Jesse Fishman

The Humanistic and Economic Burden of Restless Legs Syndrome.

Objectives To evaluate the humanistic and economic burden of a restless legs syndrome (RLS) diagnosis with regard to health-related quality of life, work productivity loss, healthcare resource use, and direct and indirect costs. Study Design Self-reported data came from the 2012 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS), a large, annual, nationally representative cross-sectional general health survey of US adults. Methods RLS patients (n = 2,392) were matched on demographic and health characteristics to Non-RLS respondents via propensity score matching differences between groups were tested with Bivariate and multivariable analyses. Results RLS patients had significantly lower health-related quality of life scores: Mental Component Summary (44.60 vs. 48.92, p<.001), Physical Component Summary (40.57 vs. 46.78, p<.001), Health Utilities (.63 vs. .71, p<.001) and higher levels of work productivity loss in the past seven days including absenteeism (8.1% vs. 9.3%, p<.001), presenteeism (26.5% vs. 15.8%, p<.001), and overall productivity loss (30.1% vs. 18.1%, p<.001) as well as general activity impairment (46.1% vs. 29.7%, p<.001). RLS patients had significantly higher healthcare resource use in the past 6 months than non-RLS patients: healthcare provider visits (7.46 vs. 4.42%, p<.001), ER visits (0.45 vs. 0.24, p<.001), and hospitalizations (0.24 vs. 0.15, p<.001). RLS patients also had higher estimated direct and indirect costs than non-RLS patients. Finally, it was found that across outcomes increasing severity is associated with increased economic and humanistic burden for RLS patients. Conclusions RLS patients suffer a greater humanistic and economic burden than those without RLS. Moreover as severity increases so does the burden of RLS.

Antiepileptic Drug Titration and Related Health Care Resource Use and Costs

BACKGROUND Unexpected breakthrough seizures resulting from suboptimal antiepileptic drug (AED) dosing during the titration period, as well as adverse events resulting from rapid AED titration, may influence the titration schedule and significantly increase health care resource use (HRU) and health care costs. OBJECTIVE To assess the relationship between AEDs, HRU, and costs during AED titration and maintenance. METHODS Practicing neurologists were recruited from a nationwide panel to provide up to 3 patient records each for this retrospective medical chart review. Patients with epilepsy who were aged ≥ 18 years and had initiated an AED between January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2016, were followed for 6 months from AED initiation. Titration duration was the time from AED initiation to the beginning of treatment maintenance as determined by the physician. Outcomes were epilepsy-specific HRU (hospitalizations, emergency department visits, outpatient visits, physician referral, laboratory testing/diagnostic imaging, and phone calls) and related costs that occurred during the titration or maintenance treatment periods. RESULTS Of 811 patients, 156, 128, 125, 120, 114, 107, and 61 initiated the following AEDs: levetiracetam, lamotrigine, lacosamide, valproate, topiramate, carbamazepine, and phenytoin, respectively. Most patients (619/803 [77.1%] with complete AED data) received monotherapy. Baseline characteristics were similar across AEDs (mean [SD] age, 36.6 [14.4] years; 59.0% male). Kaplan-Meier estimates of titration duration ranged from 3.3 weeks (phenytoin) to 8.1 weeks (lamotrigine). From titration to maintenance, the overall incidence of HRU per person-month decreased 54.5%-89.3% for each HRU measure except outpatient visits (24.6% decrease). Total epilepsy-related costs decreased from

Changing the neurology policy landscape in the United States: Misconceptions and facts about epilepsy

80.48 to

Current state of the union of epilepsy care in the United States: Antiepileptic drugs — An introduction to the Connectors Project

42.77 per person-month, or 46.9% from titration to maintenance. CONCLUSIONS AED titration periods had higher HRU rates and costs than AED maintenance, suggesting that use of AEDs with shorter titration requirements reduces health care costs, although disease severity may also factor into overall cost. DISCLOSURES UCB Pharma sponsored this study and reviewed the manuscript. Fishman and Kalilani are employees of UCB Pharma. Wild was an employee of UCB Pharma at the time this analysis was conducted. Song and Swallow are employees of Analysis Group, which received funding from UCB Pharma.

