Mapping the insomnia patient journey in Europe and Canada.

Introduction: Insomnia affects daily functioning and overall health, and is thus associated with significant individual, societal, and economic burden. The experience of patients living with insomnia, their perception of the condition, and its impact on their quality of life is not well documented. The objective of this study was to map the patient journey in insomnia and identify unmet needs. Methods: Participants were individuals with insomnia, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) who treat insomnia, in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Canada. Qualitative interviews (50 patients, 70 HCPs) and a quantitative survey (700 patients, 723 HCPs) were conducted to inform the patient-journey mapping and obtain information on the emotions, perceptions, and experiences of patients and HCPs. Results: The patient journey comprises seven phases. The first defines the onset of insomnia symptoms. Phase 2 represents self-initiated behavior change to improve sleep (e.g., sleep hygiene, reducing caffeine, exercise). The next phase is characterized by use of over-the-counter (OTC) treatments, which generally fail to provide lasting relief. Phase 4 describes the first HCP consultation (occurring several months to several years after onset) and typically occurs at a crisis point for the patient; patients may be looking for an immediate solution (e.g., medication), which may not align with their HCP's recommendation. The following stage comprises sleep hygiene/behavioral changes (±OTC treatment) under HCP guidance for many patients, although offering prescription treatments without a sleep hygiene stage under supervision is more common in some countries. Phase 6 describes prescription medication initiation, where patients fluctuate between relief/hopefulness and a sense of failure, while HCPs try to balance the need to provide relief for the patient while maintaining best medical practice and minimizing adverse effects. The final phase (living with long-term insomnia) represents an indefinite period during which sleep issues remain unresolved for many patients, with most of them continuing to use prescription treatments for longer than indicated and creating their own variable, self-managed regimens combining multiple modalities. Conclusion: This patient journey analysis for insomnia revealed seven distinct phases, highlighting different touchpoints where insomnia management could be optimized.

Long-term use of benzodiazepines in chronic insomnia: a European perspective.

Chronic insomnia occurs in ~10% of the general population and has numerous negative health effects. The recommended first line treatment of cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia is not widely available for patients in Europe, so pharmacotherapies such as benzodiazepine receptor agonist agents (benzodiazepines and Z-drugs) are commonly used. However, their use is only recommended for ≤4 weeks due to unproven long-term efficacy in treatment of chronic insomnia, and the risk of tolerance, and the potential for dependence and misuse. In Europe, recommendations limiting the use of benzodiazepines (lowest dose and shortest duration) in chronic insomnia are not always followed, likely due to the lack of approved effective alternative therapies. Here we present a recent pilot survey of the pharmacological treatment landscape in chronic insomnia in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) and physicians' attitude toward treatment. The results suggest that benzodiazepines and Z-drugs are the most widely used treatments in chronic insomnia and are being used for longer than their recommended duration. Country variations in prescription rates were observed. Due to the known association between long-term benzodiazepine use and potential for developing dependence, further analysis of the literature was performed on the use and misuse of benzodiazepines. The results show that long-term use of benzodiazepines is associated with multiple consequences of treatment, including dependence, but also that previous use of benzodiazepines may increase the risk of opioid use disorder.

Bone fractures in patients using tapentadol or oxycodone: an exploratory US claims database study.

Aim: To explore fracture outcomes with tapentadol or oxycodone, two opioids with differing mechanisms of action. Materials & methods: Retrospective cohort pilot study, using MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases, on patients with postoperative pain, back pain, or osteoarthritis and ≥1 claim for tapentadol (n = 16,457), oxycodone (n = 1,356,920), or both (n = 15,893) between June 2009 and December 2015. Results: During 266,826 and 9,007,889 days of tapentadol and oxycodone treatment, patients evidenced 1080 and 72,275 fractures, respectively. Fracture rates per treatment-year were 1.512 for tapentadol and 3.013 for oxycodone. Conclusion: Examination of administrative claims has inherent limitations, but this exploratory analysis indicates a lower fracture rate with tapentadol than oxycodone in the analyzed dataset, which needs confirmation by further clinical trials.

Innovative approaches reaching underserved and rural communities to improve epilepsy care: A review of the methodology of the Connectors Project.

