Ben F.M. Wijnen

An economic evaluation of the ketogenic diet versus care as usual in children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy: An interim analysis

To gain insight into the cost‐effectiveness of the ketogenic (KD) diet compared with care as usual (CAU) in children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy, we conducted an economic evaluation from a societal perspective, alongside a randomized controlled trial.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy

The increasing number of treatment options and the high costs associated with epilepsy have fostered the development of economic evaluations in epilepsy. It is important to examine the availability and quality of these economic evaluations and to identify potential research gaps. As well as looking at both pharmacologic (antiepileptic drugs [AEDs]) and nonpharmacologic (e.g., epilepsy surgery, ketogenic diet, vagus nerve stimulation) therapies, this review examines the methodologic quality of the full economic evaluations included. Literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Econlit, Web of Science, and CEA Registry. In addition, Cochrane Reviews, Cochrane DARE and Cochrane Health Technology Assessment Databases were used. To identify relevant studies, predefined clinical search strategies were combined with a search filter designed to identify health economic studies. Specific search strategies were devised for the following topics: (1) AEDs, (2) patients with cognitive deficits, (3) elderly patients, (4) epilepsy surgery, (5) ketogenic diet, (6) vagus nerve stimulation, and (7) treatment of (non)convulsive status epilepticus. A total of 40 publications were included in this review, 29 (73%) of which were articles about pharmacologic interventions. Mean quality score of all articles on the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC)‐extended was 81.8%, the lowest quality score being 21.05%, whereas five studies had a score of 100%. Looking at the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), the average quality score was 77.0%, the lowest being 22.7%, and four studies rated as 100%. There was a substantial difference in methodology in all included articles, which hampered the attempt to combine information meaningfully. Overall, the methodologic quality was acceptable; however, some studies performed significantly worse than others. The heterogeneity between the studies stresses the need to define a reference case (e.g., how should an economic evaluation within epilepsy be performed) and to derive consensus on what constitutes “standard optimal care.”

Economic burden of burn injuries in the Netherlands: A 3 months follow-up study

INTRODUCTION Burn care has rapidly improved in the past decades. However, healthcare innovations can be expensive, demanding careful choices on their implementation. Obtaining knowledge on the extent of the costs of burn injuries is an essential first step for economic evaluations within burn care. The objective of this study was to determine the economic burden of patients with burns admitted to a burn centre and to identify important cost categories until 3 months post-burn. PATIENTS AND METHODS A prospective cohort study was conducted in the burn centre of Maasstad Hospital Rotterdam, the Netherlands, including all patients with acute burn related injuries from August 2011 until July 2012. Total costs were calculated from a societal perspective, until 3 months post injury. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine whether the mean total costs per patient differed by age, aetiology or percentage total body surface area (TBSA) burned. RESULTS In our population, with a mean burn size of 8%, mean total costs were €26,540 per patient varying from €742 to €235,557. Most important cost categories were burn centre days (62%), surgical interventions (5%) and work absence (20%). Flame burns were significantly more costly than other types of burns, adult patients were significantly more costly than children and adolescents and a higher percentage TBSA burned also corresponded to significantly higher costs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Mean total costs of burn care in the first 3 months post injury were estimated at €26,540 and depended on age, aetiology and TBSA. Mean total costs in our population probably apply to other high-income countries as well, although we should realise that patients with burn injuries are diverse and represent a broad range of total costs. To reduce costs of burn care, future intervention studies should focus on a timely wound healing, reducing length of stay and enabling an early return to work.

(Cost)-effectiveness of a multi-component intervention for adults with epilepsy: study protocol of a Dutch randomized controlled trial (ZMILE study)

BackgroundIn patients with epilepsy, poor adherence to anti-epileptic drugs has been shown to be the most important cause of poorly controlled epilepsy. Furthermore, it has been noted that the quality of life among patients with epilepsy can be improved by counseling and treatments aimed at increasing their self-efficacy and concordance, thus stimulating self-management skills. However, there is a need for evidence on the effectiveness of such programs, especially within epilepsy care. Therefore, we have developed a multi-component intervention (MCI) which combines a self-management/education program with e-Health interventions. Accordingly, the overall objective of this study is to assess the (cost)-effectiveness and feasibility of the MCI, aiming to improve self-efficacy and concordance in patients with epilepsy.MethodsA RCT in two parallel groups will be conducted to compare the MCI with a control condition in epilepsy patients. One hundred eligible epilepsy patients will be recruited and allocated to either the intervention or control group. The intervention group will receive the MCI consisting of a self-management/education program of six meetings, including e-Health interventions, and will be followed for 12 months. The control group will receive care as usual and will be followed for 6 months, after which patients will be offered the possibility of participating in the MCI. The study will consist of three parts: 1) a clinical effectiveness study, 2) a cost-effectiveness study, and 3) process evaluation. The primary outcome will be self-efficacy. Secondary outcomes include adherence, side effects, change in seizure severity & frequency, improved quality of life, proactive coping, and societal costs. Outcome assessments will be done using questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months (last two applicable only for intervention group).DiscussionIn times of budget constraints, MCI could be a valuable addition to the current healthcare provision for epilepsy, as it is expected that higher concordance and self-efficacy will result in reduced use of healthcare resources and an increased QOL. Accordingly, this study is aimed helping patients to be their own provider of health care, shifting epilepsy management from professionals to self-care by patients equipped with appropriate skills and tools.Trial registration numberNTR4484.

