Eslicarbazepine acetate in epilepsy patients with psychiatric comorbidities and intellectual disability: Clinical practice findings from the Euro-Esli study

Healthcare Resource Utilization Among Patients with Focal Seizures Treated with Eslicarbazepine Acetate in the US Long-Term Care Setting: A Retrospective Claims Database Analysis

Introduction

The aim of this study was to compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) before and after initiation of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in the long-term care (LTC) setting (rehabilitation center, mental health center, LTC non-skilled nursing facility/assisted-living facility, home health, assisted living, nursing home, other/unknown).

Methods

This retrospective analysis used IQVIA’s New Data Warehouse, which includes deterministically linked LTC, prescription, and professional fee claims data and IQVIA Hospital Charge Data Master database. The study period was 1 April 2013 to 31 December 2019. The index date was the date of ESL initiation in the LTC setting. Inclusion criteria were: (1) ≥ 1 new ESL prescription between 1 April 2014 and 31 December 2018; (2) diagnosis of focal seizure (FS) during the 12 months pre-index date; and (3) no ESL prescription during the 12-month period pre-index. A 12-month pre-post analysis compared epilepsy-specific and all-cause HCRU before and after ESL initiation. Categorical variables were compared with McNemar’s tests.

Results

A total of 307 patients (mean age 52.2 years, 57.7% male) with FS were included, of whom 24.8% were in nursing homes. Patients used a mean of 3.1 antiseizure drugs prior to initiation of ESL, and 87.9% of patients initiated ESL as adjunctive treatment. There were significant reductions in proportion of patients with epilepsy specific physician office visits, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and all-cause physician office visits and hospitalizations in the post-index period compared to the pre-index period (P < 0.05). Similar results were observed in sensitivity (patients with an epilepsy diagnosis) and subgroup analyses [presence or absence of intellectual developmental disorders or age (≥ 65 and < 65 years)].

Conclusion

Proportion of patients with epilepsy-specific physician office visits, ED visits, hospitalizations, and all-cause physician office visits and hospitalizations were significantly reduced following initiation of ESL in patients with FS in LTC.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-021-00244-5.

Eslicarbazepine acetate response in intellectual disability population versus general population

BACKGROUND

A quarter of people with intellectual disability (ID) have epilepsy, compared to approximately one in a hundred across the general population. Evidence for the safe and effective prescribing of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for those with ID is, however, limited.

AIMS OF STUDY

This study seeks to strengthen the research evidence around Eslicarbazepine Acetate (ESL), a new AED, by comparing response of individuals with ID to those from the general population who do not have ID.

METHODS

A single data set was created through retrospective data collection from English and Welsh NHS Trusts. The UK-based Epilepsy Database Research Register (Ep-ID) data collection and analysis method were used.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 93 people (36 ID and 57 'no ID'). Seizure improvement of '>50%' was higher at 12 months for 'no ID' participants (56%), compared to ID participants (35%). Retention rates were slightly higher for those with ID (56% compared to 53%). Neither difference was significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Tolerance and Efficacy for ID and 'no ID' people in our data set were similar. Seizure improvement and retention rates were slightly lower than that found in other European data sets, but findings strengthen the evidence for the use of ESL in the ID population.

Eslicarbazepine acetate in post-stroke epilepsy: Clinical practice evidence from Euro-Esli

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients included in the Euro‐Esli study who had focal seizures associated with post‐stroke epilepsy (PSE).

Materials and Methods

Euro‐Esli was a pooled analysis of 14 European clinical practice studies. Effectiveness assessments (evaluated after 3, 6 and 12 months of ESL treatment and at final follow‐up [“last visit”]) included rates of response (≥50% seizure frequency reduction), seizure freedom (no seizures since at least the prior visit) and retention. Safety/tolerability was assessed throughout ESL treatment by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. A post hoc analysis was conducted of patients with PSE versus patients without PSE (“non‐PSE”).

