Epilepsy is a diffuse chronic neurological disease affecting around 50 million people worldwide. The diagnostic criteria by the International League against Epilepsy must be fulfilled to diagnose the disease, which is characterized by brief and transient episodes of abnormal neuronal activity involving one or both hemispheres, depending on the epilepsy type. The diagnosis of epilepsy should be properly and timely made because patients suffering from the disease are affected not only by seizure recurrence but also by epilepsy-related psychiatric and/or cognitive comorbidities that may have a huge impact with severe professional and social implications. It is of vital importance to define a specific governance model that has to be virtuously applied into the different phases of the clinical pathway of the patients with epilepsy in order to guarantee them the best model of care possible.
Pharmacoeconomic data are widely used along drug life cycle for supporting decision-making processes on research and development, pricing and reimbursement, and market access. In this context, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is the gold standard of either cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) or cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of pharmaceuticals and health technologies. However, the widespread use of confidentiality clauses in the agreements between pharmaceutical companies and the payers may affect the reliability of ICER value based on transparent price. The aim of this article is to evaluate a case study and simulate the impact of price confidentiality and other managed-entry agreement conditions on the ICER value. The case study was conducted selecting a CEA submitted to the Health Economic Evaluations Office of the Italian Medicines Agency by the pharmaceutical company, which specifically compared two alternative options reimbursed by the Italian NHS using confidential managed-entry agreements. So, a real model was used to collect the output of ICERs generated by the simulation model, considering price inputs of alternative options ranging from the transparent prices to the confidential net price. The simulation showed that price confidentiality may affect the estimated value of the ICER of a new medicine and, consequently, its interpretation. From a different point of view, the published ICER values may also give a completely false economic evidence if non-disclosure agreements are not taken into account. A proposal for editors of pharmacoeconomic journals to improve reliability of CEA is also discussed.
The World Health Assembly recognizes the growing economic and societal burden of neurological disorders, a leading cause of disability and the second cause of mortality in the world. In this context we analysed the socio-economic impact of epilepsy in Italy with a specific focus on hospitalizations and costs related to disability pensions (DPs) and ordinary disability allowances. In the case of epilepsy, between 2009 and 2015 we observed an alarming increasing trend for DPs (+26%), indicating that substantial expenses must be supported throughout the patients' lifetimes by both the social security system and the National Health Service (NHS) on top of the impact on caregivers. We also analysed the hospital expenditure on epilepsy through the information available in the Hospital Discharge Cards between 2015 and 2018. Almost all admissions (76% ordinary hospitalizations, 24% day hospitals) were acute (95%), followed by rehabilitation (4%) and long-term care (1%). The cost of acute and ordinary hospitalizations was by far the highest in 2018, the last year of analysis. This large expense due to hospitalizations could be reduced through the implementation of different organizational and management approaches. Our recommendation is that the policy maker should consider the best approach to ensure an early diagnosis for patients and provide early access to drugs and/or surgery. Finally, the adoption of new innovative treatments should improve effectiveness and, at the same time, reduce the expense of the NHS, of the social system as a whole, with a tangible improvement in patients' quality of life.
Anti-seizure medications (ASMs) represent the pillar of the treatment of epilepsy. The rate of drug-resistant epilepsy remained substantially unchanged over time and there is still the need for new and more effective treatment options. Brivaracetam, cenobamate, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide and perampanel are 'third-generation' ASMs. The aim of this article is to summarize the currently available evidence about the relative efficacy and tolerability of the 'third-generation' ASMs as adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures in adults. So far, no randomized controlled study directly compared these ASMs, and their comparative efficacy and tolerability have been indirectly evaluated by one network meta-analysis. Sixteen trials were included in the network meta-analysis. The efficacy endpoints were the rates of seizure response and seizure freedom, defined as ≥ 50% and 100% reduction in baseline monthly seizure frequency. The tolerability endpoints were the rate of patients who developed any treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and any TEAE leading to drug discontinuation. Cenobamate had the greatest likelihood of being the best option for the ≥ 50% and 100% seizure frequency reduction. Brivaracetam and lacosamide had the greatest likelihood to rank as the best-tolerated treatments for the occurrence of any TEAE and TEAE leading to discontinuation. Although network meta-analyses are not substitutes of direct comparisons, they can provide valuable evidence about the hierarchy of interventions. Additional real-world data can be useful complement to characterize the clinical profile and therapeutic potentialities of third-generation ASMs.
Introduction: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease that impairs quality of life and could be life-threatening. The aim of this study was to apply a multicriteria decision analysis to assess the value of three long-term prophylactic (LTP) therapies for HAE in Spain.
Methods: A multidisciplinary committee of 10 experts assessed the value of lanadelumab (subcutaneous use), C1-inhibitor (C1-INH; intravenous), and danazol (orally), using placebo as comparator. We followed the EVIDEM methodology that considers a set of 13 quantitative criteria. The overall estimated value of each intervention was obtained combining the weighting of each criterion with the scoring of each intervention in each criterion. We used two alternative weighting methods: hierarchical point allocation (HPA) and direct rating scale (DRS). A reevaluation of weightings and scores was performed.
Results: Lanadelumab obtained higher mean scores than C1-INH and danazol in all criteria, except for the cost of the intervention and clinical practice guidelines. Under the HPA method, the estimated values were 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.58) for lanadelumab, 0.47 (95%CI: 0.41-0.53) for C1-INH, and 0.31 (95%CI: 0.24-0.39) for danazol. Similar results were obtained with the DRS method: 0.51 (95%CI: 0.42-0.60), 0.47 (95%CI: 0.40-0.54), and 0.27 (95%CI: 0.18-0.37), respectively. The comparative cost of the intervention was the only criterion that contributed negatively to the values of lanadelumab and C1-INH. For danazol, four criteria contributed negatively, mainly comparative safety.
Conclusion: Lanadelumab was assessed as a high-value intervention, better than C1-INH and substantially better than danazol for LTP treatment of HAE.