Kevin Michael C Moalong1, Adrian I Espiritu2, Marc Laurence L Fernandez3, Roland Dominic G Jamora4. 1. Department of Neurosciences, College of Medicine and Philippine General Hospital, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines. Electronic address: kcmoalong@up.edu.ph. 2. Department of Neurosciences, College of Medicine and Philippine General Hospital, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines; Department of Clinical Epidemiology, College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines. Electronic address: aiespiritu@up.edu.ph. 3. Department of Neurosciences, College of Medicine and Philippine General Hospital, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines. 4. Department of Neurosciences, College of Medicine and Philippine General Hospital, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines; Institute for Neurosciences, St. Luke's Medical Center, Quezon City and Global City, Philippines. Electronic address: rgjamora@up.edu.ph.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Epilepsy is a neurologic disease that carries a high disease burden and likely, a huge treatment gap especially in low-to-middle income countries (LMIC) such as the Philippines. This review aimed to examine the treatment gaps and challenges that burden Philippine epilepsy care. MATERIALS & METHODS: Pertinent data on epidemiology, research, health financing and health systems, pharmacologic and surgical treatment options, cost of care, and workforce were obtained through a literature search and review of relevant Philippine government websites. RESULTS: The estimated prevalence of epilepsy in the Philippines is 0.9%. Epilepsy research in the Philippines is low in quantity compared with the rest of Southeast Asia (SEA). Inequities in quality and quantity of healthcare services delivered to local government units (LGUs) have arisen because of devolution. Programs for epilepsy care by both government and nongovernment institutions have been implemented. Healthcare expenditure in the Philippines is still largely out-of-pocket, with only partial coverage from the public sector. There is limited access to antiseizure medications (ASMs), mainly due to cost. Epilepsy surgery is an underutilized treatment option. There are only 20 epileptologists in the Philippines, with one epileptologist for every 45,000 patients with epilepsy. In addition, epilepsy care service delivery has been further impeded by the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. CONCLUSION: There is a large treatment gap in epilepsy care in the Philippines in terms of high epilepsy disease burden, socioeconomic limitations and inadequate public support, sparse clinico-epidemiologic research on epilepsy, inaccessibility of health care services and essential pharmacotherapy, underutilization of surgical options, and lack of specialists capable of rendering epilepsy care. Acknowledgment of the existence of these treatment gaps and addressing such are expected to improve the overall survival and quality of life of patients with epilepsy in the Philippines.
OBJECTIVE:Epilepsy is a neurologic disease that carries a high disease burden and likely, a huge treatment gap especially in low-to-middle income countries (LMIC) such as the Philippines. This review aimed to examine the treatment gaps and challenges that burden Philippine epilepsy care. MATERIALS & METHODS: Pertinent data on epidemiology, research, health financing and health systems, pharmacologic and surgical treatment options, cost of care, and workforce were obtained through a literature search and review of relevant Philippine government websites. RESULTS: The estimated prevalence of epilepsy in the Philippines is 0.9%. Epilepsy research in the Philippines is low in quantity compared with the rest of Southeast Asia (SEA). Inequities in quality and quantity of healthcare services delivered to local government units (LGUs) have arisen because of devolution. Programs for epilepsy care by both government and nongovernment institutions have been implemented. Healthcare expenditure in the Philippines is still largely out-of-pocket, with only partial coverage from the public sector. There is limited access to antiseizure medications (ASMs), mainly due to cost. Epilepsy surgery is an underutilized treatment option. There are only 20 epileptologists in the Philippines, with one epileptologist for every 45,000 patients with epilepsy. In addition, epilepsy care service delivery has been further impeded by the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. CONCLUSION: There is a large treatment gap in epilepsy care in the Philippines in terms of high epilepsy disease burden, socioeconomic limitations and inadequate public support, sparse clinico-epidemiologic research on epilepsy, inaccessibility of health care services and essential pharmacotherapy, underutilization of surgical options, and lack of specialists capable of rendering epilepsy care. Acknowledgment of the existence of these treatment gaps and addressing such are expected to improve the overall survival and quality of life of patients with epilepsy in the Philippines.