Which is the most cost-effective antiseizure medication for initial monotherapy for focal epilepsy?

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Epilepsia Pub Date : 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1111/epi.18269
Yani Hu, Shunan Chen, Fengqian Mao, Suhong Wang, Jie Chen, Wei Hu, Lingyan Yu, Haibin Dai
{"title":"Which is the most cost-effective antiseizure medication for initial monotherapy for focal epilepsy?","authors":"Yani Hu, Shunan Chen, Fengqian Mao, Suhong Wang, Jie Chen, Wei Hu, Lingyan Yu, Haibin Dai","doi":"10.1111/epi.18269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>An increasing number of antiseizure medications (ASMs) are approved for monotherapy for focal epilepsy, but direct comparisons of the lifetime cost-effectiveness of all existing treatment strategies are lacking. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of new ASMs and traditional ASMs as first-line monotherapy for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We used a Markov model to evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of 10 ASMs in the treatment of focal epilepsy, with lacosamide (LCM) as a control, from the perspective of society in the United States. Effectiveness, cost data, and health state utilities were obtained from published literature. The cycle of the model is 6 months. Willingness to pay was defined as $150 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate parameter uncertainty, and several scenario analyses were also conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The base case analysis showed that carbamazepine (CBZ) was the least costly ASM and more effective than valproic acid (VPA), levetiracetam (LEV), gabapentin (GBP), topiramate (TPM), and lamotrigine (LTG) from an American social perspective. In contrast, oxcarbazepine (OXC), phenytoin (PHT), phenobarbitone (PHB), LCM, and zonisamide (ZNS) were more effective than CBZ, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $334 703.50, $325 610.99, $3 037 148.62, $1 178 954.91, and $108 153 360.85/QALY, respectively. The traditional ASMs were ranked as CBZ, PHT, VPA, and PHB; the new ASMs were ranked as OXC, LEV, LCM, LTG, TPM, GBP, and ZNS. When generic drugs are used, PHT, OXC, and CBZ remain the three most cost-effective options.</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>In terms of cost-effectiveness, CBZ monotherapy is the best option for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy, followed by OXC, PHT, VPA, LEV, PHB, LCM, LTG, TPM, GBP, and ZNS. Most traditional ASMs are more cost-effective than new ASMs; OXC is an exception.</p>","PeriodicalId":11768,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.18269","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: An increasing number of antiseizure medications (ASMs) are approved for monotherapy for focal epilepsy, but direct comparisons of the lifetime cost-effectiveness of all existing treatment strategies are lacking. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of new ASMs and traditional ASMs as first-line monotherapy for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.

Method: We used a Markov model to evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of 10 ASMs in the treatment of focal epilepsy, with lacosamide (LCM) as a control, from the perspective of society in the United States. Effectiveness, cost data, and health state utilities were obtained from published literature. The cycle of the model is 6 months. Willingness to pay was defined as $150 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate parameter uncertainty, and several scenario analyses were also conducted.

Results: The base case analysis showed that carbamazepine (CBZ) was the least costly ASM and more effective than valproic acid (VPA), levetiracetam (LEV), gabapentin (GBP), topiramate (TPM), and lamotrigine (LTG) from an American social perspective. In contrast, oxcarbazepine (OXC), phenytoin (PHT), phenobarbitone (PHB), LCM, and zonisamide (ZNS) were more effective than CBZ, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $334 703.50, $325 610.99, $3 037 148.62, $1 178 954.91, and $108 153 360.85/QALY, respectively. The traditional ASMs were ranked as CBZ, PHT, VPA, and PHB; the new ASMs were ranked as OXC, LEV, LCM, LTG, TPM, GBP, and ZNS. When generic drugs are used, PHT, OXC, and CBZ remain the three most cost-effective options.

Significance: In terms of cost-effectiveness, CBZ monotherapy is the best option for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy, followed by OXC, PHT, VPA, LEV, PHB, LCM, LTG, TPM, GBP, and ZNS. Most traditional ASMs are more cost-effective than new ASMs; OXC is an exception.

对于局灶性癫痫的初始单药治疗,哪种抗癫痫药物最具成本效益?
目的:越来越多的抗癫痫药物(asm)被批准用于局灶性癫痫的单一治疗,但缺乏对所有现有治疗策略的终生成本效益的直接比较。本研究旨在比较新型抗痉挛药和传统抗痉挛药作为一线单药治疗新诊断局灶性癫痫的成本-效果。方法:从美国社会的角度,以拉科沙胺(lacosamide, LCM)为对照,采用马尔可夫模型评价10种asm治疗局灶性癫痫的终生成本-效果。有效性、成本数据和健康状态效用从已发表的文献中获得。模型周期为6个月。支付意愿定义为每个质量调整生命年(QALY) 15万美元。对参数的不确定性进行了单向和概率敏感性分析,并进行了几种情景分析。结果:从美国社会的角度来看,卡马西平(CBZ)是最便宜的ASM,并且比丙戊酸(VPA)、左乙拉西坦(LEV)、加巴喷丁(GBP)、托吡酯(TPM)和拉莫三嗪(LTG)更有效。相比而言,奥卡西平(OXC)、苯妥英(PHT)、苯巴比妥(PHB)、LCM和唑尼沙胺(ZNS)比CBZ更有效,其增量成本-效果比分别为334 703.50美元、325 610.99美元、3 037 148.62美元、1 178 954.91美元和108 153 360.85美元/QALY。传统asm依次为CBZ、PHT、VPA、PHB;新的asm分别为OXC、LEV、LCM、LTG、TPM、GBP和ZNS。当使用仿制药时,PHT、OXC和CBZ仍然是三个最具成本效益的选择。意义:就成本-效果而言,CBZ单药治疗是新诊断局灶性癫痫的最佳选择,其次是OXC、PHT、VPA、LEV、PHB、LCM、LTG、TPM、GBP和ZNS。大多数传统asm比新型asm更具成本效益;OXC是个例外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Epilepsia
Epilepsia 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
10.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Epilepsia is the leading, authoritative source for innovative clinical and basic science research for all aspects of epilepsy and seizures. In addition, Epilepsia publishes critical reviews, opinion pieces, and guidelines that foster understanding and aim to improve the diagnosis and treatment of people with seizures and epilepsy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信