Antiepileptic Drugs in Developing Countries

Dominic Heaney,Josemir W. Sander

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)78662-1

1998-01-01

Abstract:Edwin Trevathan and co-workers (April 18, p 1210)1Trevathan E Medina MT Madrid A Antiepileptic drugs in developing countries.Lancet. 1998; 351: 1210-1211Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar highlight the difficulties with antiepileptic and, indeed, all drug use in developing countries. However, their assertion that the question of best antiepileptic therapy should be addressed before the development of distribution programmes and their belief that “the epilepsy and public-health communities can do better than phenobarbitone or phenytoin for the world's 34 million people with epilepsy who live in the developing world” is misconceived. Trevathan and colleagues focus on only a narrow medical viewpoint in their letter and ignore the wider context in which drugs are prescribed in developing countries. Rational and effective use of drugs is limited by weak health-care structures, inadequate financial resources, unreliable supply and quality of Pharmaceuticals, lack of drug legislation and policy, and the high rate of inappropriate self-medication.2Bapna JS Tripathi CD Tekur U Drug utilisation patterns in the third world.Pharmacoeconomics. 1996; 9: 286-294Crossref PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar Even a historical review of mortality rates in the UK shows that the introduction of effective drugs such as antituberculous agents or antibiotics had a negligible effect on overall mortality rates in the first half of this century. Non-medical factors are regarded to have been far more important. The WHO Action Programme on Essential Drugs in developing countries highlighted the lack of basic infrastructure, poor management and co-ordination, inadequately trained personnel, and poor allocation of financial resources as obstacles to the provision of essential drugs.3WHOAction Programme on Essential Drugs in the South-East Asia Region. WHO South East Asia, New Delhi1991Google Scholar The clinical case for the use of phenobarbitone or phenytoin for epilepsy in developing countries is strong. Comparative trials show that efficacy and side-effects are similar to carbamazepine in these settings.4Feksi AT Kaamugisha J Sander JWAS Gatiti S Shorvon SD Comprehensive primary health care antiepileptic drug treatment programme in rural and semi-urban Kenya.Lancet. 1991; 337: 406-409Summary PubMed Scopus (154) Google Scholar, 5Placencia M Sander JWAS Shorvon SD Anti-epileptic drug treatment in a community health care setting in northern Ecuador: a prospective 12 month assessment.Epilepsy Res. 1993; 14: 237-244Summary Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (71) Google Scholar The practical case for their use is even stronger. Carbamazepine and valproate are 15–30 times the acquisition cost of phenobarbitone, and the new-generation drugs (lamotrigine) are over 100 times more expensive. Improved purchasing strategies by governments could reduce this differential slightly, but are unlikely to reduce the high opportunity cost of devoting a large proportion of scarce resources to antiepileptic drugs with speculative but unproven small benefits over established therapies. In developing countries there are many other priorities for health services. Formal economic evaluation of such therapies is essential to account for financial savings that might accrue from the avoidance of short-term and long-term side-effects and differences in tolerability that may exist for these drugs. Together with the results from clinical trials, the results of economic evaluation will enable those who provide care in developing countries to prioritise rationally.