Nannan Li, Marian Majoie, Silvia Evers, Kim Rijkers, Felix Gubler, Rob Rouhl, Richard Lazeron, Pim Klarenbeek, Vicki Laskier-Owens, Mickaël Hiligsmann
{"title":"Budget impact analysis of cenobamate for epilepsy patients with drug-resistant focal onset seizures in the Netherlands.","authors":"Nannan Li, Marian Majoie, Silvia Evers, Kim Rijkers, Felix Gubler, Rob Rouhl, Richard Lazeron, Pim Klarenbeek, Vicki Laskier-Owens, Mickaël Hiligsmann","doi":"10.1080/13696998.2024.2443338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to explore the financial consequences of adopting cenobamate as a treatment alternative in epilepsy patients with drug-resistant focal onset seizures (FOS) from a societal perspective in the Netherlands.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A previous budget impact model with a 5-year time horizon was adapted to the Dutch setting accounting for the eligible population, real-world market shares, treatment effectiveness and resource use in two scenarios: cenobamate with constant market share versus cenobamate with linearly increased market share up to 20%. Clinical inputs included treatment response, seizure reduction and adverse events. Costs consisted of drugs, medical and non-medical costs. One-way sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were conducted to test the robustness of our results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>14,723 patients were eligible for cenobamate in 2022. Although cenobamate adds a gross budget impact of €12,686,30, the displacement of other drugs yields a total impact on the drug budget of €3,722,596 over 5 years. Adopting cenobamate resulted in a medical cost savings of €13,499,498 due to less resource use, and non-medical cost savings of €22,144,054 due to reduced productivity losses. Overall, savings generated at medical and non-medical cost level offset the gross drug budget impact of cenobamate, resulting in a saving of €31,920,955 over 5 years. Results were robust in the sensitivity/scenario analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Treatment with cenobamate is associated with both medical and non-medical cost savings, which offset the increase in drug budget and result in a significant potential budget saving. The higher the market share of cenobamate, the larger the budget savings. We acknowledge several limitations; Complex scenarios such as drug interactions, stopping/switching drugs, and multiple drug use were not taken into account. The long-term efficacy and safety of cenobamate and its comparators remains uncertain. Future real-world data are needed to confirm our findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":16229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Economics","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2443338","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to explore the financial consequences of adopting cenobamate as a treatment alternative in epilepsy patients with drug-resistant focal onset seizures (FOS) from a societal perspective in the Netherlands.
Methods: A previous budget impact model with a 5-year time horizon was adapted to the Dutch setting accounting for the eligible population, real-world market shares, treatment effectiveness and resource use in two scenarios: cenobamate with constant market share versus cenobamate with linearly increased market share up to 20%. Clinical inputs included treatment response, seizure reduction and adverse events. Costs consisted of drugs, medical and non-medical costs. One-way sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were conducted to test the robustness of our results.
Results: 14,723 patients were eligible for cenobamate in 2022. Although cenobamate adds a gross budget impact of €12,686,30, the displacement of other drugs yields a total impact on the drug budget of €3,722,596 over 5 years. Adopting cenobamate resulted in a medical cost savings of €13,499,498 due to less resource use, and non-medical cost savings of €22,144,054 due to reduced productivity losses. Overall, savings generated at medical and non-medical cost level offset the gross drug budget impact of cenobamate, resulting in a saving of €31,920,955 over 5 years. Results were robust in the sensitivity/scenario analyses.
Conclusion: Treatment with cenobamate is associated with both medical and non-medical cost savings, which offset the increase in drug budget and result in a significant potential budget saving. The higher the market share of cenobamate, the larger the budget savings. We acknowledge several limitations; Complex scenarios such as drug interactions, stopping/switching drugs, and multiple drug use were not taken into account. The long-term efficacy and safety of cenobamate and its comparators remains uncertain. Future real-world data are needed to confirm our findings.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Medical Economics'' mission is to provide ethical, unbiased and rapid publication of quality content that is validated by rigorous peer review. The aim of Journal of Medical Economics is to serve the information needs of the pharmacoeconomics and healthcare research community, to help translate research advances into patient care and be a leader in transparency/disclosure by facilitating a collaborative and honest approach to publication.
Journal of Medical Economics publishes high-quality economic assessments of novel therapeutic and device interventions for an international audience