4.2 Article

Antiepileptic drugs in epilepsy and other disorders-A population-based study of prescriptions

Journal

EPILEPSY RESEARCH
Volume 87, Issue 1, Pages 31-39

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2009.07.005

Keywords

Antiepileptic drugs; Epilepsy; Non-epilepsy disorders; Norwegian Prescription Database (NorPD); Pharmacoepidemiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim of the study was to quantify the use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in epilepsy and other indications in a nation-wide population using a prescription database. Materials and methods: Prescription data of AEDs were collected from the Norwegian Prescription Database for the period 2004-2007, including 5.1 million prescriptions from 144,653 patients, all having at least one prescribed and dispensed AED. Diagnosis-related reimbursement codes were used as indicators for clinical use. Results: Of the AEDs used, 71% was in epilepsy, 15% in psychiatry, 13% in neuropathic pain, and <1% in migraine, trigeminus neuralgia and cancer adjuvance. The use in epilepsy increased steadily from 7.0 to 7.5 DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day (7%) from 2004 to 2007. The use of AEDs in other indications increased considerably more from 2004 to 2007: Neuropathic pain to 1.40 DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day (360%), psychiatry to 1.59 (200%), and migraine to 0.005 (642%). The prevalence of AED users increased and in 2007 it was 0.97% in epilepsy, 0.8% in neuropathic pain, 0.33% in psychiatry and 0.001% in migraine. In 2007, 49% of the AEDs used in epilepsy were a new drug, carbamazepine, lamotrigine and valproate being most frequently used. New AEDs were used in 96% in migraine prophylaxis, 94% in neuropathic pain, and 64% in psychiatry. Conclusions: Based on a nation-wide prescription database, this study quantifies the wide and increasing use of AEDs, in particular the newer drugs. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available