia detection provides additional seizure reduction compared to traditional vagus nerve stimulation.

PURPOSE: This study investigates the clinical and cost effectiveness of switching from traditional vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) to responsive VNS (rVNS), which has an additional ictal tachycardia detection and stimulation (AutoStim) mode. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was used to collect data from patients with medically refractory epilepsy who underwent generator replacements. Patients with confounding factors such as medication changes were excluded. Vagus nerve stimulation parameters, seizure frequency, and healthcare costs were collected for the 1-year period following generator replacement with the rVNS device. RESULTS: Documented seizure frequency was available for twenty-five patients. After implant with rVNS, 28% of patients had an additional ≥50% seizure reduction. There was a significant decrease in the average monthly seizure count (p = 0.039). In patients who were not already free of disabling seizures (n = 17), 41.2% had ≥50% additional seizure reduction. There was no difference in healthcare costs during the 1-year follow-up after the rVNS implant compared with one year prior. CONCLUSIONS: Ictal tachycardia detection and stimulation provided a significant clinical benefit in patients who were not free of disabling seizures with treatment from traditional VNS. There was no additional increase in healthcare costs during the first year after device replacement.

Socioeconomic consequences of drug-resistant epilepsy in an adult cohort from southern India.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the socioeconomic consequences of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). METHODS: This study comprised 132 (equal males and females) consecutive patients aged ≥18 years, who fulfilled the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) definition for DRE, prospectively seen in a tertiary care center in South India. We used a structured questionnaire to gather relevant information. RESULTS: The mean age was 31 (range 18-70) years. Mean age of onset of epilepsy was 17 years and mean duration of epilepsy 14 years. The most common epilepsy type and etiology were focal epilepsy and gliotic lesions secondary to perinatal insults, respectively. The average out of the pocket expenditure on antiseizure drugs annually amounted to 19% of the gross national product (GNP)/capita, which was borne by family members in more than two-thirds of the subjects. Almost 60% reported epilepsy having affected their education, 40% their employment, and 90% their marital prospects. Female patients were less often employed outside their homes and had more marital problems compared with males. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to high seizure burden, DRE adversely affects the pursuit of higher education, employment, and marriage. Besides the direct cost of epilepsy, these issues augment both the patient and the caregiver's liability. Socioeconomic consequences of DRE are widely prevalent in developing countries, and this study highlights the need to address them.

Cost-effectiveness of surgery for drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy in the US.

OBJECTIVE: Surgery is an effective but costly treatment for many patients with drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy (DR-TLE). We aim to evaluate whether, in the United States, surgery is cost-effective compared to medical management for patients deemed surgical candidates and whether surgical evaluation is cost-effective for patients with DR-TLE in general. METHODS: We use a semi-Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of surgery and surgical evaluation over a lifetime horizon. We use second-order Monte Carlo simulations to conduct probabilistic sensitivity analyses to estimate variation in model output. We adopt both health care and societal perspectives, including direct health care costs (e.g., surgery, antiepileptic drugs) and indirect costs (e.g., lost earnings by patients and care providers.) We compare the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to societal willingness to pay (∼$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) to determine whether surgery is cost-effective. RESULTS: Epilepsy surgery is cost-effective compared to medical management in surgically eligible patients by virtue of being cost-saving ($328,000 vs $423,000) and more effective (16.6 vs 13.6 QALY) than medical management in the long run. Surgical evaluation is cost-effective in patients with DR-TLE even if the probability of being deemed a surgical candidate is only 5%. From a societal perspective, surgery becomes cost-effective within 3 years, and 89% of simulations favor surgery over the lifetime horizon. CONCLUSION: For surgically eligible patients with DR-TLE, surgery is cost-effective. For patients with DR-TLE in general, referral for surgical evaluation (and possible subsequent surgery) is cost-effective. Patients with DR-TLE should be referred for surgical evaluation without hesitation on cost-effectiveness grounds.

Deciphering the surgical treatment gap for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE): A literature review.

Patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) rarely achieve seizure freedom with medical therapy alone. Despite being safe and effective for select patients with DRE, epilepsy surgery remains heavily underutilized. Multiple studies have indicated that the overall rates of surgery in patients with DRE have stagnated in recent years and may be decreasing, even when hospitalizations for epilepsy-related problems are on the rise. Ultimately, many patients with DRE who might otherwise benefit from surgery continue to have intractable seizures, lacking access to the full spectrum of available treatment options. In this article, we review the various factors accounting for the persistent underutilization of epilepsy surgery and uncover several key themes, including the persistent knowledge gap among physicians in identifying potential surgical candidates, lack of coordinated patient care, patient misconceptions of surgery, and socioeconomic disparities impeding access to care. Moreover, factors such as the cost and complexity of the preoperative evaluation, a lack of federal resource allocation for the research of surgical therapies for epilepsy, and difficulties recruiting patients to clinical trials all contribute to this multifaceted dilemma.

