Cost-effectiveness of cenobamate as a therapeutic alternative for the treatment of focal epilepsy in adults with inadequate seizure control.

IF 0.4 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment Pub Date : 2025-05-09 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.33393/grhta.2025.3341
Martina Paoletti, Angela Ragonese, Luca Budassi, Andrea Marcellusi
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of cenobamate as a therapeutic alternative for the treatment of focal epilepsy in adults with inadequate seizure control.","authors":"Martina Paoletti, Angela Ragonese, Luca Budassi, Andrea Marcellusi","doi":"10.33393/grhta.2025.3341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of cenobamate relative to brivaracetam, lacosamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, and perampanel in the management of focal onset seizures (FOS). The objective is to determine whether cenobamate offers enhanced therapeutic benefits and economic viability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a lifetime horizon model that encompassed drug acquisition costs, background therapy, monitoring, and seizure management expenses. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to evaluate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from cenobamate compared to its alternatives.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings revealed that cenobamate while incurring slightly higher initial acquisition costs, leads to significant cost offsets due to reductions in overall seizure management expenses and minimized reliance on subsequent anti-seizure medications (ASMs). Additionally, cenobamate significantly enhances patient quality of life, demonstrated by superior response rates (seizure reduction >50%) and remission rates (100% seizure reduction) compared to the analyzed comparators. The cost-effectiveness analysis established that cenobamate is dominant across all evaluated treatment options, achieving greater QALYs at a lower total cost.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cenobamate represents a more effective and economically advantageous treatment for patients with FOS when compared to brivaracetam, lacosamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, and perampanel. Its capacity to improve seizure control and enhance the quality of life, alongside favorable economic implications, underscores its position as the preferred therapeutic option in this patient population.</p>","PeriodicalId":12627,"journal":{"name":"Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment","volume":"12 ","pages":"118-129"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12063500/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2025.3341","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of cenobamate relative to brivaracetam, lacosamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, and perampanel in the management of focal onset seizures (FOS). The objective is to determine whether cenobamate offers enhanced therapeutic benefits and economic viability.

Methods: A comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a lifetime horizon model that encompassed drug acquisition costs, background therapy, monitoring, and seizure management expenses. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to evaluate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from cenobamate compared to its alternatives.

Results: Findings revealed that cenobamate while incurring slightly higher initial acquisition costs, leads to significant cost offsets due to reductions in overall seizure management expenses and minimized reliance on subsequent anti-seizure medications (ASMs). Additionally, cenobamate significantly enhances patient quality of life, demonstrated by superior response rates (seizure reduction >50%) and remission rates (100% seizure reduction) compared to the analyzed comparators. The cost-effectiveness analysis established that cenobamate is dominant across all evaluated treatment options, achieving greater QALYs at a lower total cost.

Conclusion: Cenobamate represents a more effective and economically advantageous treatment for patients with FOS when compared to brivaracetam, lacosamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, and perampanel. Its capacity to improve seizure control and enhance the quality of life, alongside favorable economic implications, underscores its position as the preferred therapeutic option in this patient population.

辛奥巴酸作为治疗局灶性癫痫控制不充分的成人的替代治疗方案的成本效益。
本研究评估了相对于布瓦西坦、拉可沙胺、醋酸埃斯卡巴西平和perampanel在局灶性癫痫发作(FOS)治疗中的成本-效果。目的是确定cenobamate是否提供增强的治疗效益和经济可行性。方法:采用涵盖药物获取成本、背景治疗、监测和癫痫发作管理费用的生命周期水平模型进行综合成本-效果分析。计算增量成本-效果比(ICER)来评估从cenobamate获得的质量调整寿命年(QALYs)。结果:研究结果显示,虽然cenobamate的初始获取成本略高,但由于减少了总体癫痫管理费用,并最大限度地减少了对后续抗癫痫药物(asm)的依赖,因此可以显著抵消成本。此外,与分析的比较物相比,cenobamate显著提高了患者的生活质量,表现为更高的反应率(癫痫发作减少50%)和缓解率(癫痫发作减少100%)。成本-效果分析表明,cenobamate在所有评估的治疗方案中占主导地位,以较低的总成本获得更高的质量年。结论:与布瓦西坦、拉可沙胺、醋酸埃斯卡巴西平和perampanel相比,Cenobamate对FOS患者是一种更有效、更经济的治疗方法。其改善癫痫发作控制和提高生活质量的能力,以及有利的经济影响,强调了其作为该患者群体首选治疗方案的地位。
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
Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment
Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment (GRHTA) is a peer-reviewed, open access journal which aims to promote health technology assessment and economic evaluation, enabling choices among alternative therapeutical paths or procedures with different clinical and economic outcomes. GRHTA is a unique journal having three different editorial boards who focus on their respective geographical expertise.
×
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