Economic evaluation of Durogesic in moderate to severe, nonmalignant, chronic pain in Germany

Cost-effectiveness of tapentadol immediate release versus oxycodone immediate release for acute post-operative pain after major hip surgeries

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tapentadol immediate-release (IR) versus oxycodone IR for post-operative pain after a major hip surgery.

METHODS

This study has been conducted using an Australian societal perspective, focusing on adult patients after a major hip surgery. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision-analytic model. The model incorporated drug and other resource costs, the probability of opioid-related adverse events, and quality-adjusted life months (QALM) in each treatment arm. A willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of AU$2500 was used per QALM gained. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the uncertainty of the assumptions. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of tapentadol IR versus oxycodone IR, expressed as Australian dollars (AU$) per QALM gained.

RESULTS

Tapentadol IR dominated oxycodone IR, with a cost savings of AU$201 and an increase in QALM by 0.014. The ICER was -13,946 AU$/QALM (negative value attributed to numerator). In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 84.2% of the simulations were in favour of tapentadol IR at the WTP threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Tapentadol IR may be more cost-effective than oxycodone IR for the treatment of acute postoperative pain after major hip surgeries.

Point-of-care diagnostic tests for influenza in the emergency department: A cost-effectiveness analysis in a high-risk population from a Canadian perspective

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of novel rapid diagnostic tests: rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDT), digital immunoassays (DIA), rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), and other treatment algorithms for influenza in high-risk patients presenting to hospital with influenza-like illness (ILI).

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic test strategies (RIDT, DIA, NAAT, clinical judgement, batch polymerase chain reaction) preceding treatment; no diagnostic testing and treating everyone; and not treating anyone. We modeled high-risk 65-year old patients from a health payer perspective and accrued outcomes over a patient's lifetime. We reported health outcomes, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), healthcare costs, and net health benefit (NHB) to measure cost-effectiveness per cohort of 100,000 patients.

RESULTS

Treating everyone with no prior testing was the most cost-effective strategy, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY, in over 85% of simulations. This strategy yielded the highest NHB of 15.0344 QALYs, but inappropriately treats all patients without influenza. Of the novel rapid diagnostics, NAAT resulted in the highest NHB (15.0277 QALYs), and the least number of deaths (1,571 per 100,000). Sensitivity analyses determined that results were most impacted by the pretest probability of ILI being influenza, diagnostic test sensitivity, and treatment effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our model, treating high-risk patients presenting to hospital with influenza-like illness, without performing a novel rapid diagnostic test, resulted in the highest NHB and was most cost-effective. However, consideration of whether treatment is appropriate in the absence of diagnostic confirmation should be taken into account for decision-making by clinicians and policymakers.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Studies of Drug-Based Non-Malignant Chronic Pain Treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Chronic pain is a highly prevalent problem, involving high costs and seriously affecting a patient's quality of life. This review aimed to systematically review economic evaluations of pharmacological-based treatments for non-malignant chronic pain and to compare different treatment approaches with regard to their economic profile.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched in April 2016. Studies were included if quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported. Quality assessment was carried out by using La Torre's weighted scale on the Drummond checklist. Costs were converted into US$2014.

RESULTS

Fourteen economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. Three treatment categories identified were: opioids, anticonvulsants, and anti-depressants. Compared to anticonvulsants and antidepressant, opioids had lower ICER. Transdermal buprenorphine showed an ICER of about US$11,000.00 while pregabalin showed an ICER of US$19,200. Studies included showed a diversity of methodological approaches, such as different modeling approaches and different perspectives (NHS and private payer).

CONCLUSION

There are limitations to the success of making appropriate recommendations about which treatment is most cost-effective due to considerable variability between treatments, pain syndromes, and drug dosages. Opioids may have lower ICER, but the societal implications of the opioid epidemic and overdose deaths should be taken into account when coming to general conclusions about their cost-effectiveness. To ensure correct resource allocation as well as the best benefit for patients, uniform and standardized approaches of cost and outcome measurement in economic evaluations of chronic are needed.

