Improving the understanding of how patients with non-dystrophic myotonia are selected for myotonia treatment with mexiletine (NaMuscla): outcomes of treatment impact using a European Delphi panel.
Delphi panel
EQ-5D
Healthcare resource utilisation
INQoL
Mexiletine (NaMuscla)
Non-dystrophic myotonia
Quality of life
Journal
BMC neurology
ISSN: 1471-2377
Titre abrégé: BMC Neurol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Dec 2021
01 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
23
04
2021
accepted:
10
11
2021
entrez:
2
12
2021
pubmed:
3
12
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Non-dystrophic myotonias (NDMs) comprise muscle chloride and sodium channelopathies due to genetic defects of the CLCN1- and SCN4A-channels. No licensed antimyotonic treatment has been available until approval of mexiletine (NaMuscla®) for adult patients by the EMA in December 2018. This Delphi panel aimed to understand how outcomes of the pivotal phase III Mexiletine study (MYOMEX) translate to real world practice and investigate health resource use, quality of life and the natural history of NDM to support economic modelling and facilitate patient access. Nine clinical experts in treating NDM took part in a two-round Delphi panel. Their knowledge of NDM and previous use of mexiletine as an off-label treatment prior to NaMuscla's approval ensured they could provide both qualitative context and quantitative estimates to support economic modelling comparing mexiletine (NaMuscla) to best supportive care. Consensus in four key areas was sought: healthcare resource utilization (HRU), treatment with mexiletine (NaMuscla), patient quality of life (QoL), and the natural history of disease. Concept questions were also asked, considering perceptions on the feasibility of mapping the validated Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life (INQoL) instrument to the generic EQ-5D™, and the potential impact on caregiver QoL. Consensus was achieved for key questions including the average long-term dosage of mexiletine (NaMuscla) in practice, the criteria for eligibility of myotonia treatment, the clinical importance of QoL outcomes in MYOMEX, the higher proportion of patients with increased QoL, and the reduction in the need for mental health resources for patients receiving mexiletine (NaMuscla). While consensus was not achieved for other questions, the results demonstrated that most experts felt mexiletine (NaMuscla) reduced the need for HRU and was expected to improve QoL. The QoL mapping exercise suggested that it is feasible to map domains of INQoL to EQ-5D. Points of interest for future research were identified, including that mexiletine (NaMuscla) may slow the annual decrease in QoL of patients over their lifetime, and a significant negative impact on QoL for some caregivers. This project successfully provided data from an informed group of clinical experts, complementing the currently available clinical trial data for mexiletine (NaMuscla) to support patient access decisions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Non-dystrophic myotonias (NDMs) comprise muscle chloride and sodium channelopathies due to genetic defects of the CLCN1- and SCN4A-channels. No licensed antimyotonic treatment has been available until approval of mexiletine (NaMuscla®) for adult patients by the EMA in December 2018. This Delphi panel aimed to understand how outcomes of the pivotal phase III Mexiletine study (MYOMEX) translate to real world practice and investigate health resource use, quality of life and the natural history of NDM to support economic modelling and facilitate patient access.
METHODS
METHODS
Nine clinical experts in treating NDM took part in a two-round Delphi panel. Their knowledge of NDM and previous use of mexiletine as an off-label treatment prior to NaMuscla's approval ensured they could provide both qualitative context and quantitative estimates to support economic modelling comparing mexiletine (NaMuscla) to best supportive care. Consensus in four key areas was sought: healthcare resource utilization (HRU), treatment with mexiletine (NaMuscla), patient quality of life (QoL), and the natural history of disease. Concept questions were also asked, considering perceptions on the feasibility of mapping the validated Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life (INQoL) instrument to the generic EQ-5D™, and the potential impact on caregiver QoL.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Consensus was achieved for key questions including the average long-term dosage of mexiletine (NaMuscla) in practice, the criteria for eligibility of myotonia treatment, the clinical importance of QoL outcomes in MYOMEX, the higher proportion of patients with increased QoL, and the reduction in the need for mental health resources for patients receiving mexiletine (NaMuscla). While consensus was not achieved for other questions, the results demonstrated that most experts felt mexiletine (NaMuscla) reduced the need for HRU and was expected to improve QoL. The QoL mapping exercise suggested that it is feasible to map domains of INQoL to EQ-5D. Points of interest for future research were identified, including that mexiletine (NaMuscla) may slow the annual decrease in QoL of patients over their lifetime, and a significant negative impact on QoL for some caregivers.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This project successfully provided data from an informed group of clinical experts, complementing the currently available clinical trial data for mexiletine (NaMuscla) to support patient access decisions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34852780
doi: 10.1186/s12883-021-02491-3
pii: 10.1186/s12883-021-02491-3
pmc: PMC8633892
doi:
Substances chimiques
NAV1.4 Voltage-Gated Sodium Channel
0
SCN4A protein, human
0
Mexiletine
1U511HHV4Z
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
467Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Muscle Nerve. 2020 Oct;62(4):430-444
pubmed: 32270509
Brain. 2013 Jul;136(Pt 7):2189-200
pubmed: 23771340
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Jun;97(24):e11039
pubmed: 29901600
J Rehabil Med. 2010 Oct;42(9):823-30
pubmed: 20878042
Ann Neurol. 1978 Jun;3(6):531-7
pubmed: 677818
JAMA. 2012 Oct 3;308(13):1357-65
pubmed: 23032552
Eur J Neurol. 2012 Nov;19(11):1470-6
pubmed: 22607270
Arch Neurol. 1994 Nov;51(11):1095-102
pubmed: 7980103
Iran J Neurol. 2016 Jan 5;15(1):46-53
pubmed: 27141276
J Adv Nurs. 2000 Oct;32(4):1008-15
pubmed: 11095242
JAMA Neurol. 2015 Dec;72(12):1531-3
pubmed: 26658970
Neurology. 1986 May;36(5):682-6
pubmed: 3703267
Muscle Nerve. 1994 Jul;17(7):763-8
pubmed: 8008003
Neuromuscul Disord. 2021 Jun 27;:
pubmed: 34702654
Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Nov;34(11):1161-1172
pubmed: 27364887
Nat Clin Pract Neurol. 2006 Jul;2(7):393-9; quiz following 399
pubmed: 16932590
Neurology. 2013 Apr 16;80(16):1472-5
pubmed: 23516313
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003 Jun;74(6):710-4
pubmed: 12754336
Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Feb;126(2):399-403
pubmed: 25065301
Clin J Sport Med. 1997 Apr;7(2):137-40
pubmed: 9113432
Rev Neurol (Paris). 2007 Nov;163(11):1083-90
pubmed: 18033047
Neurophysiol Clin. 2017 Jun;47(3):247-252
pubmed: 28153715
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2009 Jun;80(6):647-52
pubmed: 19211598
Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):202-10
pubmed: 23337232
Exp Neurol. 2014 Mar;253:28-30
pubmed: 24361411
Curr Opin Neurol. 2009 Oct;22(5):524-31
pubmed: 19571750
Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1985 Sep-Oct;25(6):413-22
pubmed: 4065028
Rev Neurol (Paris). 1983;139(11):665-72
pubmed: 6677978
J Neurol. 2009 Jun;256(6):939-47
pubmed: 19252786
Brain. 2010 Jan;133(Pt 1):9-22
pubmed: 19917643
Acta Myol. 2008 Dec;27:98-113
pubmed: 19472919
Muscle Nerve. 1999 Aug;22(8):1157-8
pubmed: 10417805
Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2020;22(10):34
pubmed: 32848354