The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5-12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0-94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96-1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of -0·040 (95% central range -0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. INTERPRETATION: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Valproic acid and socioeconomic associations in Swedish women with epilepsy 2010-2015.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the correlation between socioeconomic status and the prescription of Valproic acid (VPA) in women of fertile age in Sweden. METHODS: This is a registered-based cohort study including all women living in Sweden aged 18-45 years in the years 2010-2015, with a diagnosis of epilepsy and no intellectual disability (n = 9143). Data were collected from the National Patient Register, the Drug Prescription Register, and the Longitudinal integration database for health insurance and labor market studies (LISA). RESULTS: Women with only 9 years of school were more often prescribed VPA than women with a University degree (12.9% compared to 10.7% in 2015 [p = 0.015]). Similar differences were seen between the lowest and highest income group (16.6% compared to 12.7% in 2015 [p < 0.001]). The odds of having a VPA prescription in 2015 was 1.59 (p < 0.001) in women with 9 years of school compared to women with a University degree, and 1.60 (p < 0.001) in the lowest income group relative to the highest income group after adjusting for age. From 2010 to 2015, the proportion with VPA prescription in the whole cohort diminished with an absolute reduction of -2.2% (p < 0.001). The decrease was similar among the different education and income groups (p = 0.919 and p = 0.280). SIGNIFICANCE: The results indicate that the increased knowledge on VPA teratogenicity was implemented across socioeconomic strata in the Swedish healthcare system. Women with lower income or education level remained more frequent VPA users. Whether this difference reflects epilepsy type or severity, or socioeconomic disparities, merit further study.

Determination of healthcare resource and cost implications of using alternative sodium valproate formulations in the treatment of epilepsy in children in England: A retrospective database review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the adherence, healthcare resource and cost implications of using Episenta® minitablets or Epilim® monolithic tablet in the treatment of epilepsy in children in England. DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of healthcare administrative databases. SETTING: The study analysed data collected from Primary Care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)) and Secondary Care (Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)) in England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (stratified by age 0-12; 0-17 and 18+ years) with a diagnosis of epilepsy in receipt of a new prescription for Episenta® minitablets or Epilim® monolithic tablet from January 2012 to October 2017. Limited to those with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Determining the impact of sodium valproate formulation on measures of treatment adherence and healthcare resource usage. RESULTS: There were 793 patients in the dataset: 84 on Episenta® minitablets and 709 on Epilim® tablets. Measures of medication adherence were not significantly different between the minitablet formulation and the monolithic matrix tablet. However there was a greater annualised incidence rate of epilepsy related primary healthcare contacts in a paediatric population from the tablet formulation compared to those treated with minitablets (95% CI [-1.561,0.0152]) for those aged 0-12 and (95% CI [-1.3234,-0.0058]) for those aged 0-17. This is found despite a lower dose being used in the minitablet cohort (595 mg vs 945 mg for the tablet) for those aged 0-17 which indicates effective therapy at a lower dose using the minitablet compared to the monolithic tablet formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Minitablet formulations of sodium valproate (presented as granules in capsules or sachets) can provide better therapeutic outcomes and reduced associated healthcare resource costs compared to monolithic tablets in children and young people with epilepsy. The interpretation of this data is limited by the large difference in sample size between the two groups which needs additional investigation to generate matched data for future comparisons. Further work is required to understand why the Episenta® minitablets formulation generated better outcomes in paediatric populations.

Meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness of second-line antiepileptic drugs for status epilepticus.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the cost and effectiveness of nonbenzodiazepine antiepileptic drugs (non-BZD AEDs) for treatment of BZD-resistant convulsive status epilepticus (SE). METHODS: Decision analysis model populated with effectiveness data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, and cost data from publicly available prices. The primary outcome was cost per seizure stopped ($/SS). Sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the results across a wide variation of the input parameters. RESULTS: We included 24 studies with 1,185 SE episodes. The most effective non-BZD AED was phenobarbital (PB) with a probability of SS of 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.88), followed by valproate (VPA) (0.71 [95% CI: 0.61-0.79]), lacosamide (0.66 [95% CI: 0.51-0.79]), levetiracetam (LEV) (0.62 [95% CI: 0.5-0.73]), and phenytoin/fosphenytoin (PHT) (0.53 [95% CI: 0.39-0.67]). In pairwise comparisons, PB was more effective than PHT (p = 0.002), VPA was more effective than PHT (p = 0.043), and PB was more effective than LEV (p = 0.018). The most cost-effective non-BZD AED was LEV (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: $18.55/SS), followed by VPA (ICER: $94.44/SS), and lastly PB (ICER: $847.22/SS). PHT and lacosamide were not cost-effective compared to the other options. Sensitivity analyses showed marked overlap in cost-effectiveness, but PHT was consistently less cost-effective than LEV, VPA, and PB. CONCLUSION: VPA and PB were more effective than PHT for SE. There is substantial overlap in the cost-effectiveness of non-BZD AEDs for SE, but available evidence does not support the preeminence of PHT, neither in terms of effectiveness nor in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Economic Evaluation of Stiripentol for Dravet Syndrome: A Cost-Utility Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dravet syndrome is a catastrophic form of pediatric treatment-resistant epilepsy with few effective treatment options. Stiripentol is approved for use in Canada for treatment of Dravet syndrome, but the associated long-term costs and benefits have not been well-studied and its cost effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of stiripentol as an adjunctive treatment to clobazam and valproate for treatment of Dravet syndrome from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare payer. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with adjunctive stiripentol treatment compared with clobazam and valproate alone in children with Dravet syndrome. Transition probabilities, drug efficacy, utility weights, and costs were obtained from a review of the literature. Probabilistic analyses were conducted using a Markov model with health states related to seizure frequency. A 10-year horizon was used. The incremental cost per QALY gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) for adjunctive use of stiripentol was calculated, and assumptions were explored in scenario analyses. All costs are expressed in 2017 Canadian dollars ($Can). RESULTS: Compared with clobazam and valproate alone, the adjunctive use of stiripentol is associated with an ICER of $Can151,310. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $Can50,000, the probability that stiripentol was the optimal treatment was 5.2%. The cost of stiripentol would need to be reduced by 61.4% for stiripentol to be cost effective. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare payer, stiripentol is not cost effective at its current price at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $Can50,000. Funding stiripentol will be associated with important opportunity costs that bear consideration.

[Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Valproic Acid in Children: A Prospective Study of The Effect of The Compliance and The Economic Level on the Trough Plasmatic Concentrations and Epileptic Seizures]. / Suivi thérapeutique de l'acide valproïque chez l'enfant : étude prospective de l'effet de l'observance et du niveau économique sur les concentrations plasmatiques résiduelles et les crises épileptiques.

INTRODUCTION: Valproic acid (VA) is a widely used antiepileptic drug. Because of its pharmacokinetic variability and the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors such as the treatment compliance, VA therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is recommended in children. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of treatment compliance and the economic level on VA tough plasmatic concentration (TPC) and epileptic rhythm in children. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A one-year prospective study (August 2008-August 2009) concerning children (age≤5 years) regularly treated by VA who had a VA TDM. So, 276 plasmatic samples from 238 children were collected. The children were divided in two groups as following: the group 1 (G1) presenting a good compliance and a reliable questioning and the group 2 (G2) presenting a bad compliance and a non reliable questioning. We evaluated the interindividual variability by correlating the TPC to the dose. Then, we divided the hole group in function of their economic levels (low-medium-high). RESULTS: Sex ratio male/female was 1.3. Median age was 5 years+/-3,9. The mean TPC was 62 µg/mL [0.12-131 µg/mL]. VA TPC were in the therapeutic range (TR) in 62%. Adverse drug reactions were noted in 4.2% of the children. G1 represented 70% of the children and G2, 30%. The TPC were in the TR in 67% of G1 and 51% of G2 (p=0.02). There was a significant difference between the TPC in G1 and G2 (p=0.02).There was no significative difference in the TPC in function of the economic levels. There was no correlation between TPC and the administered doses. The epileptic seizures were more spaced in children with therapeutic TPC than those with TPC in the TR (p=0.002) and in G1 than in G2 (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Compliance should be appropriate in order to optimize the TDM rule. A good compliance and a therapeutic TPC allow a better control of epileptic seizures.

