Cost-utility analysis of rufinamide versus topiramate and lamotrigine for the treatment of children with Lennox–Gastaut Syndrome in the United Kingdom

PURPOSE To estimate the cost-effectiveness of rufinamide relative to topiramate and lamotrigine as adjunctive treatment for children with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS). METHODS A Markov decision analytic model was developed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over a three-year time horizon in patients with LGS uncontrolled by up to three antiepileptic drugs. Utilities were assigned to health states, defined according to a patient's response to treatment (> or =75%, > or =50% and <75%, and <50% reduction in tonic-atonic [drop attack] seizure frequency and death). Efficacy and safety estimates were made using indirect/mixed-treatment comparisons of data obtained from published literature. Outcomes included costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), allowing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to be estimated as cost per QALY gained. RESULTS Over three years, the total cumulative costs for rufinamide, topiramate, and lamotrigine were pound24,992, pound23,360, and pound21,783, respectively. Rufinamide resulted in an incremental QALY gain of 0.079 relative to topiramate and 0.021 relative to lamotrigine. The incremental costs of rufinamide were pound1632 and pound3209, relative to topiramate and lamotrigine, resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of pound20,538 and pound154,831, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Considering the underlying assumptions, this current economic evaluation demonstrates that rufinamide is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to topiramate as adjunctive treatment for children with LGS in the UK. In addition, when compared to lamotrigine, which is an inexpensive treatment, rufinamide should be considered as a cost-effective alternative due to the importance of patient choice and equity of access in such a rare and devastating condition.