Author
Listed:
- Ágnes Benedict
- Lara Verdian
- Grant Maclaine
Abstract
Background: Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a catastrophic childhood form of epilepsy. The syndrome is characterized bymental impairment, frequent seizures of multiple types that are particularly resistant to treatment, and high rates of seizure-related injury. With the introduction of newer, but more costly, antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), it is important that decision makers are able to assess their value in the management of this rare and difficult-to-treat condition. Objective: To evaluate the cost effectiveness, from the UK NHS perspective, of rufinamide in patients with LGS. Methods: An individual patient-simulation model was developed to estimate the total treatment-related costs and clinical benefits of rufinamide compared with topiramate and lamotrigine over a 3-year time horizon. The model examines the treatment scenarios of adding rufinamide, lamotrigine or topiramate to older AEDs (standard therapy), or standard therapy alone within a primary-care or community setting. Three placebo-controlled clinical trials of adjunctive AED treatment for children with LGS were analysed. There are no head-to-head comparator studies. Between 98 and 139 patients were randomized in each study and the mean age in each study was 10, 11 and 14 years. A mixed-treatment comparison using a random-effectsmodel was carried out on the number of patients in each response category, using the placebo arms of the respective trials. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of successfully treated patients, defined as >50% reduction in the frequency of total seizures and drop attacks. The hypothesis being tested was formulated after data collection. Costs (£, year 2006/07 values) of patient monitoring, switching treatments, hospitalization due to seizure, treatment of adverse effects, and personal and social services were included in the analysis. Results of 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations were bootstrapped to conduct probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: Over 3 years, adjunctive rufinamide resulted in higher total costs than topiramate and lamotrigine; however, with more patients being treated successfully, this leads to acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. If society is prepared to pay at least d250 for a 1% increase in the number of successfully treated LGS patients, in terms of a 50% reduction in the frequency of drop attacks, the probability of the treatment with rufinamide being cost effective is >80%. Conclusion: This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that rufinamide results in more LGS patients being treated successfully at a reasonable cost from a UK NHS perspective. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2010
Suggested Citation
Ágnes Benedict & Lara Verdian & Grant Maclaine, 2010.
"The Cost Effectiveness of Rufinamide in the Treatment of Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome in the UK,"
PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 185-199, March.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:pharme:v:28:y:2010:i:3:p:185-199
DOI: 10.2165/11313640-000000000-00000
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Paul McCormack, 2012.
"Rufinamide,"
PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 247-256, March.
- Kristian Bolin & Lars Forsgren, 2012.
"The Cost Effectiveness of Newer Epilepsy Treatments,"
PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(10), pages 903-923, October.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:28:y:2010:i:3:p:185-199. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.