Are people with epilepsy using eHealth-tools?

INTRODUCTION Self-management for people with epilepsy (PWE) should lead to shared decision-making and thus to adherence to the treatment plan. eHealth is an important way of supporting PWE in their self-management. METHOD In this survey, we used a mixed method to explore the following: 1) which factors were monitored by PWE and how (using pen and paper or eHealth-tools), 2) how many PWE own a computer or smartphone, and 3) how do they perceive the use of eHealth. A consecutive series of 1000 PWE attending the outpatient clinic of a tertiary epilepsy center were asked to fill in a questionnaire. RESULTS In comparison with the general population, fewer PWE owned a computer or smartphone. They were, however, more likely to self-monitor their health than other patients suffering from a chronic condition. Although PWE did not use eHealth-tools often, they perceived it as a user-friendly tool, promoting health behavior as well as adherence. On the other hand, problems with privacy and the perception that not everyone is able to use eHealth were considered as disadvantages by PWE. Promoting self-care was perceived as both an advantage and a disadvantage. It was seen as an advantage when PWE mentioned the option of eHealth-tools in order to gain insight into ones epilepsy. At the same time, it was seen as a disadvantage because it confronts PWE with their disease, which causes emotional stress. CONCLUSION The high level of self-monitoring combined with a low usage of eHealth-tools seems to indicate that there is a need for a more tailored approach to stimulate the use of eHealth-tools by PWE. Further research should focus on this aspect, e.g., what PWE need in order to make more use of eHealth-tools in their self-care.

Discrete-choice experiments versus rating scale exercises to evaluate the importance of attributes

Aim: To examine the difference between discrete-choice experiments (DCE) and rating scale exercises (RSE) in determining the most important attributes using a case study. Methods: Undergraduate health sciences students were asked to complete a DCE and a RSE. Six potentially important attributes were identified in focus groups. Fourteen unlabelled choice tasks were constructed using a statistically efficient design. Mixed multinomial logistic regression analysis was used for DCE data analysis. Results: In total, 254 undergraduate students filled out the questionnaire. In the DCE, only four attributes were statistically significant, whereas in the RSE, all attributes except one were rated four or higher. Conclusion: Attribute importance differs between DCE and RSE. The DCE had a differentiating effect on the relative importance of the attributes; however, determining relative importance using DCE should be done with caution as a lack of statistically significant difference between levels does not necessarily imply that the attribute is not important.

A Review of the Theoretical Basis, Effects, and Cost Effectiveness of Online Smoking Cessation Interventions in the Netherlands: A Mixed-Methods Approach

Background Tobacco smoking is a worldwide public health problem. In 2015, 26.3% of the Dutch population aged 18 years and older smoked, 74.4% of them daily. More and more people have access to the Internet worldwide; approximately 94% of the Dutch population have online access. Internet-based smoking cessation interventions (online cessation interventions) provide an opportunity to tackle the scourge of tobacco. Objective The goal of this paper was to provide an overview of online cessation interventions in the Netherlands, while exploring their effectivity, cost effectiveness, and theoretical basis. Methods A mixed-methods approach was used to identify Dutch online cessation interventions, using (1) a scientific literature search, (2) a grey literature search, and (3) expert input. For the scientific literature, the Cochrane review was used and updated by two independent researchers (n=651 identified studies), screening titles, abstracts, and then full-text studies between 2013 and 2016 (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE). For the grey literature, the researchers conducted a Google search (n=100 websites), screening for titles and first pages. Including expert input, this resulted in six interventions identified in the scientific literature and 39 interventions via the grey literature. Extracted data included effectiveness, cost effectiveness, theoretical factors, and behavior change techniques used. Results Overall, many interventions (45 identified) were offered. Of the 45 that we identified, only six that were included in trials provided data on effectiveness. Four of these were shown to be effective and cost effective. In the scientific literature, 83% (5/6) of these interventions included changing attitudes, providing social support, increasing self-efficacy, motivating smokers to make concrete action plans to prepare their attempts to quit and to cope with challenges, supporting identity change and advising on changing routines, coping, and medication use. In all, 50% (3/6) of the interventions included a reward for abstinence. Interventions identified in the grey literature were less consistent, with inclusion of each theoretical factor ranging from 31% to 67% and of each behavior change technique ranging from 28% to 54%. Conclusions Although the Internet may provide the opportunity to offer various smoking cessation programs, the user is left bewildered as far as efficacy is concerned, as most of these data are not available nor offered to the smokers. Clear regulations about the effectiveness of these interventions need to be devised to avoid disappointment and failed quitting attempts. Thus, there is a need for policy regulations to regulate the proliferation of these interventions and to foster their quality in the Netherlands.

