Epilepsy

One-month adherence in children with new-onset epilepsy: white-coat compliance does not occur.

09/08/2008 , 9:43 AM by Alex Sicre

Today’s Medication Adherence related abstract comes from Medscape.

OBJECTIVES:
Adherence to antiepileptic drug therapy plays an important role in the effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment of epilepsy. The purpose of this study was to use an objective measure of adherence to (1) document patterns of adherence for the first month of therapy for children with new-onset epilepsy, (2) examine differences in adherence by demographic and epilepsy variables, and (3) determine whether treatment adherence improves for a short time before a clinic visit (eg, “white-coat compliance”).

METHODS:
Participants included 35 children with new-onset epilepsy (mean age: 7.2 years; 34% female; 66% white) and their caregivers. Children had a diagnosis of partial (60%), generalized (29%), or unclassified (11%) epilepsy. Adherence to treatment was electronically monitored with Medication Event Monitoring System TrackCap, starting with the first antiepileptic drug dose. Adherence was calculated across a 1-month period and for the 1, 3, and 5 days before and 3 days after the clinic appointment.

RESULTS:
Adherence for the first month of treatment in children with new-onset epilepsy was 79.4%. One-month adherence was higher in children of married parents and those with higher socioeconomic status but did not correlate with child’s gender, age, epilepsy type, prescribed medication, seizure frequency, or length of time since seizure onset. Adherence across the entire 1-month period was not different from adherence for the 1, 3, or 5 days before or 3 days after the clinic visit.

CONCLUSIONS:
Poor adherence seen for children with new-onset epilepsy during the first month of antiepileptic drug therapy is a cause for concern. Several demographic variables influence adherence to treatment, whereas the proximity to a clinic visit does not. Additional studies are needed to document whether this trend continues longitudinally and determine the clinical impact of poor adherence.

MY COMMENTS:
I wonder if the adherence rates dropping has something to do with the caregivers? 79% is not that bad – better than average – but it is only for 1 month, and with a severe affliction such as epilepsy, being able to see the effects of non-adherence has a serious impact.

Non-adherent Epileptics 3x More Likely To Die

06/18/2008 , 10:24 AM by Alex Sicre

This is an article from MedPage that really speaks to the importance of medication adherence.

Here is just the first paragraph or so:

BIRMINGHAM, Ala., June 18 — Faithfully taking epilepsy medication may be a matter of survival, according to findings of a large observational study.

Patients in three state Medicaid databases who took prescribed epilepsy medication less than 80% of the time were three times more likely to die than those who took their medication regularly over the course of a three-month period, found Edward Faught, M.D., of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues

Lamotrigine XR Proven Effective for Epileptics – GSK funded Study

10/16/2007 , 11:13 AM by Alex Sicre

I found this on a couple of sites but liked this MedScape article the best. One thing I do not understand about epileptics and patients with chronic illnesses in general is why they do not take their medications knowing the results. One of my friends in epileptic, something that I had forgotten until the day after another friend’s wedding. She had a seizure at the Sunday brunch. This was a fit I had never seen and it was quite scary for all of us there, and can only imagine the effect on her. I am pretty sure it was a result of her non-adherence to her medication. Luckily many of her friends were there who had experienced her seizing before so they knew how to treat her.

As with all XR drugs, they aim to improve medication adherence, yet pharmaceutical companies usually start developing and testing XR fomulas when their patent is close to expiration. I am all for medication adherence (as we know) however why wasn’t this the first drug to be released? Hey, we spent $800M on a drug and sold it for 6 years, but here is a better version because a generic is now available for the first version and we want to make more money and keep you as a patient. Yes, I know the answer and it always be the case until we are in the future world where all medications are free, have no side effects, and there is no global warming, polution, etc….

Just for fun, see who funded the study and who employs the MDs at the end.

October 15, 2007 — Once-daily adjunctive lamotrigine extended-release (XR) was effective in controlling partial seizures, according to the results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial reported in the October 15 issue of Neurology.

“The goal of enhancing dosing convenience and thereby compliance has motivated the development of lamotrigine extended-release (XR), an enteric-coated, slow-release formulation,” write D.K. Naritoku, MD, from Southern Illinois University in Springfield, and colleagues. “Whereas conventional immediate-release (IR) lamotrigine tablets are recommended for twice-daily dosing when used with enzyme-inducing AEDs [antiepileptic drugs] or as monotherapy and for once- or twice-daily dosing when used with valproate, the pharmacokinetic properties of lamotrigine XR make it suitable for once-daily dosing in epilepsy regardless of concomitant AED.”

In this parallel-group trial, 243 patients older than 12 years diagnosed with epilepsy with partial seizures and taking 1 to 2 baseline antiepileptic drugs were randomized to adjunctive once-daily lamotrigine XR or placebo. After the baseline phase, 239 patients entered a 7-week, double-blind escalation phase. During the 12-week, double-blind, maintenance phase, doses of study medication and concomitant antiepileptic drugs were maintained.

Of the 239 patients who entered the escalation phase and received study medication, 118 received lamotrigine XR, and 121 received placebo. Compared with placebo, lamotrigine XR was more effective in terms of median percent reduction from baseline in weekly partial seizure frequency (primary endpoint, entire 19-week treatment phase: 46.1% vs 24.2%; P = .0004; escalation phase: 28.0% vs 16.3%; P = .028; maintenance phase: 58.0% vs 26.7%: P < .0001).