Barriers in accessing medical cannabis for children with drug-resistant epilepsy in Canada: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: The use of medical cannabis to treat drug-resistant epilepsy in children is increasing; however, there has been limited study of the experiences of parents with the current system of accessing medical cannabis for their children. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we used a patient-centered access to care framework to explore the barriers faced by parents of children with drug-resistant epilepsy when trying to access medical cannabis in Canada. We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 parents to elicit their experiences with medical cannabis. We analyzed the data according to five dimensions of access, namely approachability, acceptability, availability, affordability, and appropriateness. RESULTS: Parents sought medical cannabis as a treatment because of a perceived unmet need stemming from the failure of antiepileptic drugs to control their children's seizures. Medical cannabis was viewed as an acceptable treatment, especially compared with adding additional antiepileptic drugs. After learning about medical cannabis from the media, friends and family, or other parents, participants sought authorization for medical use. However, most encountered resistance from their child's neurologist to discuss and/or authorize medical cannabis, and many parents experienced difficulty in obtaining authorization from a member of the child's existing care team, leading them to seek authorization from a cannabis clinic. Participants described spending up to $2000 per month on medical cannabis, and most were frustrated that it was not eligible for reimbursement through public or private insurance programs. CONCLUSIONS: Parents pursue medical cannabis as a treatment for their children's drug-resistant epilepsy because of a perceived unmet need. However, parents encounter barriers in accessing medical cannabis in Canada, and strategies are needed to ensure that children using medical cannabis receive proper care from healthcare professionals with training in epilepsy care, antiepileptic drugs, and medical cannabis.

Analysis of pharmacotherapy regimen and costs in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy following vagus nerve stimulation therapy: a single-center study (Poland).

Approximately 30-40% of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) who underwent vagus nerve stimulator (VNS) implantation achieve above 50% reduction in seizure frequency. VNS proves effective in reducing frequency of seizures in DRE patients, when combined with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). This raises a question whether improvement of clinical parameters is achieved with VNS only or relies on combined therapy with AEDs. The aim of the study was the analysis of impact of VNS on clinical recovery of patients with DRE and the analysis of pharmacotherapy costs and drug regimen following VNS implantation in DRE patients. The study included all the patients who had VNS implanted at our department in the years 2014-2018. The patients would be followed up for 2 years after the VNS implantation date. The most commonly used drugs included levetiracetam, lacosamide, valproate, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate. Average cost of AEDs in year 1 following VNS implantation was between EUR 15.53 (CLB) and EUR 545.52 (TGB) and in year 2 between EUR 13.51 (NTZ) and EUR 779.44 (LAC). The greatest number of seizures affected the group of patients treated with three drugs. A statistically significant improvement in seizure frequency was observed in the group of patients treated with two and three drugs. With the rising costs of healthcare, the importance of economic efficiency is becoming increasingly relevant. VNS is a reasonable option for saving money in the healthcare system while ensuring measurable clinical and therapeutic outcomes over the long term.

Early economic evaluation of MRI-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) and epilepsy surgery for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: MRI-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) is a new minimally invasive treatment for temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), with limited effectiveness data. It is unknown if the cost savings associated with shorter hospitalization could offset the high equipment cost of MRgLITT. We examined the cost-utility of MRgLITT versus surgery for TLE from healthcare payer perspective, and the value of additional research to inform policy decision on MRgLITT. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model to evaluate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of MRgLITT versus surgery in TLE, assuming life-time horizon and 1.5% discount rate. Model inputs were derived from the literature. We conducted threshold and sensitivity analyses to examine parameter uncertainties, and expected value of partial perfect information analyses to evaluate the expected monetary benefit of eliminating uncertainty on probabilities associated with MRgLITT. RESULTS: MRgLITT yielded 0.08 more QALYs and cost $7,821 higher than surgery, with ICER of $94,350/QALY. Influential parameters that could change model outcomes include probabilities of becoming seizure-free from disabling seizures state and returning to disabling seizures from seizure-free state 5 years after surgery and MRgLITT, cost of MRgLITT disposable equipment, and utilities of disabling seizures and seizure-free states of surgery and MRgLITT. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed surgery was preferred in more than 50% of iterations. The expected monetary benefit of eliminating uncertainty for probabilities associated with MRgLITT was higher than for utilities associated with MRgLITT. CONCLUSIONS: MRgLITT resulted in more QALYs gained and higher costs compared to surgery in the base-case. The model was sensitive to variations in the cost of MRgLITT disposable equipment. There is value in conducting more research to reduce uncertainty on the probabilities and utilities of MRgLITT, but priority should be given to research focusing on improving the precision of estimates on effectiveness of MRgLITT.

