Economic Evaluation of Add-on Levetiracetam for the Treatment of Refractory Partial Epilepsy in Korea.
- Author:
Guk Hee SUH
1
;
Sang Keol LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Psychiatry, Hallym University Medical Center, Hangang Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Korea. suhgh@chol.com
- Publication Type:Clinical Trial ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Levetiracetam;
Epilepsy;
Partial seizures;
Seizure-free day;
Quality adjusted life year;
Cost
- MeSH:
Adult;
Epilepsies, Partial;
Epilepsy;
Humans;
Insurance, Health, Reimbursement;
Korea;
National Health Programs;
Piracetam;
Prospective Studies;
Quality of Life;
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
- From:Psychiatry Investigation
2009;6(3):185-193
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: This study estimated the expected cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as the incremental cost per seizure-free day (SFD) gained and the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained when using levetiracetam (LEV) as add-on therapy from a third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A 1-year dose-escalation decision-tree model comparing LEV plus standard therapy (ST) with ST alone was designed to combine transition probabilities, costs and outcomes. The short-term outcomes and probabilities were derived from a prospective, open-label clinical trial with 100 Korean adults with refractory partial epilepsy. All data for the direct medical costs were derived from Korean cost data extracted from reports published by the National Health Insurance Corporation. RESULTS: The average gain in SFDs attributed to LEV add-on was 18.3 days per patient per year and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for LEV add-on were US$ 44 per SFD per patient and US$ 11,084 per QALY gained. All sensitivity analyses showed that the model was robust to the assumptions made. CONCLUSION: The economic evaluation indicates that, given a wide range of assumptions, the increased cost of treating patients having refractory partial epilepsy with LEV may be partially offset by a reduction in other direct medical costs. This reduction is a consequence of an increase in the number of SFDs and improved quality of life.