Molecular Basis of Cancer Pain Management: An Updated Review

Pain can have a significantly negative impact on the quality of life of patients. Therefore, patients may resort to analgesics to relieve the pain. The struggle to manage pain in cancer patients effectively and safely has long been an issue in medicine. Analgesics are the mainstay treatment for pain management as they act through various methods on the peripheral and central pain pathways. However, the variability in the patient genotypes may influence a drug response and adverse drug effects that follow through. This review summarizes the observed effects of analgesics on UDP-glucuronosyl (UGT) 2B7 isoenzyme, cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6, μ-opioid receptor μ 1 (OPRM1), efflux transporter P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and ATP-binding cassette B1 ABCB1/multiple drug resistance 1 (MDR1) polymorphisms on the mechanism of action of these drugs in managing pain in cancer. Furthermore, this review article also discusses the responses and adverse effects caused by analgesic drugs in cancer pain management, due to the inter-individual variability in their genomes.

A Cost-Effectiveness Model for Adjunctive Smoked Cannabis in the Treatment of Chronic Neuropathic Pain

Background: A recent meta-analysis affirmed the benefit of medicinal cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain, a disabling and difficult-to-treat condition. As medicinal cannabis use is becoming increasingly prevalent among Americans, an exploration of its economic feasibility is warranted. We present this cost-effectiveness analysis of adjunctive cannabis pharmacotherapy for chronic peripheral neuropathy.

Materials and Methods: A published Markov model comparing conventional therapies for painful diabetic neuropathy was modified to include arms for augmenting first-line, second-line (if first-line failed), or third-line (if first- and second-line failed) therapies with smoked cannabis. Microsimulation of 1,000,000 patients compared the cost (2017 U.S. dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) of usual care with and without adjunctive cannabis using a composite of third-party and out-of-pocket costs. Model efficacy inputs for cannabis were adapted from clinical trial data. Adverse event rates were derived from a prospective study of cannabis for chronic noncancer pain and applied to probability inputs for conventional therapies. Cannabis cost was derived from retail market pricing. Parameter uncertainty was addressed with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results: Adding cannabis to first-line therapy was incrementally less effective and costlier than adding cannabis to second-line and third-line therapies. Third-line adjunctive cannabis was subject to extended dominance, that is, the second-line strategy was more effective with a more favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $48,594 per QALY gained, and therefore, third-line adjunctive cannabis was not as cost-effective. At a modest willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained, second-line adjunctive cannabis was the strategy most likely to be cost-effective.

Conclusion: As recently proposed willingness-to-pay thresholds for the United States health marketplace range from $110,000 to $300,000 per QALY, cannabis appears cost-effective when augmenting second-line treatment for painful neuropathy. Further research is warranted to explore the long-term benefit of smoked cannabis and standardization of its dosing for chronic neuropathic pain.

Addressing the barriers related with opioid therapy for management of chronic pain in India

India has a high prevalence of chronic disorders which may be associated with persistent pain. Despite the availability of multiple treatment options, chronic pain is largely untreated and contributes to disability and mortality. Medical consumption of opioids remains low due to various barriers that prevent access to opioids for patients and healthcare practitioners. Stringent regulatory provisions outlined in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (1985) have been major deterrents to adequate opioid use. Although multiple amendments to the act have ensured ease of opioid access for medicinal purposes, concerns such as lack of awareness and prescribing practices and attitudes of physicians/patients still need to be addressed. This review aims to identify these barriers and suggest recommendations to overcome them.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of initiating treatment for painful diabetic neuropathy with pregabalin, duloxetine, gabapentin, or desipramine

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) affects nearly half of patients with diabetes. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of starting patients with PDN on pregabalin (PRE), duloxetine (DUL), gabapentin (GABA), or desipramine (DES) over a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of third-party payers in the United States. A Markov model was used to compare the costs (2013 $US) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of first-line PDN treatments in 10,000 patients using microsimulation. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Probabilities and utilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were average wholesale price for drugs and national estimates for office visits and hospitalizations. One-way and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were used to examine parameter uncertainty. Starting with PRE was dominated by DUL as DUL cost less and was more effective. Starting with GABA was extendedly dominated by a combination of DES and DUL. DES and DUL cost $23,468 and $25,979, while yielding 3.05 and 3.16 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DUL compared with DES was $22,867/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model was most sensitive to the adherence threshold and utility for mild pain. PSA showed that, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $50,000/QALY, DUL was the most cost-effective option in 56.3% of the simulations, DES in 29.2%, GABA in 14.4%, and PRE in 0.1%. Starting with DUL is the most cost-effective option for PDN when WTP is greater than $22,867/QALY. Decision makers may consider starting with DUL for PDN patients.

