Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 5/2003

01-04-2003 | Original Research Article

The Cost Effectiveness of Two New Antiepileptic Therapies in the Absence of Direct Comparative Data

A First Approximation

Authors: Dr Ben A. van Hout, Dennis D. Gagnon, Pauline McNulty, Anthony O’Hagan

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 5/2003

Login to get access

Abstract

Background: A number of new antiepileptic agents have been introduced within a short period of time. Direct comparisons are not available, and information about the balance between costs and effects for these new therapies is lacking.
Objective: To introduce a first approximation of the cost effectiveness of the new therapeutic agents (topiramate and lamotrigine) for epilepsy that have been assessed in clinical trials against placebo.
Methods: Without head to head comparative data no formal methods are available to assess the relative cost effectiveness of two products; therefore, a Bayesian approach was developed. The approach starts with the ‘proportionality assumption’ saying that the differences in healthcare expenditure (less the direct cost of therapy) are directly proportional to the differences in effectiveness. Given this assumption, a therapy that is x times as expensive as an alternative therapy has an equivalent cost-effectiveness profile if the acquisition cost is x times as high. Moreover, simple formulas can be derived to calculate the probabilities that a therapy is dominant (more effective and less expensive) and that it is weakly dominant (more effective and a better cost-effectiveness profile). The approach is applied to data from published fixed dosage, parallel-design studies comparing both topiramate and lamotrigine with placebo.
Results: Assuming that the ‘proportionality assumption’ holds for the medical treatment of epilepsy, and disregarding uncertainties, it is estimated that topiramate may be priced more than 2.2 times its current acquisition cost and still be more cost effective than lamotrigine. Taking uncertainties into account, it is estimated that lamotrigine 500 mg/day is dominated by topiramate 200 mg/day with a probability of 0.875 and by topiramate 400 mg/day with a probability of 0.986.
Conclusions: A simple method can be applied to assess the relative cost effectiveness of two therapies in the absence of direct comparative data. Applying this method to compare topiramate and lamotrigine leads to a strong preference for topiramate. However, to be able to draw this conclusion, some heroic assumptions need to be made. As such the method as developed here only reflects a first approximation. It needs to be used with care and is not intended to replace good comparative research.
Literature
1.
Marson AG, Kadit ZA, Hutton JL, et al. The new antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review of their efficacy and tolerability. Epilepsia 1997; 38 (8): 859–80PubMedCrossRef
2.
Ramaratnam S, Marson AG, Baker GA. Lamotrigine add-on for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Available from The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. Updated quarterly. The Cochrane Collaboration; issue 3. Oxford: Update Software, 2001: CD001909
3.
Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18 Suppl. 2: S68–80PubMedCrossRef
4.
Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1994
5.
Guberman A, Neto W, Gassmann-Mayer C, the EPAJ-119 Study Group. Low-dose topiramate in adults with treatment-resistant partial-onset seizures. Acta Neurol Scand 2002; 106 (4); 183–9PubMedCrossRef
6.
Whitehead A, Whitehead J. A general parametric approach to the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1991; 10: 1677CrossRef
7.
Sachdeo R, Kramer LD, Rosenberg A, et al. Felbamate monotherapy: controlled trial in patients with partial onset seizures. Ann Neurol 1992; 32 (3): 386–92PubMedCrossRef
8.
Chiron C, Dumas C, Dulac O. Vigabatrin versus hydrocortisone as first-line monotherapy in infantile spasms due to tuberous sclerosis. Epilepsia 1995; 36 Suppl. 3: S265
9.
Spilker B, Segreti A. Validation of the phenomenon of regression of seizure frequency in epilepsy. Epilepsia 1984; 25 (4): 443–9PubMedCrossRef
10.
Willmore JL. Depakote adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial seizures. Epilepsia 1995; 36 Suppl. 3: S66
11.
Pocock SJ. Clinical trials: a practical approach. New York: John Wiley, 1983
12.
Brodie MJ, Richens A, Yuen AWC. Double-blind comparison of lamotrigine and carbamazepine in newly diagnosed epilepsy. Lancet 1995; 345 (8948): 476–9PubMedCrossRef
13.
Binnie CD, Debets RM, Engelsman M, et al. Double blind cross-over trial of lamotrigine (Lamictal) as add on therapy in intractable epilepsy. Epilepsy Res 1989; 4 (3): 222–9PubMedCrossRef
14.
Boas J, Dam M, Friis ML, et al. Controlled trial of lamotrigine (Lamictal®) for treatment-resistant partial seizures. Acta Neurol Scand 1996; 94: 247–52PubMedCrossRef
15.
Jawad S, Richens A, Goodwin G, et al. Controlled trial of lamotrigine (Lamictal) for refractory partial seizures. Epilepsia 1989; 30 (3): 356–63PubMedCrossRef
16.
Loiseau P, Yuen AW, Duche B, et al. A randomised double blind placebo controlled cross-over add on trial of lamotrigine in patients with treatment resistant partial seizures. Epilepsy Res 1990; 7 (2): 136–45PubMedCrossRef
17.
Messenheimer J, Ramsey RE, Willmore LJ, et al. Lamotrigine therapy for partial seizures: a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial. Epilepsia 1994; 35 (1): 113–21PubMedCrossRef
18.