OBJECTIVE: The Connectors Project, a collaboration between the Epilepsy Foundation and UCB Pharma, was a multiyear project designed to improve epilepsy care in underserved communities. A core objective of the Connectors Project was to pilot new and innovative approaches to epilepsy awareness and education in rural and underserved areas, including standardized curricula for healthcare providers and patients. METHODS: A series of consensus conferences explored opportunities and barriers to epilepsy care throughout the United States including access to local Epilepsy Foundations, neurologists, and epilepsy centers. Data from QuintilesIMS™ were examined for access to newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs)-a proxy for quality of epilepsy care-in different regions. State factors (e.g., local epilepsy foundation office, access to newer vs. older AEDs, and geographic density and diversity) were used in selecting four states as examples of rural and underserved areas to pilot the awareness and educational programs. For each state, a work team assessed challenges and opportunities, tailored educational curricula, and developed strategies for effective delivery of the educational programs. Interventions were held between June 2016 and June 2017. Interventions consisted of outreach and awareness programs, in-person health education to healthcare providers and patients/families, and digital health education. RESULTS: Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, and West Virginia were identified as pilot states representing geographically diverse areas, ranging from a state with a large high-density population center with several epilepsy centers and a local Epilepsy Foundation office (Michigan) to a state with predominately rural areas and a few small urban cores, two epilepsy centers, and no in-state Epilepsy Foundation office (West Virginia). State work teams tailored interventions and examined options for type, intent, ease of use, and impact. All states implemented outreach and awareness initiatives and in-person health education for patients and healthcare providers; use of digital health education was variable. Measurement of the interventions was agreed to be performed by the use of patient and physician surveys and reevaluation of data from QuintilesIMS for access to newer AEDs. CONCLUSION: Local Epilepsy Foundation offices successfully connected healthcare providers in rural and underserved areas to epilepsy education designed to enhance quality care in epilepsy. Educational opportunities for people with epilepsy and their families addressed critical gaps in accessing quality epilepsy care and self-management. Tailored and innovative educational approaches can be used to increase awareness levels and to overcome geographic challenges in reaching underserved populations. Relationship building and repeated, consistent engagement with healthcare providers and patients can assist in improving communication and self-management skills among patients with epilepsy.

Cost sharing for antiepileptic drugs: medication utilization and health plan costs.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between health plan out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for antiepileptic drugs and healthcare utilization (HCU) and overall plan spending among US-based commercial health plan beneficiaries with epilepsy. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. METHODS: The Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims database for January 1, 2009, to June 30, 2015, was used. Patients 65 years or younger with epilepsy and at least 12 months of continuous enrollment before index (date meeting first epilepsy diagnostic criteria) were included. Analyses were adjusted for age group, gender, beneficiary relationship, insurance plan type, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score. Primary outcomes included proportion of days covered (PDC), HCU, and healthcare spending in 90-day postindex periods. Associations between OOP costs and mean PDC, HCU, and plan healthcare spending per 90-day period were estimated. RESULTS: Across 5159 plans, 187,241 beneficiaries met eligibility criteria; 54.3% were female, 41.7% were aged 45 to 65 years, and 62.4% were in preferred provider organization plans. Across postindex 90-day periods, mean (SD) PDC, epilepsy-specific hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and emergency department visits were 0.85 (0.26), 0.02 (0.13), 0.34 (0.47), and 0.05 (0.22), respectively. Median (interquartile range) spending per 90-day period was $1488 ($459-$4705); median epilepsy-specific spending was $139 ($18-$623). Multivariable linear regression without health plan fixed effects revealed that higher OOP spending was associated with a decrease in PDC (coefficient, -0.008; 95% CI, -0.009 to -0.006; P <.001) and an increase in overall spending (218.6; 95% CI, 47.9-389.2; P = .012). Health plan fixed effects model estimates were similar, except for epilepsy-specific spending, which was significant (120.6; 95% CI, 29.2-211.9; P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: Increases in beneficiaries' OOP costs led to higher overall spending and lower PDC.

Changing the neurology policy landscape in the United States: Misconceptions and facts about epilepsy.

Epilepsy has a relatively high prevalence, and diagnosis and treatment are often challenging. Seizure freedom without significant side effects is the ultimate goal for both physicians and patients, but not always achievable. In those cases, the treatment goals of patients and providers may differ. In the United States, many clinicians continue to prescribe older AEDs, even though newer AEDs have a more desirable safety and tolerability profile, fewer drug-drug interactions, and are associated with lower epilepsy-related hospital visits. Newer AEDs are more commonly prescribed by neurologists and epilepsy center physicians, highlighting the importance of access to specialty care. We report that antiepileptic drugs are not the dominant cost driver for patients with epilepsy and costs are considerably higher in patients with uncontrolled epilepsy. Poor drug adherence is considered a main cause of unsuccessful epilepsy treatment and is associated with increases in inpatient and emergency department admissions and related costs. Interventions and educational programs are needed to address the reasons for nonadherence. Coverage policies placing a higher cost burden on patients with epilepsy lead to lower treatment adherence, which can result in higher future health care spending. Epilepsy is lagging behind other neurological conditions in terms of funding and treatment innovation. Increased investment in epilepsy research may be particularly beneficial given current funding levels and the high prevalence of epilepsy.

Antiepileptic Drug Titration and Related Health Care Resource Use and Costs.