Economic evaluation in chronic pain: a systematic review and de novo flexible economic model

There is unmet need in patients suffering from chronic pain, yet innovation may be impeded by the difficulty of justifying economic value in a field beset by data limitations and methodological variability. A systematic review was conducted to identify and summarise the key areas of variability and limitations in modelling approaches in the economic evaluation of treatments for chronic pain. The results of the literature review were then used to support the development of a fully flexible open-source economic model structure, designed to test structural and data assumptions and act as a reference for future modelling practice. The key model design themes identified from the systematic review included: time horizon; titration and stabilisation; number of treatment lines; choice/ordering of treatment; and the impact of parameter uncertainty (given reliance on expert opinion). Exploratory analyses using the model to compare a hypothetical novel therapy versus morphine as first-line treatments showed cost-effectiveness results to be sensitive to structural and data assumptions. Assumptions about the treatment pathway and choice of time horizon were key model drivers. Our results suggest structural model design and data assumptions may have driven previous cost-effectiveness results and ultimately decisions based on economic value. We therefore conclude that it is vital that future economic models in chronic pain are designed to be fully transparent and hope our open-source code is useful in order to aspire to a common approach to modelling pain that includes robust sensitivity analyses to test structural and parameter uncertainty.

Cost-utility analysis of duloxetine in osteoarthritis: a US private payer perspective

BACKGROUND

Duloxetine has recently been approved in the USA for chronic musculoskeletal pain, including osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain. The cost effectiveness of duloxetine in osteoarthritis has not previously been assessed. Duloxetine is targeted as post first-line (after acetaminophen) treatment of moderate to severe pain.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of osteoarthritis from a US private payer perspective compared with other post first-line oral treatments, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and both strong and weak opioids.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed using a discrete-state, time-dependent semi-Markov model based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis guidelines. The model was extended for opioids by adding titration, discontinuation and additional adverse events (AEs). A life-long time horizon was adopted to capture the full consequences of NSAID-induced AEs. Fourteen health states comprised the structure of the model: treatment without persistent AE, six during-AE states, six post-AE states and death. Treatment-specific utilities were calculated using the transfer-to-utility method and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores from a meta-analysis of osteoarthritis clinical trials of 12 weeks and longer. Costs for 2011 were estimated using Red Book, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature and, sparingly, expert opinion. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken, as well as subgroup analyses of patients over 65 years old and a population at greater risk of NSAID-related AEs.

RESULTS

In the base case the model estimated naproxen to be the lowest total-cost treatment, tapentadol the highest cost, and duloxetine the most effective after considering AEs. Duloxetine accumulated 0.027 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) more than naproxen and 0.013 more than oxycodone. Celecoxib was dominated by naproxen, tramadol was subject to extended dominance, and strong opioids were dominated by duloxetine. The model estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$47,678 per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the probabilities of NSAID-related cardiovascular AEs as the inputs to which the ICER was most sensitive when duloxetine was compared with an NSAID. When compared with a strong opioid, duloxetine dominated the opioid under nearly all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When compared with tramadol, the ICER was most sensitive to the costs of duloxetine and tramadol. In subgroup analysis, the cost per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen fell to US$24,125 for patients over 65 years and to US$18,472 for a population at high risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal AEs.

CONCLUSION

The model estimated that duloxetine was potentially cost effective in the base-case population and more cost effective for subgroups over 65 years or at high risk of NSAID-related AEs. In sensitivity analysis, duloxetine dominated all strong opioids in nearly all scenarios.

Cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain: a Quebec societal perspective

STUDY DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness model from a Quebec societal perspective using meta-analyses of clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain (CLBP) compared with other post-first-line oral medications.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Duloxetine has recently received a CLBP indication in Canada. The cost-effectiveness of duloxetine and other oral medications has not previously been evaluated for CLBP.

METHODS

A Markov model was created on the basis of the economic model documented in the 2008 osteoarthritis clinical guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Treatment-specific utilities were estimated via a meta-analysis of CLBP clinical trials and a transfer-to-utility regression estimated from duloxetine CLBP trial data. Adverse event rates of comparator treatments were taken from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model or estimated by a meta-analysis of clinical trials in osteoarthritis using a maximum-likelihood simulation technique. Costs were developed primarily from Quebec and Ontario public sources as well as the published literature and expert opinion. The 6 comparators were celecoxib, naproxen, amitriptyline, pregabalin, hydromorphone, and oxycodone. Subgroup analyses and 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the base case, naproxen, celecoxib, and duloxetine were on the cost-effectiveness frontier, with naproxen the least expensive medication, celecoxib with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,881, and duloxetine with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $43,437. Other comparators were dominated. Key drivers included the rates of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal adverse events and proton pump inhibitor usage. In subgroup analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for duloxetine fell to $21,567 for a population 65 years or older and to $18,726 for a population at higher risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The model estimates that duloxetine is a moderately cost-effective treatment for CLBP, becoming more cost-effective for populations older than 65 years or at greater risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal events.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Budget impact analysis of tapentadol extended release for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic noncancer pain