Economic and clinical evaluation of vagus nerve stimulation therapy.

OBJECTIVES: The medical and social care of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) entails significant costs. Approximately 30 to 40 percent of patients with DRE who underwent vagus nerve stimulator (VNS) implantation achieve an above 50 percent reduction in seizure frequency. The study objective was to analyze the effect of VNS on clinical effects improvement and therapy cost reduction in patients with DRE over a 2-year follow-up period. The second purpose of the study was to compare average costs of VNS treatment of patients with DRE in selected countries, taking into account the purchasing power parity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included all the patients who had VNS implanted at our department between 2014 and 2018. Data on clinical events and medical costs were collected prospectively and obtained from medical documentation. We also reviewed relevant literature on costs of VNS therapy in patients with DRE from the last 18 years. RESULTS: Resource utilization and epilepsy-related events were reduced during the follow-up period compared to the baseline. Average total cost was estimated at EUR 7703.59 in year 1 and at EUR 7108.38 in year 2 following VNS implantation. Average direct costs of VNS treatment of patients with DRE over the last 18 years varied between the countries and ranged from EUR 24 790.43 in the United States to EUR 64.84 in the United Kingdom. CONCLUSION: Vagus nerve stimulator is a cost-effective therapy yielding measurable clinical and therapeutic outcomes over the long term. Moreover, the analysis contained in this review highlights the poor consensus of methodological approaches.

A multicenter, matched case-control analysis comparing burden-of-illness in Dravet syndrome to refractory epilepsy and seizure remission in patients and caregivers in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: To compare direct and indirect costs and quality of life (QoL) of pediatric and adult patients with Dravet syndrome (DS), with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) and in seizure remission (SR), and their caregivers, in Germany. METHODS: Questionnaire responses from 93 DS patients and their caregivers were matched by age and gender with responses from 93 DRE and 93 SR patients collected in independent studies, and were compared across main components of QoL, direct costs (patient visits, medication use, care level, medical equipment, and ancillary treatments), and indirect costs (quitting job, reduced working hours, missed days). RESULTS: Mean total direct costs were highest for DS patients (€4864 [median €3564] vs €3049 [median €1506] for DRE [excluding outliers], P = 0.01; and €1007 [median €311], P < 0.001 for SR). Total lost productivity over 3 months was highest among caregivers of pediatric DS (€4757, median €2841), compared with those of DRE (€1541, P < 0.001; median €0) and SR patients (€891, P < 0.001; median €0). The proportions of caregivers in employment were similar across groups (62% DS, 63% DRE, and 63% SR) but DS caregivers were more likely to experience changes to their working situation, such as quitting their job (40% DS vs 16% DRE and 9% SR, P < 0.001 in both comparisons). KINDL scores were significantly lower for DS patients (62 vs 74 and 72, P < 0.001 in both comparisons), and lower than for the average German population (77). Pediatric caregiver EQ-5D scores across all cohorts were comparable with population norms, but more DS caregivers experienced moderate to severe depressive symptoms (24% vs 11% and 5%). Mean Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score was significantly higher in DS caregivers than either of the other groups (P < 0.001). SIGNIFICANCE: This first comparative study of Dravet syndrome to difficult-to-treat epilepsy and to epilepsy patients in seizure remission emphasizes the excess burden of DS in components of QoL and direct costs. The caregivers of DS patients have a greater impairment of their working lives (indirect costs) and increased depression symptoms.

