Search

Objective: Global action for epilepsy requires information on the cost of epilepsy, which is currently unknown for most countries and regions of the world. To address this knowledge gap, the International League Against Epilepsy Commission on Epidemiology formed the Global Cost of Epilepsy Task Force. Methods: We completed a systematic search of the epilepsy cost-of-illness literature and identified studies that provided a comprehensive set of direct health care and/or indirect costs, followed standard methods of case identification and cost estimation, and used data on a representative population or subpopulation of people with epilepsy. Country-specific costs per person with epilepsy were extracted and adjusted to generate an average cost per person in 2019 US dollars. For countries with no cost data, estimates were imputed based on average costs per person of similar income countries with data. Per person costs for each country were then applied to data on the prevalence of epilepsy from the Global Burden of Disease collaboration adjusted for the treatment gap. Results: One hundred one cost-of-illness studies were included in the direct health care cost database, 74 from North America or Western Europe. Thirteen studies were used in the indirect cost database, eight from North America or Western Europe. The average annual cost per person with epilepsy in 2019 ranged from $204 in low-income countries to $11 432 in high-income countries based on this highly skewed database. The total cost of epilepsy, applying per person costs to the estimated 52.51 million people in the world with epilepsy and adjusting for the treatment gap, was $119.27 billion. Significance: Based on a summary and extrapolations of this limited database, the global cost of epilepsy is substantial and highly concentrated in countries with well-developed health care systems, higher wages and income, limited treatment gaps, and a relatively small percentage of the epilepsy population.

Objective In order to more appropriately apply and understand the “epilepsy treatment gap” (ETG) concept in current health systems, revised conceptual and operational definitions of ETG are timely and necessary. This article therefore systematically reviews worldwide studies of the ETG, distinguishing high-, middle-, and low-income regions, and provides recommendations for an updated International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) definition of ETG. Methods A systematic review of the ETG was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards. The search was conducted from January 1990 to July 2019, in the online databases of Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. Identified abstracts were reviewed in duplicate and data independently extracted using a standard proforma. Data describing treatment gap information including both diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of access to epilepsy treatment were recorded. Descriptive statistics are presented. Results The treatment gap reported in the 45 distinctive populations represented 33 countries. Treatment gap definitions varied widely. The reported ETGs ranged broadly from 5.6% in Norway to 100% in parts of Tibet, Togo, and Uganda. The wide range of reported ETGs was multifactorial in origin including true differences in the availability and utilization of health care among study populations, variations in operational definitions of the epilepsy treatment gap, and methodological differences in sampling and identifying representative epilepsy cases in populations. Significance and recommendations For the ETG to be a useful metric to compare levels of unmet epilepsy care across different countries and regions, a standardized definition must be adapted, recognizing some of the limitations of the current definitions. Our proposed definition takes into account the lack of effective health care insurance, the diagnostic gap, the therapeutic gap, quality-of-care, and other unmet health care needs.”

Background In general surgery residency, hepatobiliary training varies significantly across the world. The aim of this study was to establish an international consensus among hepatobiliary surgeons on components of a hepatobiliary curriculum for general surgery residents. Methods A three-round modified Delphi technique was employed. Fifty-two hepatobiliary surgeons involved in general surgery training programs were invited. An initial questionnaire was developed by a group of experts in hepatobiliary and educational research after a systematic literature review. It comprised 90 statements about knowledge, technical skills, attitudes, and postoperative care. Panelists could add or alter items. The survey was delivered electronically and the panel was instructed to score the items based on 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was reached when at least 80% of panelists agreed on a statement with Cronbach's alpha value >0.8. Results Forty-one (79%) experts have participated. Sixteen panelists are based in Asia, 14 in Europe, and 11 in the Americas. Eighty percent of all proposed skills (81/101) were considered fundamental including knowledge (39/43), technical skills (16/32), attitude (15/15), and postoperative care (11/11). Conclusion An international consensus was achieved on components of a hepatobiliary curriculum. Acquiring broad knowledge is fundamental during residency. Advanced liver resection techniques require specialized hepatobiliary training.