The percentage of patients with at least a 50% decrease in frequency of partial seizures (42.2% vs 24.2%; P = .0037) and time to 50% or more reduction in partial seizure frequency (P = .0007) also favored lamotrigine XR over placebo. For secondarily generalized seizures, findings were comparable.

The most frequently reported adverse events were headache (17% with lamotrigine XR vs 15% with placebo) and dizziness (18% with lamotrigine XR vs 5% with placebo). Health outcome measures were not significantly different between groups. There were no serious rashes, and laboratory test results and electrocardiogram findings were unremarkable in both groups.

“Once-daily adjunctive lamotrigine extended-release compared with placebo effectively reduced partial seizure frequency and was well tolerated in this double-blind study,” the authors write. “Results support the clinical utility of this new once-daily formulation.”

Study limitations include small sample sizes for end-of-study health outcomes questionnaires, with resulting low power for detecting treatment differences.

GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of lamotrigine, sponsored and conducted this study, employs 2 of the authors, funded 1 of the authors, and has various financial relationships with 2 other authors.

Achtar Price to Go up to $23,000 a Vial

10/09/2007 , 11:17 AM by Alex Sicre

This just strikes me as wrong, and is going to have a huge impact on adherence. From the Philadelphia Inquirer.

PHILADELPHIA _ There’s one drug most doctors turn to first when babies have catastrophic seizures: a natural hormone sold under the name H.P. Acthar. It’s the gold standard to stop seizures that can ruin a child’s chance for a normal life.

On Aug. 27, the lone maker of that drug raised the price from $1,650 a vial to more than $23,000 a vial, sending the price for an average patient to $100,000 or more.

The 14-fold increase stunned some caregivers and seemed to crystallize their frustrations over drug pricing.

“It’s an obscene increase. I could almost see doubling or tripling the price but (14) times seems ridiculous,” said Sarah Erush, clinical manager of pharmacy at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Robert R. Clancy, a neurologist who directs the hospital’s Pediatric Regional Epilepsy Program, said, “Everyone understands it’s a business and they need to have a fair profit. But to go from $1,600 to $23,000 strikes me as old-fashioned greed.”

The maker, Questcor Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Union City, Calif., says it had no choice. The company, which has been losing nearly $1 million a month receives more than 90 percent of its revenues from Acthar. It had $12.8 million in total revenues last year.

“We had to take this kind of a pricing increase to insure that Acthar remains available,” said Steve Cartt, Questcor’s executive vice president for corporate development. “The company was in a bad situation.”

Cartt said the firm has revamped a patient assistance program to make more Acthar available at no cost to help uninsured parents, and it has started two copay assistance programs.

But the price hike has already caused at least one insurer to put in a more stringent pre-authorization process. Experts say it’s likely that many patients will find it harder to get this drug.

The increase is an extreme example of how drugs are priced in the United States: There is no regulation of drug prices. Companies can charge what the market will bear, and commercial insurers, who cover most employees’ prescriptions, often follow Medicare’s lead in covering drugs.

Prescription drugs are “a legal monopoly. We expect monopolists to behave like monopolists,” said Mark V. Pauly, a health economist at the Wharton School. “The argument is the higher profits will stimulate further beneficial research.”

Large spikes in drug prices are not uncommon, especially when the potential market is small.

In 2006, Ovation Pharmaceuticals raised the price of indomethacin, an injected anti-inflammatory drug often used in premature babies, from $100 to $1,875 for three vials, prompting howls of protest. “This is a rather astounding increase in price for a drug that has a stable niche market and requires no advertising,” declared Alan H. Jobe, a doctor at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, in the journal Pediatrics.

Ovation spokeswoman Sally Benjamin Young said the drug, which privately-held Ovation acquired from Merck & Co. Inc. in 2006, had had few price adjustments since it was introduced in 1985. The hike was needed to support better testing, packaging and manufacturing, and to insure a more stable supply, she said.

Experts say it’s not uncommon for new drugs, especially for rare diseases, to cost more than $100,000 a year. The high price is needed, economists say, so the firm can be encouraged to enter the field.

What sets apart Acthar is that it’s a very old drug. The compound (Adrenocorticotropic hormone) was first synthesized in the 1940s by Armour & Co., the canned meat firm, which harvested it from pigs’ pituitary glands.

The drug, used for years to treat Infantile Spasms, was made by Rhone-Poulenc Rorer and then by its successor, Aventis. It was never a big seller, and the former owner nearly stopped making it in the mid-1990s _ only to see it brought back after a storm of pediatricians complained that there was no substitute.

Questcor bought the rights to the drug in 2001. The company sought formal approval for Infantile Spasms from the Food and Drug Administration, but it issued a “non-approvable” letter in May. The agency didn’t think the existing clinical trials were good enough, Cartt said, adding that the firm is exploring what kind of tests the FDA will need.

Even without formal FDA approval, Acthar remains the drug of choice for babies with Infantile Spasms. It’s the most likely drug to end the seizures, which, if unstopped, make the chances of normal development remote at best.

Acthar is also one of several drugs that helps with sudden flare-ups in multiple sclerosis patients though its use is small.