Correction: The Humanistic and Economic Burden of Restless Legs Syndrome

Epilepsy has a relatively high prevalence, and diagnosis and treatment are often challenging. Seizure freedom without significant side effects is the ultimate goal for both physicians and patients, but not always achievable. In those cases, the treatment goals of patients and providers may differ. In the United States, many clinicians continue to prescribe older AEDs, even though newer AEDs have a more desirable safety and tolerability profile, fewer drug-drug interactions, and are associated with lower epilepsy-related hospital visits. Newer AEDs are more commonly prescribed by neurologists and epilepsy center physicians, highlighting the importance of access to specialty care. We report that antiepileptic drugs are not the dominant cost driver for patients with epilepsy and costs are considerably higher in patients with uncontrolled epilepsy. Poor drug adherence is considered a main cause of unsuccessful epilepsy treatment and is associated with increases in inpatient and emergency department admissions and related costs. Interventions and educational programs are needed to address the reasons for nonadherence. Coverage policies placing a higher cost burden on patients with epilepsy lead to lower treatment adherence, which can result in higher future health care spending. Epilepsy is lagging behind other neurological conditions in terms of funding and treatment innovation. Increased investment in epilepsy research may be particularly beneficial given current funding levels and the high prevalence of epilepsy.

Patient emotions and perceptions of antiepileptic drug changes and titration during treatment for epilepsy

PURPOSE How antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are used in the United States (US) is one proxy public health indicator for the current state of epilepsy management. The use of phenytoin, other older AEDs, and newer AEDs may act as an indicator for the quality of epilepsy practice in addition to the current American Academy of Neurology quality measures. Data on AED used by states and populations can help identify which public health interventions are necessary to improve the status of epilepsy care. The Connectors Project, a collaboration between the Epilepsy Foundation and UCB Pharma, is a multiyear project designed to improve epilepsy awareness and management in underserved communities. The objective of the first phase of the Connectors Project was to assess geographic variation in epilepsy care and identify locations in need of improved epilepsy care by initially evaluating AED use in the US. METHODS A retrospective cross-sectional administrative claim analysis was conducted using the QuintilesIMS™ database which included US longitudinal retail prescription and office medical claims data. Patients with a confirmed epilepsy diagnosis who were prescribed AEDs were identified. Patients with an AED prescription over a 3-year period from January 2013 to December 2015 were included if they had an epilepsy diagnosis in the 2-year period before their first AED prescription in the reporting period. The percentages of patients initially prescribed phenytoin, other older AEDs (carbamazepine and valproate), and newer AEDs (eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, topiramate) were calculated and stratified by US state and Washington, DC. Patients were considered newly treated if they had an epilepsy diagnosis code and had not received an epilepsy drug in the 1-year period preceding the first AED prescription in the reporting period. Data are reported using the moving annual total ending December 2015. RESULTS Approximately 2.5 million US patients with epilepsy and their AED prescriptions were identified from 2013 to 2015. Predictably, states with the largest population had the highest number of patients with epilepsy who were prescribed an AED, including California, Texas, Florida, and New York. Regions with the highest total proportion of phenytoin use with a low proportion of newer AED use were Mississippi (24.4% and 53.1%, respectively) and Washington, DC (24.7% and 58.1%). Montana had the lowest proportion of phenytoin use with the highest proportion of newer AED use (7.9% and 70.4%). Among newly treated patients (N=237,347), Hawaii (39.1%) and Alaska (38.8%) had the highest percentage of phenytoin use compared with all other states. Idaho (86.1%) and Montana (84.4%) had the highest proportion of newer AED use. Washington, DC (50.9%) and Hawaii (60.9%) had the lowest proportion of patients treated with newer AEDs. North Dakota (29.6%) and Washington, DC (27.9%) had the highest rates of other older AEDs use. CONCLUSIONS A substantial proportion of newly treated US patients with epilepsy are underserved regarding newer AED use with Mississippi and Washington, DC having the highest proportion of phenytoin use relative to newer AED use. Understanding the socioeconomic and demographic barriers for these observations is essential in planning interventions to improve the quality of life and care for patients with epilepsy, including newly treated patients. These data provide a baseline to target educational and clinical interventions for improving the quality of US epilepsy care.

Cost sharing for antiepileptic drugs: Medication utilization and health plan costs

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140632.].