TY - JOUR
T1 - An economic evaluation of vagus nerve stimulation as an adjunctive treatment to anti-seizure medications for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy in England
AU - Raspin, Christopher
AU - Shankar, Rohit
AU - Barion, Francesca
AU - Pollit, Vicki
AU - Murphy, Joanna
AU - Sawyer, Laura
AU - Danielson, Vanessa
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2021/8/31
Y1 - 2021/8/31
N2 - Introduction: Anti-seizure medications (ASMs) are commonly used to prevent recurring epileptic seizures, but around a third of people with epilepsy fail to achieve an adequate response. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is clinically recommended for people with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) who are not suitable for surgery, but the cost-effectiveness of the intervention has not recently been evaluated. The study objective is to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with using VNS as an adjunct to ongoing ASM therapy, compared to the strategy of using only ASMs in the treatment of people with DRE, from an English National Health Service perspective. Methods: A cohort state transition model was developed in Microsoft Excel to simulate costs and QALYs of the VNS + ASM and ASM only strategies. Patients could transition between five health states, using a 3-month cycle length. Health states were defined by an expected percentage reduction in seizure frequency, derived from randomized control trial data. Costs included the VNS device as well as its installation, setup, and removal; ASM therapy; adverse events associated with VNS (dyspnea, hoarseness, and cough); and health-state costs associated with epilepsy including hospitalizations, emergency department visits, neurologist visits, and primary care visits. A range of sensitivity analyses, including probabilistic sensitivity analysis, were run to assess the impact of parameter and structural uncertainty. Results: In the base case, VNS + ASM had an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £17,771 per QALY gained compared to ASMs alone. The cost-effective ICER was driven by relative reductions in expected seizure frequency and the differences in health care resource use associated therewith. Sensitivity analyses found that the amount of resource use per epilepsy-related health state was a key driver of the cost component. Conclusions: VNS is expected to be a cost-effective intervention in the treatment of DRE in the English National Health Service.
AB - Introduction: Anti-seizure medications (ASMs) are commonly used to prevent recurring epileptic seizures, but around a third of people with epilepsy fail to achieve an adequate response. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is clinically recommended for people with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) who are not suitable for surgery, but the cost-effectiveness of the intervention has not recently been evaluated. The study objective is to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with using VNS as an adjunct to ongoing ASM therapy, compared to the strategy of using only ASMs in the treatment of people with DRE, from an English National Health Service perspective. Methods: A cohort state transition model was developed in Microsoft Excel to simulate costs and QALYs of the VNS + ASM and ASM only strategies. Patients could transition between five health states, using a 3-month cycle length. Health states were defined by an expected percentage reduction in seizure frequency, derived from randomized control trial data. Costs included the VNS device as well as its installation, setup, and removal; ASM therapy; adverse events associated with VNS (dyspnea, hoarseness, and cough); and health-state costs associated with epilepsy including hospitalizations, emergency department visits, neurologist visits, and primary care visits. A range of sensitivity analyses, including probabilistic sensitivity analysis, were run to assess the impact of parameter and structural uncertainty. Results: In the base case, VNS + ASM had an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £17,771 per QALY gained compared to ASMs alone. The cost-effective ICER was driven by relative reductions in expected seizure frequency and the differences in health care resource use associated therewith. Sensitivity analyses found that the amount of resource use per epilepsy-related health state was a key driver of the cost component. Conclusions: VNS is expected to be a cost-effective intervention in the treatment of DRE in the English National Health Service.
KW - anti-epileptic drugs
KW - Cost-effectiveness model
KW - drug-resistant epilepsy
KW - economic evaluation
KW - epilepsy
KW - Markov model
KW - vagus nerve stimulation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85113919826&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13696998.2021.1964306
DO - 10.1080/13696998.2021.1964306
M3 - Article
C2 - 34348576
AN - SCOPUS:85113919826
SN - 1369-6998
VL - 24
SP - 1037
EP - 1051
JO - Journal of Medical Economics
JF - Journal of Medical Economics
IS - 1
ER -