Real‐world analysis of hospitalizations in patients with epilepsy and treated with perampanel

Abstract Objectives (1) To evaluate risk of hospitalization following initiation of perampanel (pre‐ and post‐analysis) and (2) to compare hospitalization rates following initiation of perampanel vs lacosamide. Methods Patients were identified from Symphony Health's Patient Integrated Database...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Edward Faught, Xuan Li, Jiyoon Choi, Manoj Malhotra, Russell L. Knoth
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Wiley 2021
Materias:	antiepileptic drugs healthcare utilization hospitalizations pediatric epilepsy Neurology. Diseases of the nervous system RC346-429
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/631fd1b24d3d415abc6d28980124ace4
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:631fd1b24d3d415abc6d28980124ace4
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:631fd1b24d3d415abc6d28980124ace42021-12-01T06:09:19ZReal‐world analysis of hospitalizations in patients with epilepsy and treated with perampanel2470-923910.1002/epi4.12515https://doaj.org/article/631fd1b24d3d415abc6d28980124ace42021-12-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1002/epi4.12515https://doaj.org/toc/2470-9239Abstract Objectives (1) To evaluate risk of hospitalization following initiation of perampanel (pre‐ and post‐analysis) and (2) to compare hospitalization rates following initiation of perampanel vs lacosamide. Methods Patients were identified from Symphony Health's Patient Integrated Database if they had a prescription for perampanel (July 1, 2014‐June 30, 2016). Patients 4‐11 years of age with any partial‐onset seizure (POS) or ≥12 years of age with any POS or primary generalized tonic‐clonic seizure (GTCS) (pre‐post); or ≥12 years of age (perampanel vs lacosamide). The first fill of perampanel (“index date”) marked the start of the analysis period. Patients had ≥1 additional fill for perampanel and ≥2 diagnoses for epilepsy or nonfebrile convulsion diagnosis during pre‐index (based on ICD‐9/ICD‐10 codes). Patients were matched using a 1:1 propensity scoring method for the perampanel vs lacosamide analysis. Primary outcome was hospitalization during the one year following medication initiation. Results Pre‐ and post‐perampanel: N = 1771 (mean age 34 years, 55% female). One‐year all‐cause hospitalization risk ratio was 0.76 (P < .05) and 36.2% with hospitalization during the pre‐period vs 29.5% in the follow‐up. One‐year epilepsy‐related inpatient hospitalization risk ratio was 0.72 (P < .05) and 30.8% with hospitalization during the pre‐period vs 23.9% during follow‐up. In the perampanel and lacosamide cohorts, N = 1717 per cohort after matching, most baseline demographics were balanced. A higher percentage of subjects were prescribed ≥3 anti‐seizure medications for perampanel vs lacosamide (60.5% vs 57.7%, P < .001). The perampanel cohort had a 9.6% reduction in all‐cause hospitalizations vs 5.8% for the lacosamide cohort (P < .05). Epilepsy‐related hospitalizations decreased from the pre‐index rate by 9.9% for perampanel and 8.3% for lacosamide (P < .05). Among those with baseline hospitalizations, perampanel was associated with a 59.9% reduction in all‐cause hospitalizations vs 48.6% for lacosamide (P < .05), and for epilepsy‐related hospitalizations, a reduction of 65.0% vs 58.9%, respectively (P < .05). Significance Perampanel was associated with a significant reduction in one‐year hospitalization risk.Edward FaughtXuan LiJiyoon ChoiManoj MalhotraRussell L. KnothWileyarticleantiepileptic drugshealthcare utilizationhospitalizationspediatric epilepsyNeurology. Diseases of the nervous systemRC346-429ENEpilepsia Open, Vol 6, Iss 4, Pp 645-652 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	antiepileptic drugs healthcare utilization hospitalizations pediatric epilepsy Neurology. Diseases of the nervous system RC346-429