BACKGROUND

Opioids are commonly used to manage chronic pain. Although traditional μ-opioids are effective in reducing pain, they are often associated with opioid-induced side effects (OISEs) that can limit treatment effectiveness. Studies have shown that tapentadol extended release (ER) has a lower incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events than oxycodone controlled release (CR) at equianalgesic doses.

OBJECTIVE

A model was developed to estimate the budget impact of placing tapentadol ER on a hypothetical US health plan formulary of Schedule II long-acting opioids.

METHODS

We estimated annual direct health care costs for patients who received 6-month therapy with long-acting formulations of tapentadol, oxycodone, morphine, hydromorphone, oxymorphone, or fentanyl. Costs included medications, copayments, OISE management, and switching/discontinuation. Published estimates of incidence/prevalence, OISEs, and pain management resources and costs were used. The base case analysis assumed a 10% formulary share of tapentadol ER with a 10% decrease of oxycodone CR. The resulting per-member per-month (PMPM) formulary cost differences and results of a 1-way sensitivity analysis are reported.

RESULTS

In a health plan of 500,000 members, 2600 (0.52%) are estimated to experience chronic pain annually. Adding tapentadol ER to the formulary was associated with an annual budget savings of $148,945 ($0.0248 PMPM). This savings was achieved through a decrease in both pharmacy costs ($144,062; $0.0240 PMPM) and medical costs ($4883; $0.0008 PMPM). Cost decreases were driven by lower daily average consumption and fewer OISEs with tapentadol ER versus oxycodone CR, leading to reduced resource utilization over 6 months of treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed results were most sensitive to drug acquisition costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that replacing 10% of oxycodone CR's formulary share with tapentadol ER would decrease the overall budget of a health plan with 500,000 members. Placing tapentadol ER on a health plan formulary may result in a reduction in both pharmacy and medical costs.

The cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain: a US private payer perspective

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) from a US private payer perspective.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was undertaken for duloxetine and seven oral post-first-line comparators, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), weak and strong opioids, and an anticonvulsant. We created a Markov model on the basis of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis clinical guidelines. Health states included treatment, death, and 12 states associated with serious adverse events (AEs). We estimated treatment-specific utilities by carrying out a meta-analysis of pain scores from CLBP clinical trials and developing a transfer-to-utility equation using duloxetine CLBP patient-level data. Probabilities of AEs were taken from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model or estimated from osteoarthritis clinical trials by using a novel maximum-likelihood simulation technique. Costs were gathered from Red Book, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature, and, for a limited number of inputs, expert opinion. The model performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost acceptability curves.

RESULTS

The model estimated an ICER of $59,473 for duloxetine over naproxen. ICERs under $30,000 were estimated for duloxetine over non-NSAIDs, with duloxetine dominating all strong opioids. In subpopulations at a higher risk of NSAID-related AEs, the ICER over naproxen was $33,105 or lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine appears to be a cost-effective post-first-line treatment for CLBP compared with all but generic NSAIDs. In subpopulations at risk of NSAID-related AEs, it is particularly cost-effective.

Clinical simulation model of long-acting opioids for treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate costs and outcomes associated with initial tapentadol ER vs oxycodone CR for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) in the US.

METHODS

This study developed a Monte-Carlo simulation based on the scientific foundation established by published models of long-acting opioids (LAO) in patients having moderate-to-severe CNCP. It estimates costs and outcomes associated with the use of tapentadol ER vs oxycodone CR over a 1-year period from the perspective of a US payer. LAO effectiveness and treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) rates are derived from clinical trials of tapentadol ER vs oxycodone CR; other inputs are based on published literature supplemented sparingly with clinical opinion. Sensitivity analyses consider the impact of real-world dosing patterns for LAO on treatment costs.