BACKGROUND: Unexpected breakthrough seizures resulting from suboptimal antiepileptic drug (AED) dosing during the titration period, as well as adverse events resulting from rapid AED titration, may influence the titration schedule and significantly increase health care resource use (HRU) and health care costs. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between AEDs, HRU, and costs during AED titration and maintenance. METHODS: Practicing neurologists were recruited from a nationwide panel to provide up to 3 patient records each for this retrospective medical chart review. Patients with epilepsy who were aged ≥ 18 years and had initiated an AED between January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2016, were followed for 6 months from AED initiation. Titration duration was the time from AED initiation to the beginning of treatment maintenance as determined by the physician. Outcomes were epilepsy-specific HRU (hospitalizations, emergency department visits, outpatient visits, physician referral, laboratory testing/diagnostic imaging, and phone calls) and related costs that occurred during the titration or maintenance treatment periods. RESULTS: Of 811 patients, 156, 128, 125, 120, 114, 107, and 61 initiated the following AEDs: levetiracetam, lamotrigine, lacosamide, valproate, topiramate, carbamazepine, and phenytoin, respectively. Most patients (619/803 [77.1%] with complete AED data) received monotherapy. Baseline characteristics were similar across AEDs (mean [SD] age, 36.6 [14.4] years; 59.0% male). Kaplan-Meier estimates of titration duration ranged from 3.3 weeks (phenytoin) to 8.1 weeks (lamotrigine). From titration to maintenance, the overall incidence of HRU per person-month decreased 54.5%-89.3% for each HRU measure except outpatient visits (24.6% decrease). Total epilepsy-related costs decreased from $80.48 to $42.77 per person-month, or 46.9% from titration to maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: AED titration periods had higher HRU rates and costs than AED maintenance, suggesting that use of AEDs with shorter titration requirements reduces health care costs, although disease severity may also factor into overall cost. DISCLOSURES: UCB Pharma sponsored this study and reviewed the manuscript. Fishman and Kalilani are employees of UCB Pharma. Wild was an employee of UCB Pharma at the time this analysis was conducted. Song and Swallow are employees of Analysis Group, which received funding from UCB Pharma.

Current state of the union of epilepsy care in the United States: Antiepileptic drugs - An introduction to the Connectors Project.

PURPOSE: How antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are used in the United States (US) is one proxy public health indicator for the current state of epilepsy management. The use of phenytoin, other older AEDs, and newer AEDs may act as an indicator for the quality of epilepsy practice in addition to the current American Academy of Neurology quality measures. Data on AED used by states and populations can help identify which public health interventions are necessary to improve the status of epilepsy care. The Connectors Project, a collaboration between the Epilepsy Foundation and UCB Pharma, is a multiyear project designed to improve epilepsy awareness and management in underserved communities. The objective of the first phase of the Connectors Project was to assess geographic variation in epilepsy care and identify locations in need of improved epilepsy care by initially evaluating AED use in the US. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional administrative claim analysis was conducted using the QuintilesIMS™ database which included US longitudinal retail prescription and office medical claims data. Patients with a confirmed epilepsy diagnosis who were prescribed AEDs were identified. Patients with an AED prescription over a 3-year period from January 2013 to December 2015 were included if they had an epilepsy diagnosis in the 2-year period before their first AED prescription in the reporting period. The percentages of patients initially prescribed phenytoin, other older AEDs (carbamazepine and valproate), and newer AEDs (eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, topiramate) were calculated and stratified by US state and Washington, DC. Patients were considered newly treated if they had an epilepsy diagnosis code and had not received an epilepsy drug in the 1-year period preceding the first AED prescription in the reporting period. Data are reported using the moving annual total ending December 2015. RESULTS: Approximately 2.5 million US patients with epilepsy and their AED prescriptions were identified from 2013 to 2015. Predictably, states with the largest population had the highest number of patients with epilepsy who were prescribed an AED, including California, Texas, Florida, and New York. Regions with the highest total proportion of phenytoin use with a low proportion of newer AED use were Mississippi (24.4% and 53.1%, respectively) and Washington, DC (24.7% and 58.1%). Montana had the lowest proportion of phenytoin use with the highest proportion of newer AED use (7.9% and 70.4%). Among newly treated patients (N=237,347), Hawaii (39.1%) and Alaska (38.8%) had the highest percentage of phenytoin use compared with all other states. Idaho (86.1%) and Montana (84.4%) had the highest proportion of newer AED use. Washington, DC (50.9%) and Hawaii (60.9%) had the lowest proportion of patients treated with newer AEDs. North Dakota (29.6%) and Washington, DC (27.9%) had the highest rates of other older AEDs use. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of newly treated US patients with epilepsy are underserved regarding newer AED use with Mississippi and Washington, DC having the highest proportion of phenytoin use relative to newer AED use. Understanding the socioeconomic and demographic barriers for these observations is essential in planning interventions to improve the quality of life and care for patients with epilepsy, including newly treated patients. These data provide a baseline to target educational and clinical interventions for improving the quality of US epilepsy care.