Antiepileptic drug utilization in Bangladesh: experience from Dhaka Medical College Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common health problem which carries a huge medical social psychological and economic impact for a developing country. The aim of this hospital-based study was to get an insight into the effectiveness and tolerability of low cost antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in Bangladeshi people with epilepsy. METHODS: This retrospective chart review was done from hospital records in weekly Epilepsy outdoor clinic of Department of Neurology, Dhaka Medical College Hospital (DMCH) from October 1998 to February 2013. A total of 854 epilepsy patients met the eligibility criteria (had a complete record of two years of follow up data) from hospital database. A checklist was used to take demographics (age and gender), epilepsy treatment and adverse event related data. At least two years of follow up data were considered for analysis. RESULTS: Out of 854 patients selected, majority of the patients attending outdoor clinic were >11-30 years age group (55.2%) with a mean age of 20.3 ± 9 years and with a male (53%) predominance. Focal epilepsy were more common (53%), among whom secondary generalized epilepsy was the most frequent diagnosis (67%) followed by complex partial seizure (21%). Among those with Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy (46%), generalized tonic clonic seizure was encountered in 74% and absence seizure was observed in 13%. The number of patients on monotherapy and dual AED therapy were 67% and 24% respectively and polytherapy (i.e. >3 AEDs) was used only in 9%. CBZ (67%) was the most frequently prescribed AED, followed by VPA (43%), PHB (17%), and PHT (8%). CBZ was prescribed in 37% patients as monotherapy followed by VPA in 21% and PHB in 8% patients. Newer generation drugs eg lemotrigine and topiramate were used only as add on therapy in combination with CBZ and VPA in only 2% patients. The treatment retention rates over the follow up period for the AEDs in monotherapy varied between 86 and 91% and were highest for CBZ, followed by VPA. Most of the combination regimens had a treatment retention rate of 100%. The effectiveness of AED in terms of reduction of seizure frequency was highest for PHT (100%) and PHB (98%) followed by CBZ (96%) and VPA (95%). PHB and PHT were the cheapest of all AEDs (42 I$ and 56 I$/ year respectively). The costs of VPA and CBZ were two times and LTG and TOP were six to eight times higher. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) were observed among 140 (24.5%) of those with monotherapy. PHT (64%) was the most common drug to cause ADR, CBZ was at the bottom of the list to cause adverse effect (11.6%). VPA and PHB caused weight gain commonly. Adjustment of drug dose or withdrawal due to ADRs was necessary in 39% with PHT and 26% with PHB. CONCLUSION: Though PHT and PHB are cheapest and efficacious among all, CBZ and VPA are less costly, effective and well tolerated drug for seizure control in context of Bangladesh.

Prevalence, utilization, and costs of antiepileptic drugs for epilepsy in Germany--a nationwide population-based study in children and adults.

Nationwide analyses of drug use can provide a prevalence estimate of the underlying disease and can help in understanding the characteristics of treatment. This study aimed for such analyses regarding the utilization of antiepileptic drugs (AED) for epilepsy in Germany. In 2009, all 4,115,705 AED prescriptions of all German patients with statutory health insurance (70,011,508 persons) were retrospectively analyzed. The IMS(®) LRx database served as data source, which accesses nationwide pharmacy data centers processing all German prescription data. To establish the age and sex-specific percentage of patients taking AED because of epilepsy, we used a second database, Disease Analyzer(®), which covered a representative sample of the German population (7.2 million patients) and contained ICD10 codes alongside with prescription data. The period prevalence of patients taking AED because of epilepsy was 9.1/1,000 (children/adolescents: 5.2/1,000; elderly: 12.5/1,000). Of the patients, 83.1 % took at least one of four AED: valproate (29.8 %), carbamazepine (26.4 %), lamotrigine (21.4 %), and levetiracetam (16.9 %). Oxcarbazepine and sultiame were popular with pediatricians. Elderly patients frequently received phenytoin and primidone. More than half of the patients were treated by family physicians; 68 % took AED in monotherapy and 7.9 % received >2 AED (children/adolescents: 12.5 %). The costs for AED prescribed for epilepsy amounted to €285.1 Mio (median AED costs/patient: €158/a). The German 2009 prevalence of epileptic patients taking AED was 9.1/1,000. Family physicians cared for the majority of patients. Prevalence and prescribing patterns changed with age. Costs of AED against epilepsy added up to 1 % of total medication costs in Germany.