Process evaluation of a multi-component self-management intervention for adults with epilepsy (ZMILE study)

BACKGROUND People with epilepsy need to monitor and manage their symptoms. They, as well as their relatives, have to deal with the psychological burden, reflected in a reduced quality of life. Support in self-management can be of importance. We have developed a multi-component self-management intervention for patients and their relatives (MCI). This eight-week group intervention is conducted by nurse practitioners and consists of six two-hour sessions. The main components are: 1) providing self-management education, 2) stimulating proactive coping and goal-setting and 3) facilitating peer and social support. This study is a process evaluation to establish the feasibility, fidelity and acceptability of the intervention by assessing performance according to protocol, attendance and adherence, and the opinion of patients, relatives and facilitators about the intervention. METHOD Study population consists of 52 patients with epilepsy living in the community (e.g. at home), 37 relatives and six facilitators. In this prospective mixed methods study, data were gathered using questionnaires for patients and relatives, registration forms for facilitators and by carrying out semi-structured group interviews with patients, relatives and facilitators. RESULTS Patients and relatives attended a mean of 5.2 sessions. Forty-seven (90%) patients and 32 (86.5%) relatives attended at least five sessions. The mean group size was 8.1 (SD=1.3; range 6-10). All elements of the intervention were offered to participants, except for one e-Health tool which was only available at the start of the study. Overall, the sessions were considered useful by patients, their relatives and facilitators. The participation of a relative (social support) and sharing ideas and feelings about having epilepsy with peers (peer support) were rated as important aspects. CONCLUSION This process evaluation revealed that the MCI was largely performed according to protocol, attendance rate was high, and participants and facilitators had, on the whole, a favourable opinion about the MCI, and would recommend it to others with epilepsy and their relatives. Overall, the adherence of patients and relatives was high. The MCI is considered feasible according to patients, relatives and facilitators. Implementation is recommended if the intervention proves to be effective.

An economic evaluation of a multicomponent self‐management intervention for adults with epilepsy (ZMILE study)

The objective of this (trial‐based) economic evaluation was, from a societal perspective, to compare the cost‐effectiveness of a multicomponent self‐management intervention (MCI) with care as usual (CAU) in adult patients with epilepsy over a 12‐month period.

From clinically relevant outcome measures to quality of life in epilepsy: A time trade-off study

OBJECTIVES A proposed method for bridging the gap between clinically relevant epilepsy outcome measures and quality-adjusted life years is to derive utility scores for epilepsy health states. The aim of this study is to develop such a utility-function and to investigate the impact of the epilepsy outcome measures on utility. METHODS Health states, based on clinically important epilepsy attributes (e.g. seizure frequency, seizure severity, side-effects), were valued by a sample of the Dutch population (N=525) based on the time trade-off method. In addition to standard demographics, every participant was asked to rate 10 or 11 different health state scenarios. A multilevel regression analysis was performed to account for the nested structure of the data. RESULTS Results show that the best health state (no seizures and no side-effects) is estimated at 0.89 and the worst state (seizures type 5 twice a day plus severe side-effects) at 0.22 (scale: 0-1). An increase in seizure frequency, occurrence of side-effects, and seizure severity were all significantly associated with lower utility values. Furthermore, seizure severity has the largest impact on quality of life compared with seizure frequency and side-effects. CONCLUSIONS This study provides a utility-function for transforming clinically relevant epilepsy outcome measures into utility estimates. We advise using our utility-function in economic evaluations, when quality of life is not directly measured in a study and hence, no health state utilities are available, or when there is convincing empirical evidence of the insensitivity of a generic quality-of-life-instrument within epilepsy.