Patient emotions and perceptions of antiepileptic drug changes and titration during treatment for epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of antiepileptic drug (AED) change and dose titration on the emotional well-being of patients with epilepsy. METHODS: Members of an online epilepsy community were invited to voluntarily participate in an online survey. The cross-sectional anonymous survey consisted of 31 multiple choice questions balanced in terms of variety and positivity/negativity of emotions concerning participants' most recent AED change. To substantiate survey results, spontaneous comments from epilepsy-related online forums and social media websites that mentioned participants' experiences with AED medication changes (termed passive listening statements) were analyzed and categorized by theme. RESULTS: All 345 survey participants (270 [78.3%] female; 172 [49.9%] were 26-45years old) self-reported an epilepsy/seizure diagnosis and were currently taking seizure medication; 263 (76.2%) were taking ≥2 AEDs and 301 (87.2%) had ≥1 seizure in the previous 18months. All participants reported a medication change within the previous 12months (dose increased [153 participants (44.3%)], medication added [105 (30.4%)], dose decreased [49 (14.2%)], medication removed [38 (11.0%)]). Improving seizure control (247 [71.6%]) and adverse events (109 [31.6%]) were the most common reasons for medication change. Primary emotions most associated (≥10% of participants) with an AED regimen change were (before medication change; during/after medication change) hopefulness (50 [14.5%]; 43 [12.5%]), uncertainty (50 [14.5%]; 69 [20.0%]), and anxiety (35 [10.1%]; 45 [13.0%]), and were largely due to concerns whether the change would work (212/345 [61.4%]; 180/345 [52.2%]). In the text analysis segment aimed at validating the survey, 230 participants' passive listening statements about medication titration were analyzed; additional seizure activity during dose titration (93 [40.4%]), adverse events during titration (71 [30.9%]), higher medication dosages (33 [14.3%]), and drug costs (25 [10.9%]) were the most commonly noted concerns. CONCLUSION: Although the emotional well-being of patients with epilepsy is complex, our study results suggest that participants report their emotional well-being as negatively affected by changes in AED regimen, with most patients reporting uncertainty regarding the outcome of such a change. Future research is warranted to explore approaches to alleviate patient concerns associated with AED medication changes.

Comparative effectiveness of levetiracetam, valproate and carbamazepine among elderly patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy: subgroup analysis of the randomized, unblinded KOMET study.

BACKGROUND: Few clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) as initial monotherapy for elderly patients. METHODS: This post-hoc subgroup analysis of data from an unblinded, randomized, 52-week superiority study (KOMET) compared the effectiveness of levetiracetam (LEV) with extended-release sodium valproate (VPA-ER) and controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) as monotherapy in patients aged ≥ 60 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy. The physician chose VPA or CBZ as preferred standard treatment; patients were randomized to standard AEDs or LEV. The primary endpoint was time to treatment withdrawal. Results are exploratory, since KOMET was not powered for a subgroup analysis by age. RESULTS: Patients (n = 308) were randomized to LEV (n = 48) or VPA-ER (n = 53) in the VPE-ER stratum or to LEV (n = 104) or CBZ-CR (n = 103) in the CBZ-CR stratum. Mean age was 69.6 years, range 60.2-89.9 years (intention-to-treat population n = 307). Time to treatment withdrawal hazard ratio [HR] (95 % confidence interval [CI]) for LEV vs. standard AEDs was 0.44 (0.28-0.67); LEV vs. VPA-ER: 0.46 (0.16-1.33); LEV vs. CBZ-CR: 0.45 (0.28-0.72). Twelve-month withdrawal rates were: LEV vs. standard AEDs, 20.4 vs. 38.7 %; LEV vs. VPA-ER, 10.4 vs. 23.1 %; LEV vs. CBZ-CR, 25.0 vs. 46.6 %. Time to first seizure was similar between LEV and standard AEDs (HR: 0.92, 95 % CI: 0.63-1.35), LEV and VPA-ER (0.77, 0.38-1.56), and LEV and CBZ-CR (1.02, 0.64-1.63). Adverse events were reported by 76.2, 67.3, and 82.5 % of patients for LEV, VPA-ER, and CBZ-CR, respectively. Discontinuation rates due to AEs were 11.3, 10.2, and 35.0 % for LEV, VPA-ER, and CBZ-CR, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Time to treatment withdrawal was longer with LEV compared with standard AEDs. This finding was driven primarly by the result in the CBZ-CR stratum, which in turn was likely due to the more favorable tolerability profile of LEV. Results of this post-hoc analysis suggest that LEV may be a suitable option for initial monotherapy for patients aged ≥ 60 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00175903 ; September 9, 2005.