Results

Of 1656 patients included in the analysis, 76 (4.6%) had PSE and 1580 (95.4%) had non‐PSE. Compared with non‐PSE patients, PSE patients were significantly older, had significantly shorter epilepsy duration, significantly lower total baseline seizure frequency, and were treated with significantly fewer prior and concomitant antiepileptic drugs (P < .001 for all). At the last visit, the responder rate was significantly higher in PSE versus non‐PSE patients (72.9% vs 60.6%; P = .040), as was the seizure freedom rate (48.6% vs 31.7%; P = .003). After 12 months, retention was significantly higher in PSE versus non‐PSE patients (87.8% vs 77.4%; P = .035). The incidence of AEs was similar for PSE versus non‐PSE patients (36.0% vs 35.8%; P = .966).

Conclusions

These findings suggest that ESL may be an effective and well‐tolerated treatment option for patients with focal seizures due to PSE.

Eslicarbazepine Acetate: A Review in Focal-Onset Seizures

Eslicarbazepine acetate (Zebinix^®), a voltage-gated sodium channel blocker, is a once-daily, orally administered anti-seizure medication available in the EU for use as monotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed focal-onset seizures and as adjunctive therapy in adults, adolescents and children aged > 6 years with focal-onset seizures. In adult patients, adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate was generally associated with a significant decrease in seizure frequency and an increase in responder rate compared with placebo. The drug was also an effective monotherapy agent in adult patients, demonstrating noninferiority to controlled-release carbamazepine, in terms of seizure freedom rates. In paediatric patients, eslicarbazepine acetate provided seizure control when administered as adjunctive therapy, with the benefits appearing to be dependent on age and dose. The antiepileptic efficacy of eslicarbazepine acetate as adjunctive therapy or as monotherapy was maintained during longer-term extension studies, with each extension study period being up to 2 years. Oral eslicarbazepine acetate was generally well tolerated when administered as adjunctive therapy or monotherapy in adult patients and when administered as adjunctive therapy in paediatric patients, with most adverse events being of mild or moderate intensity. In conclusion, with the convenience of once-daily administration, eslicarbazepine acetate is an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment option for adults, adolescents and children aged > 6 years with focal-onset seizures.

Healthcare Resource Utilization Pre- and Post-Initiation of Eslicarbazepine Acetate Among Pediatric Patients with Focal Seizure: Evidence from Routine Clinical Practice

Objective

To examine the impact of initiating treatment with eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among pediatric patients with focal seizures (FS).

Methods

This retrospective study used Symphony Health’s Integrated Dataverse^® claims data. Patients aged 4 to 17 years with a diagnosis of FS and a new prescription for ESL between April 2015 and June 2018 were included and defined as the overall patient population. Index date was the first dispensed claim for ESL. Baseline period was the 90-day block immediately prior to the index date. The follow-up period comprised up to 4 consecutive 90-day blocks immediately following the index date. Subgroups were defined based on the presence (DP+) or absence (DP−) of developmental and/or psychiatric disorders at baseline. All-cause and FS-related inpatient (IP), emergency room (ER), outpatient (OP) hospital, and office (OF) visits were measured during the follow-up period. Reduction in HCRU per block in the post-ESL period was assessed using fixed-effects linear regression models.

Results

A total of 234 patients were included in the overall study population, of whom 86 (36.8%) were DP+ and 148 (63.2%) were DP−. Relative to the baseline period, significant reductions were observed in the overall population for all-cause ER (P=0.001), OP (P<0.001), and OF (P<0.001) visits and FS-related IP (P=0.037) and OF (P<0.001) visits in the follow-up period. Among DP+ and DP− patients, significant reductions were observed for all-cause ER (DP+: P=0.024; DP−: P=0.017), OP (DP+: P<0.001; DP−: P=0.035), and OF (DP+: P=0.004; DP−: P=0.001) visits during the follow-up period. No significant differences were observed between DP+ and DP− patients in the change in all-cause or FS-related HCRU from baseline to the follow-up period.

Conclusion

Pediatric patients with FS (DP+ and DP-) who initiated ESL had significant reductions in all-cause ER, OP, and OF visits and FS-related IP and OF visits.