ArticleEpilepsia open2025
A cross-national cost-effectiveness analysis of brivaracetam focusing on psychiatric and behavioral adverse effects.
Article in Epilepsia open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveLevetiracetam (LEV) has been widely used as an antiseizure medication (ASM), but is associated with psychiatric and behavioral adverse effects (PBAEs). Brivaracetam (BRV) has demonstrated better psychiatric tolerability, albeit at a higher cost. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of initiating BRV versus LEV therapy with a subsequent switch to BRV in the event of PBAEs across the US, Australia, and Japan.
methodsWe developed a decision tree model with a 10-year time horizon comparing two strategies across the US, Australia, and Japan: initial BRV therapy versus initial LEV therapy with a switch to BRV upon the occurrence of PBAEs. We utilized clinical trial data and regional cost estimates to conduct base-case and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
resultsThe results of the base-case analyses indicated that initial BRV therapy was cost-effective only in Australia. The results of the sensitivity analyses revealed that the probability of initial BRV being cost-effective was 0% in the US, 49.6% in Japan, and 99.99% in Australia. In Japan, when the risk of LEV-induced PBAEs was assumed to be 24%, the probability that initial BRV therapy would be cost-effective rose to 70%, supporting the potential utility of an initial BRV strategy in high-risk populations. By contrast, in the US, the risk of PBAEs needed to exceed 76% to achieve a comparable cost-effectiveness probability. SIGNIFICANCE: While the initial BRV strategy consistently demonstrated cost-effectiveness in Australia, it failed to do so in Japan and the US. However, Japan presents a unique opportunity where BRV can be used cost-effectively when combined with pre-assessments of LEV-induced risk for PBAEs. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: BRV causes fewer PBAEs than LEV, but costs more, creating a clinical dilemma. A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing BRV versus LEV as initial monotherapy with a focus on PBAEs was conducted across the US, Australia, and Japan. The results indicated that compared with LEV, BRV is cost-effective in Australia, but not in the US. In Japan, BRV is cost-effective as initial treatment only for patients at high risk for LEV-induced PBAEs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.