Economic evaluation of anti-epileptic drug therapies with specific focus on teratogenic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Anti-epileptic drugs are known to be teratogenic, yet many women do need to continue the anti-epileptic drug use during pregnancy. OBJECTIVES: To perform an economic evaluation of the anti-epileptic drug choice in young women who potentially wish to become pregnant. In particular, to estimate the impact of teratogenicity on the costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY). METHODS: A decision-tree model is used to calculate the costs per QALY, taking into account the malformation risk in offspring due to the exposure to carbamazepine, lamotrigine or valproic acid, based on the European birth cohort of 2007. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Valproic acid is dominated by carbamazepine after rank ordering on costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine vs carbamazepine was estimated at €175,534 per QALY. Although valproic acid was dominated by carbamazepine in terms of costs and related effects, it is clinically relevant to compare lamotrigine with valproic acid. In particular, treatment options are dependent on several individual and clinical characteristics and these agents are therefore not always considered as interchangeable for all specified populations. The incremental cost-effectiveness for lamotrigine vs valproic acid was estimated at €13,370 per QALY. With assuming a willingness to pay threshold of €50,000 per QALY, results from the probabilistic analysis resulted in an acceptance level for lamotrigine vs carbamazepine and lamotrigine vs valproic acid of 4% and 99%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on epidemiological data it is advised to whenever possible avoid valproic acid during pregnancy. Both carbamazepine and lamotrigine are estimated to be cost-effective treatment options vs valproic acid if focused on teratogenicity.

Cost effectiveness of adjunctive quetiapine fumarate extended-release tablets with mood stabilizers in the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar I disorder (BPD I) is a recurrent illness that affects 1% of the US population and constitutes a large economic burden. However, few studies have investigated the cost effectiveness of maintenance treatment options for BPD I. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of maintenance treatment with quetiapine fumarate extended-release (XR) tablets in combination with mood stabilizers (lithium or divalproex) in comparison with the following treatments: placebo in combination with lithium or divalproex; no maintenance treatment; lithium monotherapy; lamotrigine monotherapy; olanzapine monotherapy; and aripiprazole monotherapy. METHODS: The analysis was conducted from the societal and payer perspectives in the US, using a Markov model. The model simulated a cohort of 1000 stabilized BPD I patients and estimated the quarterly risk in three health states: euthymia, mania and depression. Efficacy data were derived from two randomized, double-blind trials comparing quetiapine + lithium/divalproex with placebo + lithium/divalproex for up to 2 years, as well as other published literature. Resource data were extracted from published literature. Drug costs, hospitalizations and physician visits were among the direct costs. Indirect costs included absenteeism, and mortality rates included suicide. Benefits and costs were discounted at 3% and the price reference year was 2009. Endpoints included number of acute mood episodes, hospitalizations due to an acute mood event and costs per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted to evaluate uncertainty in the model inputs. RESULTS: Treatment with quetiapine XR + lithium/divalproex was associated with reductions in acute mania (46%), acute depression (41%) and related hospitalizations (44%) compared with placebo + lithium/divalproex, and similar reductions in events were observed relative to lithium monotherapy. In the base-case analysis from the payer perspective, the discounted incremental cost per QALY for quetiapine XR + lithium/divalproex compared with placebo + lithium/divalproex was $US22 959, and compared with lithium monotherapy was $US100 235, while all other comparators were dominated. PSA showed these results to be robust to select assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine XR + lithium/divalproex may be a cost-effective maintenance treatment option for patients with BPD I.

Cost-effectiveness of quetiapine with lithium or divalproex for maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar I disorder is a recurrent illness that affects 1% of the US population and constitutes a large economic burden. Few studies have investigated the cost-effectiveness of maintenance treatment options. The objective of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of quetiapine (QTP) in combination with lithium (Li) or divalproex (DVP) compared with that of Li or DVP alone for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of maintenance treatment with QTP in combination with Li or DVP was compared with placebo (PBO) in combination with Li or DVP from a US direct costs perspective using a Markov model. The model simulated a cohort of 1,000 stabilized patients with bipolar I disorder and estimated the quarterly risk in three health states: euthymia, mania, and depression. Efficacy data were derived from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials comparing QTP + Li/DVP with PBO + Li/DVP for up to 2 years. Resource data were obtained from published literature. Direct costs included drug costs, hospitalizations, and physician visits. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3% and the price reference year was 2007. Endpoints included the number of acute mood episodes, hospitalizations due to an acute mood event, and costs per quality-adjusted life-years. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted to evaluate uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, QTP + Li/DVP dominated PBO + Li/DVP. The PSA showed these results to be robust. In addition, treatment with QTP + Li/DVP was associated with reductions in acute manic episodes (46%), acute depressive episodes (41%), and related hospitalizations (44%) compared with PBO + Li/DVP. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses, based on two randomized clinical trials, suggest that QTP + Li/DVP is a cost-effective maintenance treatment option for patients with bipolar I disorder compared with Li or DVP alone.

