Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center has been awarded an $11.7 million grant by the National Institutes of Health to compare the effectiveness of the three leading medications for childhood absence epilepsy.
The four-year study will compare the long-term effects of ethosuximide (Zarontin) to valproic acid (Depakote) and lamotrigine (Lamictal), according to a statement from the hospital.
Seizures of childhood absence epilepsy are usually staring spells during which the child is not aware or responsive. Each spell lasts about 10 seconds, and the seizures may happen up to 100 times a day, often when a child is exercising.
With the Rise of AI, What IP Disputes in Healthcare Are Likely to Emerge?
Munck Wilson Mandala Partner Greg Howison shared his perspective on some of the legal ramifications around AI, IP, connected devices and the data they generate, in response to emailed questions.
The new study will involve 31 medical centers across the country and follow 441 patients who participated in an earlier phase of the study. The results of the earlier phase of the study concluded that ethosuximide — the oldest and least expensive of the three medications — also provided the best short-term results for controlling absence seizures with the least negative effects on attention.
“The first study showed that newer isn’t necessarily better,” said Dr. Tracy Glauser, director of the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at Cincinnati Children’s. “Now, we’re asking whether ethosuximide remains the best drug for long-term therapy.”
Glauser is the study’s lead researcher.
Though the concept of comparative effectiveness research — which, as the name implies, entails studying different drugs or procedures for the same condition to determine which works best — seems benign, it has generated a bit of controversy as it’s drawn more attention in recent years.
A Personalized Approach to Medication Nonadherence
At the Abarca Forward conference earlier this year, George Van Antwerp, managing director at Deloitte, discussed how social determinants of health and a personalized member experience can improve medication adherence and health outcomes.
Some critics contend that it could be used to limit the use of drugs or treatments that are best for certain groups of patients, and it’s also been a popular target for the “Don’t-let-some-government-bureaucrat-stand-between-you-and-your-doctor” crowd.
Last year’s federal stimulus package allocated $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research to three federal agencies.