spellingShingle	antiepileptic drugs healthcare utilization hospitalizations pediatric epilepsy Neurology. Diseases of the nervous system RC346-429 Edward Faught Xuan Li Jiyoon Choi Manoj Malhotra Russell L. Knoth Real‐world analysis of hospitalizations in patients with epilepsy and treated with perampanel
description	Abstract Objectives (1) To evaluate risk of hospitalization following initiation of perampanel (pre‐ and post‐analysis) and (2) to compare hospitalization rates following initiation of perampanel vs lacosamide. Methods Patients were identified from Symphony Health's Patient Integrated Database if they had a prescription for perampanel (July 1, 2014‐June 30, 2016). Patients 4‐11 years of age with any partial‐onset seizure (POS) or ≥12 years of age with any POS or primary generalized tonic‐clonic seizure (GTCS) (pre‐post); or ≥12 years of age (perampanel vs lacosamide). The first fill of perampanel (“index date”) marked the start of the analysis period. Patients had ≥1 additional fill for perampanel and ≥2 diagnoses for epilepsy or nonfebrile convulsion diagnosis during pre‐index (based on ICD‐9/ICD‐10 codes). Patients were matched using a 1:1 propensity scoring method for the perampanel vs lacosamide analysis. Primary outcome was hospitalization during the one year following medication initiation. Results Pre‐ and post‐perampanel: N = 1771 (mean age 34 years, 55% female). One‐year all‐cause hospitalization risk ratio was 0.76 (P < .05) and 36.2% with hospitalization during the pre‐period vs 29.5% in the follow‐up. One‐year epilepsy‐related inpatient hospitalization risk ratio was 0.72 (P < .05) and 30.8% with hospitalization during the pre‐period vs 23.9% during follow‐up. In the perampanel and lacosamide cohorts, N = 1717 per cohort after matching, most baseline demographics were balanced. A higher percentage of subjects were prescribed ≥3 anti‐seizure medications for perampanel vs lacosamide (60.5% vs 57.7%, P < .001). The perampanel cohort had a 9.6% reduction in all‐cause hospitalizations vs 5.8% for the lacosamide cohort (P < .05). Epilepsy‐related hospitalizations decreased from the pre‐index rate by 9.9% for perampanel and 8.3% for lacosamide (P < .05). Among those with baseline hospitalizations, perampanel was associated with a 59.9% reduction in all‐cause hospitalizations vs 48.6% for lacosamide (P < .05), and for epilepsy‐related hospitalizations, a reduction of 65.0% vs 58.9%, respectively (P < .05). Significance Perampanel was associated with a significant reduction in one‐year hospitalization risk.
format	article
author	Edward Faught Xuan Li Jiyoon Choi Manoj Malhotra Russell L. Knoth
author_facet	Edward Faught Xuan Li Jiyoon Choi Manoj Malhotra Russell L. Knoth
author_sort	Edward Faught
title	Real‐world analysis of hospitalizations in patients with epilepsy and treated with perampanel
title_short	Real‐world analysis of hospitalizations in patients with epilepsy and treated with perampanel
title_full	Real‐world analysis of hospitalizations in patients with epilepsy and treated with perampanel
title_fullStr	Real‐world analysis of hospitalizations in patients with epilepsy and treated with perampanel
title_full_unstemmed	Real‐world analysis of hospitalizations in patients with epilepsy and treated with perampanel
title_sort	real‐world analysis of hospitalizations in patients with epilepsy and treated with perampanel
publisher	Wiley
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/631fd1b24d3d415abc6d28980124ace4
work_keys_str_mv	AT edwardfaught realworldanalysisofhospitalizationsinpatientswithepilepsyandtreatedwithperampanel AT xuanli realworldanalysisofhospitalizationsinpatientswithepilepsyandtreatedwithperampanel AT jiyoonchoi realworldanalysisofhospitalizationsinpatientswithepilepsyandtreatedwithperampanel AT manojmalhotra realworldanalysisofhospitalizationsinpatientswithepilepsyandtreatedwithperampanel AT russelllknoth realworldanalysisofhospitalizationsinpatientswithepilepsyandtreatedwithperampanel
_version_	1718405478286884864

Real‐world analysis of hospitalizations in patients with epilepsy and treated with perampanel

Ejemplares similares