Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26765291›Full record

ArticleEpilepsia2016

Health and economic benefits of public financing of epilepsy treatment in India: An agent-based simulation model.

Itamar Megiddo, Abigail Colson, Dan Chisholm, Tarun Dua, Arindam Nandi, Ramanan Laxminarayan

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
41.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 182 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Routine immunization againstThe Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Pharmacoeconomics Aspects of Antiepileptic Drugs in Pediatric Patients with Epilepsy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

Itamar MegiddoCenter for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy, Washington, District of Columbia, U.S.A.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8391-6660
Abigail ColsonCenter for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy, Washington, District of Columbia, U.S.A.
Dan ChisholmDepartment of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Tarun DuaDepartment of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Arindam NandiCenter for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy, Washington, District of Columbia, U.S.A.
Ramanan LaxminarayanCenter for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy, Washington, District of Columbia, U.S.A.
Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy · USWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAn estimated 6-10 million people in India live with active epilepsy, and less than half are treated. We analyze the health and economic benefits of three scenarios of publicly financed national epilepsy programs that provide: (1) first-line antiepilepsy drugs (AEDs), (2) first- and second-line AEDs, and (3) first- and second-line AEDs and surgery.

methodsWe model the prevalence and distribution of epilepsy in India using IndiaSim, an agent-based, simulation model of the Indian population. Agents in the model are disease-free or in one of three disease states: untreated with seizures, treated with seizures, and treated without seizures. Outcome measures include the proportion of the population that has epilepsy and is untreated, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, and cost per DALY averted. Economic benefit measures estimated include out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure averted and money-metric value of insurance.

resultsAll three scenarios represent a cost-effective use of resources and would avert 800,000-1 million DALYs per year in India relative to the current scenario. However, especially in poor regions and populations, scenario 1 (which publicly finances only first-line therapy) does not decrease the OOP expenditure or provide financial risk protection if we include care-seeking costs. The OOP expenditure averted increases from scenarios 1 through 3, and the money-metric value of insurance follows a similar trend between scenarios and typically decreases with wealth. In the first 10 years of scenarios 2 and 3, households avert on average over US$80 million per year in medical expenditure. SIGNIFICANCE: Expanding and publicly financing epilepsy treatment in India averts substantial disease burden. A universal public finance policy that covers only first-line AEDs may not provide significant financial risk protection. Covering costs for both first- and second-line therapy and other medical costs alleviates the financial burden from epilepsy and is cost-effective across wealth quintiles and in all Indian states.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessSystems AnalysisCost-Benefit AnalysisEpilepsyFinancing, GovernmentHumansIndiaInsurance BenefitsTreatment OutcomeAgent-based modelCost-effectivenessEpilepsyIndiaUniversal public finance

Identifiers

PMID26765291
PMCPMC5019268
OpenAlexW2232896714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.