Cost-effectiveness of epileptic surgery compared with medical treatment in children with drug-resistant epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy surgery is an alternative to continued antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in children with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to measure, model, and compare the medical costs and impacts on health-related quality of life (HRQL) of epilepsy surgery versus continued medical treatment with AEDs in children with DRE. METHODS: A decision analytic model was created to estimate the cost-effectiveness of epilepsy surgery relative to continued medical treatment with AEDs. The model was based on costing and effectiveness data collected from 105 children with DRE who were operated on at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. The mean cost of conducting epilepsy surgery was AU$ 61,417 per person. Effectiveness of continued medical treatment was sourced from best available literature. In the absence of published utility values for pediatric patients with epilepsy and ethical approval to contact patients directly, HRQL was estimated by four clinicians using the Child Health Utility 9 Dimension (CHU9D). Outcome measures were seizure freedom and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: The costs over 7.6 years of follow-up were AU$ 219,297 for the surgical treatment group compared with AU$ 170,583 for the medical treatment group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for surgically vs medical treatment was AU$ 76,538 per additional patient attaining seizure freedom and AU$ 75,541 per additional QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Epilepsy surgery resulted in a greater reduction of seizures and improvement in HRQL but was more expensive than continued medical treatment with AEDs. Including benefits outside of a healthcare perspective would likely lead to a more compelling cost-effective argument.

Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Drug-resistant epilepsy affects about one-third of children with epilepsy and is associated with high costs to the healthcare system, yet the cost effectiveness of most treatments is unclear. Use of cannabis-based products for epilepsy is increasing, and the cost effectiveness of such strategies relative to conventional pharmacologic treatments must be considered. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to identify economic evaluations of cannabis-based treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy. We also sought to identify and appraise decision models that have been used in economic evaluations of pharmacologic treatments (i.e., antiepileptic drugs) in this population. METHODS: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library, as well as a targeted grey literature search, were undertaken (11 June 2018). Model-based full economic evaluations involving cannabis-based treatments or pharmacologic treatments for drug-resistant epilepsy in children were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion, and study quality was assessed by use of the Drummond and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklists. Study findings, as well as model characteristics, are narratively summarized. RESULTS: Nine economic evaluations involving children with drug-resistant epilepsy were identified; however, none involved cannabis-based treatments. All studies involved pharmacologic treatments compared with other pharmacologic treatments or non-pharmacologic treatments (i.e., ketogenic diet, epilepsy surgery, vagus nerve stimulation). Few studies have assessed the cost effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments in specific drug-resistant epilepsy syndromes, including Dravet and Lennox-Gastaut syndromes. Five included studies involved use of Markov models with a similar structure (i.e., health states based on seizure frequency relative to baseline). There was a wide range of methodological quality, and few studies fully addressed context-specific issues such as weight gain and treatment switching. CONCLUSION: Whether cannabis-based treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy represent good value for money has yet to be investigated. Economic evaluations of such treatments are needed and should address issues of particular importance in pediatric epilepsy, including weight gain over time, switching or discontinuation of treatments, effectiveness of interventions and comparators, and long-term effectiveness beyond the duration of available clinical studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42018099591.

Establishment of low cost epilepsy surgery centers in resource poor setting.

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess the feasibility of establishing low cost epilepsy surgery programs in resource poor settings. METHOD: We started epilepsy surgery centers in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities in India in private hospitals. This model is based on the identifying and operating ideal epilepsy surgery candidates on the basis of clinical history, interictal and ictal video-EEG data, and 1.5 T MRI without other investigations and without regular involvement of other specialists. Trained epileptologists formed the fulcrum of this program who identified ideal candidates, offered them counseling, and read video-EEG and MRI. We also spread epilepsy awareness among locals and physicians and established focused epilepsy clinics. The expenses were subsidized for deserving patients and policies were devised to keep video-EEG duration and staff requirement to minimum. Difficult epilepsy surgery cases were referred to established centers. Initial surgeries were performed by invited epilepsy surgeons and subsequently by local neurosurgeons. RESULTS: A total of 125 epilepsy surgeries were performed at three centers since 2012. This included 81(64.8%) temporal lobe resections, 26 (20.8%) extratemporal focal resections, and 13 (10.4%) hemispherotomies. Of the 93 patients with more than 1 year of postoperative followup, 86 (92.5%) had Engel class IA outcome. There were minor complications in 5% patients. Average cost of presurgical evaluation and surgery was Rs. 92,707 (USD 1,324). CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to establish successful epilepsy surgery programs in resource poor setting with reasonable costs. This low cost model can be replicated in other parts of world to reduce the surgical treatment gap.