Cost analysis of divalproex sodium extended-release compared to valproic acid in the treatment of bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze, from a payer perspective, the net pharmaceutical and medical costs of prescribing divalproex sodium extended-release (DVPX-ER) versus valproic acid (VPA) in patients with bipolar disorder. METHODS: The study used a decision analytic framework to compare the total costs associated with DVPX-ER relative to VPA in the treatment of bipolar disease. The decision model incorporated two primary outcomes: GI side effects and treatment success. Levels of health service utilization and probability values were obtained from an expert panel comprised of 15 psychiatrists. Unit costs were obtained from an academic medical center. Two-way sensitivity analysis and a Monte Carlo simulation were conducted to examine the stability of the results. RESULTS: The average probability of GI side effects associated with VPA and DVPX-ER estimated by the expert panel was 0.36 and 0.10 respectively. The average probability of treatment success for VPA and DVPX-ER was estimated to be 0.45 and 0.58 respectively. In the base case analysis, the expected total cost per patient was $34 208.84 and $25 336.13 for VPA and DVPX-ER respectively, a difference (incremental cost) of -$8188.87. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation indicated a negative incremental cost of using DVPX-ER relative to VPA in a majority (approximately 70%) of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this decision analysis, based on probabilities of major events and associated utilization from an expert panel, suggest that divalproex sodium extended-release results in lower total costs than valproic acid in the treatment of bipolar disorder. Limitations of this study primarily involved the sources of data used in the model, including that derived from expert opinion.

The effect of adjunctive mood stabilizers on antipsychotic utilization pattern and health resource utilization for Medicaid enrollees with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing adjunctive mood stabilizers to manage schizophrenia is prevalent, despite the lack of substantial evidence to support the long-term use of this treatment regimen. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of using adjunctive mood stabilizers on antipsychotic utilization, total health expenditures, inpatient hospitalizations, long-term care stays, and emergency room (ER) visits for patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Georgia Medicaid claims from 1999 through 2001 were analyzed to identify recipients diagnosed with schizophrenia (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM]: 295. XX). The treatment groups consisted of subjects who received combination therapy of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics (including both atypical and typical medications), while the comparison group consisted of subjects who were on antipsychotic medications without exposure to the mood stabilizers under investigation. Four treatment groups (valproate, lithium, carbamazepine, and combination mood stabilizer therapy) were formed based on the mood stabilizers patient received. Differences in annual health care use and expenditures were estimated between propensity score matched treatment and comparison groups controlling for comorbidity, prior utilization, demographic, and health provider specialty. RESULTS: During the 1-year observation period, subjects in treatment groups filled an average of 200-days supply of adjunctive mood stabilizers. These adjunctive mood stabilizer recipients had significantly longer antipsychotic treatment durations than the subjects who did not have exposure to mood stabilizers (valproate + antipsychotic vs. antipsychotic only, net difference: 56.47 days, p < 0.0001; lithium + antipsychotic vs. antipsychotic only, net difference: 90.25 days, p < 0.0001; carbamazepine + antipsychotic vs. antipsychotic only, net difference: 41.27 days, p = 0.0439; multiple mood stabilizers + antipsychotic vs. antipsychotic only, net difference: 83.14 days, p < 0.0001). The intensive pharmacotherapy associated with treatment groups resulted in $900-$1300 higher pharmacy costs than the comparison groups (valproate + antipsychotic vs. antipsychotic only, net difference: $1218.43, p < 0.0001; lithium + antipsychotic vs. antipsychotic only, net difference: $985.79, p = 0.0015; carbamazepine + antipsychotic vs. antipsychotic only, net difference: $911.63, p = 0.0497; multiple mood stabilizers + antipsychotic vs. antipsychotic only, net difference: $1281.91, p < 0.0047). However, there were no statistically significant differences for total health expenditures, hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and nursing home admissions between propensity-matched treatment and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in health care costs or utilization of ER, long-term care, and inpatient services between schizophrenia patients who did and did not receive adjunctive mood stabilizer; however, longer antipsychotic treatment durations were observed in patients receiving adjunctive mood stabilizers. Interpretation of these results is limited by the unknown selection bias between the treatment and the comparison groups and the relatively small number of patients in some treatment groups. The development of a better-controlled study to further evaluate this treatment regimen is warranted.

A cost-effectiveness decision model for antiepileptic drug treatment in newly diagnosed epilepsy patients.