RESULTS

Initial tapentadol ER consistently demonstrates better outcomes than initial oxycodone CR (proportion of patients achieving adequate pain relief and no GI TEAE; acute TEAE-free days; days free of chronic constipation; quality-adjusted life days; productive working hours). While total costs with initial tapentadol ER are slightly (2.2%) higher than with initial oxycodone CR, nearly twice as many modeled patients in the initial tapentadol ER arm (29% vs 15%) achieve adequate pain relief and no GI TEAE compared to initial oxycodone CR. In sensitivity analyses, tapentadol ER becomes a dominant strategy when real-world dosing patterns are considered.

CONCLUSION

The additional costs to produce better outcomes (pain relief and no GI TEAE) associated with tapentadol ER are small in the context of double the likelihood of a patient response with tapentadol ER. When daily average consumption (DACON) for oxycodone CR is factored into the analysis, initial tapentadol ER becomes a dominant strategy. Our findings are both strengthened, and limited by the use of randomized trial-centric input parameters. These results should be validated as inputs from clinical practice settings become available.

Cost-effectiveness of tapentadol in severe chronic pain in Spain: a cost analysis of data from RCTs

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is known to be a significant and common health problem. Tapentadol, a recently developed centrally active, oral analgesic agent is used to treat adults with severe chronic pain that can be adequately managed only with opioid analgesics. Tapentadol has been reported to provide an improved adverse-events (AE) profile compared with other potent opioid analgesics at similar levels of analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of tapentadol to that of opioids commonly used as first-line treatment of severe, chronic, nonmalignant pain from the perspective of the health care payer in Spain.

METHODS

A Markov state-transition model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment with tapentadol to that of oxycodone, morphine, and transdermal fentanyl (TDF) over a 1-year time horizon. Four health states were defined: (1) treatment discontinuation due to a severe AE; (2) treatment discontinuation due to a lack of efficacy; (3) occurrence of an AE that required medical treatment; and (4) no discontinuation and no AE. If a patient discontinued a treatment, he or she was switched to an alternative, second-line opioid. Data regarding efficacy, tolerability, and utility values (EQ-5D) were derived from randomized clinical trials. Clinical experts estimated the rates of switching to other opioids and the health care resource utilization associated with the treatment of severe chronic pain. Unit costs were derived from public price lists/tariff works and were calculated from the perspective of the National Spanish Health System. The robustness of the model results was tested in extensive sensitivity analyses in which event probabilities, costs, utilities, and treatment-switching rates were altered.

RESULTS

Data from 3 studies (1981 patients) were included in the model. Overall, the model predicted that initiating first-line treatment with tapentadol in patients with severe, chronic, nonmalignant pain was associated with lower costs and greater efficacy versus first-line treatment with oxycodone. Compared with morphine and TDF, tapentadol yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €2656 and €2069 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. On extensive 1-way and scenario analyses, findings on the cost-effectiveness of tapentadol were consistent. The probability that tapentadol would be cost-effective compared with each comparator at the willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 to €30,000/QALY gained exceeded 90%.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings from the present model, tapentadol is likely to be a cost-effective first-line treatment in patients with severe, chronic, nonmalignant pain in Spain according to the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Compared with morphine and TDF, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were low; compared with oxycodone, tapentadol dominated, showing better quality-of-life outcomes at lower costs.

Pharmacoeconomic impact of adverse events of long-term opioid treatment for the management of persistent pain

Opioids are the most powerful analgesic drugs currently available and consequently form an essential part of the treatment options for malignant and non-malignant chronic pain. However, the benefits of these medications can be offset by gastrointestinal adverse events such as nausea, vomiting and constipation, as well as adverse events affecting the CNS. These occur relatively frequently in patients receiving long-term opioids for pain relief and are a cause of additional patient suffering and reduced work and social functioning, measured as reductions in quality-of-life outcomes. Consequently, adverse events are often the cause of treatment non-compliance or discontinuation (non-persistence). A literature search was conducted using BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, Cochrane Collaboration and MEDLINE databases to identify references with specific relevance to the measurement of health outcomes related to adverse events of long-term opioid treatment of chronic pain. The results of this search highlighted that clinical interventions required to manage adverse events associated with opioids, and to provide alternative methods of pain control, both incur direct costs. These are largely driven by the cost of medical consults and drug supplies. Indirect costs are generated from work absences and reduced social functioning. Estimated preference ratings, providing an insight into the trade-off between effective pain control and adverse events, have shown that utility decrements associated with an increase in adverse-event severity were similar in size to those caused by a shift from well controlled to poorly controlled pain. Given the rising prevalence of chronic pain conditions (affecting one in five adult Europeans), the direct and indirect costs incurred from the management of adverse events with long-term opioids are likely to be multiplied, contributing to the socioeconomic burden of chronic pain. For this reason, the adverse-event profile of opioid-based analgesics should be improved to achieve more efficient long-term pain control.