Schapel GJ, Beran RG, Vajda FJ, et al. Double blind, placebo controlled, cross-over study of lamotrigine in treatment resistant partial seizures. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1993; 56 (5): 448–53PubMedCrossRef
19.
Schmidt D, Jacob R, Loiseau P. Zonisamide for add on treatment of refractory partial epilepsy: a European double blind trial. Epilepsy Res 1993; 15 (1): 67–73PubMedCrossRef
20.
Smith D, Baker G, Davies G, et al. Outcomes of add on treatment with lamotrigine in partial epilepsy. Epilepsia 1993; 34 (2): 312–22PubMedCrossRef
21.
Matsuo F, Bergen D, Faught E, et al. Placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine in patients with partial seizures: U.S. Lamotrigine Protocol 0.5 Clinical Trial Group. Neurology 1993; 43 (11): 2284–91PubMedCrossRef
22.
Elterman RD, Glauser TA, Wyllie E, et al. A double-blind, randomized trial of topiramate as adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in children: Topiramate YP Study Group. Neurology 1999; 52: 1338–44PubMedCrossRef
23.
Sachdeo RC, Glauser TA, Ritter F, et al. A double-blind, randomized trial of topiramate in Lennox-Gastaut syndrome: Topiramate YL Study Group. Neurology 1999; 52: 1882–7PubMedCrossRef
24.
Reife R, Pledger G, Wu SC. Topiramate as add-on therapy: pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials in adults. Epilepsia 2000; 41 Suppl. 1: S66–71PubMedCrossRef
25.
Kamin M, Kraut L, Olson WH. Tolerability and safety of topiramate (TPM) in a community based study (TRAITS) of adults with partial-onset seizures [abstract]. Epilepsia 1999; 40 Suppl. 7: 5
26.
Pellock J, Kamin M, Kraut L, et al. Adverse events (AEs) when topiramate is titrated to effect: results from an open-label, in-practice study with 800+ patients [abstract]. Epilepsia 2000; 41 Suppl. 7: 105
27.
Chadwick DW, Marson T, Kadir Z. Clinical administration of new antiepileptic drugs: an overview of safety and efficacy. Epilepsia 1996; 37 Suppl. 6: S17–22PubMedCrossRef
28.
Jette NJ, Marson AG, Kadir ZA, et al. Topiramate for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Available from The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. Updated quarterly. The Cochrane Collaboration; issue 3. Oxford: Update Software, 2001: CD001417
29.
Sander JW. Practical aspects of the use of topiramate in patients with epilepsy. Epilepsia 1997; 38 Suppl. 1: S56–8PubMedCrossRef
30.
Shorvon SD. Safety of topiramate: adverse events and relationships to dosing. Epilepsia 1996; 37 Suppl. 2: S18–22PubMedCrossRef
31.
Peeters K, Adrianssen I, Wapenaar R, et al. A pooled analysis of adjunctive topiramate in refractory partial epilepsy. Acta Neurol Scand. In press
32.
Begley CE, Lairson DR, Reynolds TF, et al. Early treatment cost in epilepsy and how it varies with seizure type and frequency. Epilepsy Res 2001; 47: 205–15PubMedCrossRef
33.
de Zelicourt M, Buteau L, Fagnani F, et al. The contributing factors to medical cost of epilepsy: an estimation based on a French prospective cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed epileptic seizures (the CAROLE study). Seizure 2000; 9: 88–95PubMedCrossRef
34.
Jacoby A, Buck D, Baker G, et al. Uptake and costs of care for epilepsy: findings from a UK regional study. Epilepsia 1998; 39 Suppl. 7: 776–86PubMedCrossRef
35.
Van Hout BA, Gagnon D, McNulty P. An economic evaluation of topiramate versus placebo, gabapentin, and lamotrigine [abstract]. Neurology 1997; 48 Suppl. 3: A170
36.
Van Hout B, Gagnon D, Souetre E, et al. Relationship between seizure frequency and costs and quality of life of outpatients with partial epilepsy in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Epilepsia 1997; 38: 1221–6PubMedCrossRef
37.
38.
39.
O’Hagan A, Stevens JW, Montmartin J. Inference for the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve and cost-effectiveness ratio. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (4): 339–49PubMedCrossRef
40.
Jones DA. A Bayesian approach to the economic evaluation of health care technologies. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven, 1996: 1189–96
41.
Lilford RJ, Braunholtz D. The statistical basis of public policy: a paradigm shift is overdue. BMJ 1996; 313: 603–7PubMedCrossRef
42.
Lilford RJ, Braunholtz D. Who’s afraid of Thomas Bayes? J Epidemiol Community Health 2000; 54 (10): 731–9PubMedCrossRef
43.
Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams K, Myles JP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and healthcare evaluation. Wiley. In press
Metadata
Title
The Cost Effectiveness of Two New Antiepileptic Therapies in the Absence of Direct Comparative Data
A First Approximation
Authors
Dr Ben A. van Hout
Dennis D. Gagnon
Pauline McNulty
Anthony O’Hagan
Publication date
01-04-2003
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 5/2003
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200321050-00003

Other articles of this Issue 5/2003

PharmacoEconomics 5/2003 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Factors Affecting UK Primary-Care Costs of Managing Patients with Asthma over 5 Years

Original Research Article

Peginterferon α-2a (40kD) [Pegasys®] Improves HR-QOL Outcomes Compared with Unmodified Interferon α-2a [Roferon®-A]

Original Research Article

Resource Utilisation and Cost Analysis of Memantine in Patients with Moderate to Severe Alzheimer’s Disease

Original Research Article

A Simulation Model for Estimating Direct Costs of Type 1 Diabetes Prevention

Original Research Article

Cost Effectiveness of Nasal Budesonide versus Surgical Treatment for Nasal Polyps

Original Research Article

Cost Effectiveness of Alendronate (Fosamax®) for the Treatment of Osteoporosis and Prevention of Fractures