Comparative analysis of cost and efficacy for mono and dual therapy of antiepileptics among children

E. Vigneshwaran, Monica Madineni, K. Saké, K. Alakhali, S. A. Sirajudeen, Noohu Abdullah Khan
{"title":"Comparative analysis of cost and efficacy for mono and dual therapy of antiepileptics among children","authors":"E. Vigneshwaran, Monica Madineni, K. Saké, K. Alakhali, S. A. Sirajudeen, Noohu Abdullah Khan","doi":"10.4103/ddt.DDT_16_16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Developing countries contribute to major number of patients living with epilepsy, around five million people are living with epilepsy in India alone. Most of the epileptic children may require multiple antiepileptic therapy due to the failure of monotherapy. Basic research evidence suggest that sodium valproate and carbamazepine (CBZ) may have synergistic anticonvulsant effects when they are used together. In addition to that, chronic disorders make the patients economically weak and produce more burden. Aim and Objective: Therefore, this study was designed to compare the efficacy of valproate monotherapy with valproate and CBZ dual therapy. Methodology: It is a prospective, comparative study conducted at a secondary care referral hospital and private clinic. A nonprobabilistic convenient sampling was done to recruit the study subjects. A total of fifty subjects were recruited into the present study, and they were divided into two groups, i.e., monotherapy group (CBZ) and dual therapy group (CBZ and valproate). After providing appropriate counseling, subjects were interviewed to estimate the quality of life (QOL) using child version of TNO-AZL Children's Quality of Life questionnaire. Hospital patient records, prescription data from the pharmacy were also used to obtain the direct and indirect cost of treatment. Results: Our study results showed that monotherapy has a potential to produce a higher level of QOL than dual therapy. It also involved with decreased seizure frequency. Although there was no statistically significant difference in terms of cost for both the treatment groups, still dual therapy is associated with higher cost burden. The average costs per QOL and changes in the frequency of seizure are also identified to produce higher economic burden to the patients.Conclusion: Thus, the present study has concluded that monotherapy may be considered as better cost-effective treatment in partial seizures than dual therapy, unless if there is no treatment failure with monotherapy.","PeriodicalId":11347,"journal":{"name":"Drug Development and Therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Development and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ddt.DDT_16_16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Developing countries contribute to major number of patients living with epilepsy, around five million people are living with epilepsy in India alone. Most of the epileptic children may require multiple antiepileptic therapy due to the failure of monotherapy. Basic research evidence suggest that sodium valproate and carbamazepine (CBZ) may have synergistic anticonvulsant effects when they are used together. In addition to that, chronic disorders make the patients economically weak and produce more burden. Aim and Objective: Therefore, this study was designed to compare the efficacy of valproate monotherapy with valproate and CBZ dual therapy. Methodology: It is a prospective, comparative study conducted at a secondary care referral hospital and private clinic. A nonprobabilistic convenient sampling was done to recruit the study subjects. A total of fifty subjects were recruited into the present study, and they were divided into two groups, i.e., monotherapy group (CBZ) and dual therapy group (CBZ and valproate). After providing appropriate counseling, subjects were interviewed to estimate the quality of life (QOL) using child version of TNO-AZL Children's Quality of Life questionnaire. Hospital patient records, prescription data from the pharmacy were also used to obtain the direct and indirect cost of treatment. Results: Our study results showed that monotherapy has a potential to produce a higher level of QOL than dual therapy. It also involved with decreased seizure frequency. Although there was no statistically significant difference in terms of cost for both the treatment groups, still dual therapy is associated with higher cost burden. The average costs per QOL and changes in the frequency of seizure are also identified to produce higher economic burden to the patients.Conclusion: Thus, the present study has concluded that monotherapy may be considered as better cost-effective treatment in partial seizures than dual therapy, unless if there is no treatment failure with monotherapy.
儿童抗癫痫药物单药与双药治疗的成本与疗效比较分析
导言:发展中国家是癫痫患者的主要来源,仅在印度就有约500万人患有癫痫。大多数癫痫患儿由于单药治疗失败,可能需要多次抗癫痫治疗。基础研究证据表明,丙戊酸钠和卡马西平(CBZ)一起使用时可能具有协同抗惊厥作用。此外,慢性疾病使患者经济能力较弱,负担更重。目的:因此,本研究旨在比较丙戊酸单药治疗与丙戊酸与CBZ双药治疗的疗效。方法:这是一项前瞻性的比较研究,在二级保健转诊医院和私人诊所进行。采用非概率方便抽样方法招募研究对象。本研究共招募50名受试者,将其分为两组,即单药治疗组(CBZ)和双药治疗组(CBZ和丙戊酸)。在给予适当的心理辅导后,使用儿童版TNO-AZL儿童生活质量问卷对被试进行访谈,评估其生活质量(QOL)。医院患者记录、药房处方数据也被用于获取治疗的直接和间接费用。结果:我们的研究结果表明,单药治疗比双药治疗有可能产生更高水平的生活质量。它还与癫痫发作频率降低有关。虽然两种治疗组在费用方面没有统计学上的显著差异,但双重治疗仍与较高的费用负担相关。每个生活质量的平均成本和癫痫发作频率的变化也会给患者带来更高的经济负担。结论:因此,本研究得出结论,除非单药治疗没有治疗失败,否则单药治疗可能被认为是部分性癫痫发作比双药治疗更具成本效益的治疗方法。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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