OBJECTIVE: To establish cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment strategies of newly diagnosed patients with epilepsy. METHODS: A decision analysis was carried out comparing effectiveness and treatment cost of six treatment strategies comprising carbamazepine (CBZ), lamotrigine (LTG), and valproate (VPA) as first-line and second-line drugs. Three outcome groups were defined: complete success, partial success, and failure. Data on seizure control and failure due to adverse effects were derived from the literature. Data on resource use and costs were collected for each outcome group by means of a patient survey. RESULTS: Cost data were obtained from 71 patients. Cost increased from complete success to failure outcome groups. The probability of obtaining complete success varied from 64% (VPA-CBZ strategy) to 74% (LTG-VPA strategy). The strategy LTG-VPA was more effective than the least expensive strategy CBZ-VPA, but at higher costs per additional effectively treated patient. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings to be robust. Subsequent analysis showed that changing inclusion criteria used in the selection of the studies from the literature had a major effect on cost-effectiveness ratios of the various strategies. The probability that LTG first-line therapy is the most cost-effective option remains small, even defining a high cost-effectiveness threshold. Nevertheless, LTG second-line strategies can be cost-effective depending on the willingness to pay for patient improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Only a few studies satisfied our inclusion criteria for employment in our decision model. Our model supports the use of conventional AEDs as first-line options for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. LTG second-line therapy is likely to be the most cost-effective option in case society is willing to pay more than Euro 6000 for an additional successfully treated patient. This study also illustrates that, with the data presently available, the outcome of decision analysis for AED treatment choice depends on the inclusion criteria used to select trials. Prospective real-life studies are needed in which first- and second-line treatment strategies are compared with respect to both effectiveness and costs.

The use of lamotrigine and other antiepileptic drugs in paediatric patients at a Malaysian hospital.

OBJECTIVE: (1) To determine the effect of lamotrigine add-on therapy on the seizure frequency and cost in paediatric patients. (2) To determine the prescribing pattern of other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). METHOD: A retrospective study of medical records was carried out from October 2000 to June 2001 at the paediatric clinic, Hospital Pulau Pinang. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Seizure frequency, cost of drug and types of AED prescribed. RESULTS: A total of 209 medical records were retrieved during the study period. Lamotrigine (LTG) was prescribed in 29 patients as add-on therapy. In 18 patients, there was a significant reduction in seizure frequency after the addition of LTG. Approximately 70% experienced a reduction in seizure frequency of more than 50%. Side effects of LTG were considered mild and manageable. However, drug cost after the addition of LTG increased by 103%. In the remaining 180 patients, the most common AED prescribed was sodium valproate (VPA). Only 15% of the patients received combination therapy. Mean monthly cost of monotherapy was found to be RM 24.4 while monthly cost of combination therapy was RM 45.4 (1 Euro-RM 5.00). CONCLUSION: The majority of paediatric patients in the study are on AED monotherapy and only a small percentage was prescribed lamotrigine. The use of lamotrigine is associated with better seizure control but with an increase in drug cost.

Effectiveness and medical costs of divalproex versus lithium in the treatment of bipolar disorder: results of a naturalistic clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical, quality of life (QOL), and medical cost outcomes of treatment with divalproex were compared with lithium in patients with bipolar I disorder over 1 year. METHODS: In a pragmatic, randomized clinical trial, 201 adults hospitalized with bipolar I manic or mixed episodes were randomized to divalproex or lithium, in addition to usual psychiatric care, and followed for 1 year. All subsequent treatment of bipolar disorder was managed by the patient's psychiatrist. Symptoms of mania and depression were evaluated at baseline and at hospital discharge. Assessments at the start of maintenance therapy and after 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months included manic and depressive symptoms, disability days and QOL. Medical resource use data were also collected monthly and costs were estimated using national sources. RESULTS: Divalproex-treated patients (12%) were less likely to discontinue study medications for lack of efficacy or adverse effects than lithium-treated patients (23%). No statistically significant differences between the treatment groups were observed over the 1-year maintenance phase for clinical symptoms, QOL outcomes, or disability days. Mean estimated total medical costs were USD 28,911 for the divalproex group compared with USD 30,666 for the lithium treatment group. Patients continuing mood stabilizer therapy at 3 months had slightly better health outcomes and substantially lower total medical costs than those who discontinued therapy ( USD 10,091 versus USD 34,432, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Divalproex maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder resulted in comparable medical costs, clinical and QOL outcomes compared with lithium. Patients remaining on mood stabilizer therapy had substantially lower total medical costs and better health outcomes compared with those who discontinued therapy.