The direct cost of seizure events in severe childhood-onset epilepsies: A retrospective claims-based analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the direct cost of medically treated seizure events in severe childhood-onset epilepsies. Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS), Dravet syndrome (DS), and tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) are representative conditions associated with frequent intractable seizures. METHODS: Commercial and Medicaid insurance claims from 2010 to 2015 were queried to identify patients with possible LGS, possible DS, or TSC, having ≥2 years of continuous insurance from the date of first epilepsy/seizure diagnosis or antiepileptic drug (AED) fill (index date). Utilization and cost data in patients with and without seizure events requiring acute treatment were evaluated for two years postindex. Medically treated seizure events resulting in minor, moderate, severe, and no injury were included. Average costs were normalized to 2017 dollars at 3% per annum and reported for each cohort, by insurance type and degree of injury. RESULTS: Among 9754 patients, 55.4-58.8% of LGS, 47.7-55.8% of DS, and 13.7-28.0% of TSC cohorts had ≥1 medically treated seizure event, depending on insurance type. Events during two-year postindex averaged 2.8-3.3 in LGS, 3.1-3.3 in DS, and 1.9-2.2 in TSC; cost per event averaged $8147-$14,759 in LGS, $4637-$8751 in DS, and $5335-$9672 in TSC. In patients with events, average all-cause costs per-patient-per-year (PPPY) were $71,512-$84,939 in LGS; $31,278-$43,758 in DS; and $42,997-$48,330 in TSC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with intractable seizures having at least one medically treated seizure event incur substantial all-cause costs. Our results can be used to inform cost effectiveness and budget impact models to estimate the value of existing and future treatments for these and similar conditions.

Cost-effectiveness of cannabinoids for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy: protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Drug-resistant epilepsy negatively impacts the quality of life and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and high costs to the healthcare system. Cannabis-based treatments may be effective in reducing seizures in this population, but whether they are cost-effective is unclear. In this systematic review, we will search for cost-effectiveness analyses involving the treatment of pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy with cannabis-based products to inform decision-making by public healthcare payers about reimbursement of such products. We will also search for cost-effectiveness analyses of other pharmacologic treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, as well as estimates of healthcare resource use, costs, and utilities, for use in a subsequent cost-utility analysis to address this decision problem. METHODS: We will search the published and gray literature for economic evaluations of cannabis-based products and other pharmacologic treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, as well as resource utilization and utility studies. Two independent reviewers will screen the title and abstract of each identified record and the full-text version of any study deemed potentially relevant. Study and population characteristics, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), as well as total costs and benefits, will be extracted, and quality will be assessed by use of the Drummond and CHEERS checklists; context-specific issues will also be considered. From model-based cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses, we will extract and summarize the model structure, including health states, time horizon, and cycle length. From resource utilization studies, we will extract data about the frequency of resource use (e.g., neurology visits, emergency department visits, admissions to hospital). From utility studies, we will extract the utility for each health state, the source of the preferences (e.g., child, parent, patient, general public), and the method of elicitation. DISCUSSION: Drug-resistant epilepsy in children is associated with important costs to the healthcare system, and decision-makers require high-quality evidence on which to base reimbursement decisions. The results of this review will be useful to both decision-makers considering the decision problem of whether to reimburse cannabis-based products through public formularies and to analysts conducting studies in this area. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no.: CRD42018099591 .

Epilepsy surgery in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy surgery is an important treatment option for people with drug-resistant epilepsy. Surgical procedures for epilepsy are underutilized worldwide, but it is far worse in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), and it is less clear as to what extent people with drug-resistant epilepsy receive such treatment at all. Here, we review the existing evidence for the availability and outcome of epilepsy surgery in LMIC and discuss some challenges and priority. METHODS: We used an accepted six-stage methodological framework for scoping reviews as a guide. We searched PubMed, Embase, Global Health Archives, Index Medicus for South East Asia Region (IMSEAR), Index Medicus for Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR), Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), African Journal Online (AJOL), and African Index Medicus (AIM) to identify the relevant literature. RESULTS: We retrieved 148 articles on epilepsy surgery from 31 countries representing 22% of the 143 LMIC. Epilepsy surgery appears established in some of these centers in Asia and Latin America while some are in their embryonic stage reporting procedures in a small cohort performed mostly by motivated neurosurgeons. The commonest surgical procedure reported was temporal lobectomies. The postoperative seizure-free rates and quality of life (QOL) are comparable with those in the high-income countries (HIC). Some models have shown that epilepsy surgery can be performed within a resource-limited setting through collaboration with international partners and through the use of information and communications technology (ICT). The cost of surgery is a fraction of what is available in HIC. CONCLUSION: This review has demonstrated the availability of epilepsy surgery in a few LMIC. The information available is inadequate to make any reasonable conclusion of its existence as routine practice. Collaborations with international partners can provide an opportunity to bring high-quality academic training and technological transfer directly to surgeons working in these regions and should be encouraged.