Emma Foster1,2,3, Zhibin Chen1,4,5, Ella Zomer5, Maria Rychkova BBioMed1,2,3,4, Patrick Carney6,7, Terence J O'Brien1,2,3,4, Danny Liew4,5, Graeme D Jackson4,7,8, Patrick Kwan1,2,3,4,5, Zanfina Ademi9. 1. Department of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne VIC 3004, Australia. 2. Department of Neurology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan Street, Parkville VIC 3052, Australia. 3. Department of Neurology, Alfred Health, Commercial Road, Melbourne VIC 3000,Australia. 4. Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3050, Australia. 5. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia. 6. Department of Medicine, Monash University and Eastern Health, Melbourne, VIC 3128, Australia. 7. Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia. 8. Department of Neurology, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC 3084, Australia. 9. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia. zanfina.ademi@monash.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the health economic burden of epilepsy for Australians of working age by using life table modelling, and to model whether improved seizure control may result in substantial health economic benefits. METHODS: Life table modelling was used for working age Australians aged 15-69 years with epilepsy, and the cohort was followed until age 70 years. Published 2017 population and epilepsy-related data regarding epilepsy prevalence, mortality, and productivity were used. This model was then re-simulated, assuming the cohort no longer had epilepsy. Differences in outcomes between these cohorts were attributed to epilepsy. Scenarios were also simulated in which the proportion of seizure-free patients increased from baseline 70% up to 75% and 80%. RESULTS: In 2017, Australians of working age with epilepsy followed until age 70 years were predicted to experience over 14,000 excess deaths, more than 78,000 years of life lost, and over 146,000 productivity adjusted life years (PALYs) lost due to epilepsy. This resulted in lost GDP of US$22.1 billion. Increasing seizure freedom by 5% and 10% would reduce healthcare costs, save years of life, and translate to US$2.6 billion and US$5.3 billion GDP retained, for seizure freedom rates of 75% and 80%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the considerable societal and economic burden of epilepsy. Relatively modest improvements in overall seizure control could bring substantial economic benefits.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the health economic burden of epilepsy for Australians of working age by using life table modelling, and to model whether improved seizure control may result in substantial health economic benefits. METHODS: Life table modelling was used for working age Australians aged 15-69 years with epilepsy, and the cohort was followed until age 70 years. Published 2017 population and epilepsy-related data regarding epilepsy prevalence, mortality, and productivity were used. This model was then re-simulated, assuming the cohort no longer had epilepsy. Differences in outcomes between these cohorts were attributed to epilepsy. Scenarios were also simulated in which the proportion of seizure-free patients increased from baseline 70% up to 75% and 80%. RESULTS: In 2017, Australians of working age with epilepsy followed until age 70 years were predicted to experience over 14,000 excess deaths, more than 78,000 years of life lost, and over 146,000 productivity adjusted life years (PALYs) lost due to epilepsy. This resulted in lost GDP of US$22.1 billion. Increasing seizure freedom by 5% and 10% would reduce healthcare costs, save years of life, and translate to US$2.6 billion and US$5.3 billion GDP retained, for seizure freedom rates of 75% and 80%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the considerable societal and economic burden of epilepsy. Relatively modest improvements in overall seizure control could bring substantial economic benefits.
Authors: Lata Vadlamudi; Carmen Maree Bennett; Melanie Tom; Ghusoon Abdulrasool; Kristian Brion; Ben Lundie; Hnin Aung; Chiyan Lau; Jonathan Rodgers; Kate Riney; Louisa Gordon Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: John Lawson; Terry O'Brien; Myfanwy Graham; Elianne Renaud; Dean Jones; Jeremy Freeman; Nicholas Lawn; Jennifer H Martin Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Gareth Morris; Mona Heiland; Kai Lamottke; Haifeng Guan; Thomas D M Hill; Yijun Zhou; Qianjin Zhu; Stephanie Schorge; David C Henshall Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 4.003