Pharmacoeconomic impact of adverse events of long-term opioid treatment for the management of persistent pain

Opioids are the most powerful analgesic drugs currently available and consequently form an essential part of the treatment options for malignant and non-malignant chronic pain. However, the benefits of these medications can be offset by gastrointestinal adverse events such as nausea, vomiting and constipation, as well as adverse events affecting the CNS. These occur relatively frequently in patients receiving long-term opioids for pain relief and are a cause of additional patient suffering and reduced work and social functioning, measured as reductions in quality-of-life outcomes. Consequently, adverse events are often the cause of treatment non-compliance or discontinuation (non-persistence). A literature search was conducted using BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, Cochrane Collaboration and MEDLINE databases to identify references with specific relevance to the measurement of health outcomes related to adverse events of long-term opioid treatment of chronic pain. The results of this search highlighted that clinical interventions required to manage adverse events associated with opioids, and to provide alternative methods of pain control, both incur direct costs. These are largely driven by the cost of medical consults and drug supplies. Indirect costs are generated from work absences and reduced social functioning. Estimated preference ratings, providing an insight into the trade-off between effective pain control and adverse events, have shown that utility decrements associated with an increase in adverse-event severity were similar in size to those caused by a shift from well controlled to poorly controlled pain. Given the rising prevalence of chronic pain conditions (affecting one in five adult Europeans), the direct and indirect costs incurred from the management of adverse events with long-term opioids are likely to be multiplied, contributing to the socioeconomic burden of chronic pain. For this reason, the adverse-event profile of opioid-based analgesics should be improved to achieve more efficient long-term pain control.

Cost-effectiveness of strong opioids focussing on the long-term effects of opioid-related fractures: a model approach

Opioid analgesics are known to impact on the central nervous system (CNS). These CNS side effects, such as dizziness and confusion, have been shown to lead to an increased risk of falling with subsequent fractures in elderly patients being treated with opioids. The risk of experiencing fractures has been shown to be dependent on the substance administered. Therefore, a health economic model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the most commonly used strong opioids in Germany, focussing on opioid-related fractures. By means of a Markov model, the consequences of hip, spine and forearm fractures due to the prior administration of transdermal (TD) buprenorphine, TD fentanyl, oral oxycodone as well as oral morphine were assessed from the perspectives of the German statutory health insurance (SHI) and the German social security (GSS) system over a time horizon of 6 years. The most frequently prescribed strength/package-size combinations of these opioids were taken into consideration, including generics where available. The results of the present analysis predict that TD buprenorphine is dominant compared to TD fentanyl and oxycodone by showing better effects [life years gained/quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained] at lower cost. From the SHI perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared to morphine is <euro> 6,801.61 per life year gained, and <euro> 7,766.11 per QALY gained. From the GSS perspective, the ICER is <euro> 2,496.77 per life year gained and <euro> 2,850.83 per QALY gained. The model is robust regarding probabilistic variations of all parameters in the sensitivity analyses. Focussing on fractures due to the prior administration of strong opioids, TD buprenorphine is less costly and more effective than TD fentanyl and oxycodone and represents a cost-effective treatment option versus morphine in patients with chronic pain from both the SHI and GSS perspective in Germany.

Modeling the economic and health consequences of managing chronic osteoarthritis pain with opioids in Germany: comparison of extended-release oxycodone and OROS hydromorphone

OBJECTIVE

The Osmotic controlled-Release Oral delivery System (OROS) hydromorphone ensures continuous release of hydromorphone over 24 hours. It is anticipated that this will facilitate optimal pain relief, improve quality of sleep and compliance. This simulation compared managing chronic osteoarthritis pain with once-daily OROS hydromorphone with an equianalgesic dose of extended-release (ER) oxycodone administered two or three times a day.

METHODS

This discrete event simulation follows patients for a year after initiating opioid treatment. Pairs of identical patients are created; one receives OROS hydromorphone the other ER oxycodone; undergo dose adjustments and after titration can be dissatisfied or satisfied, suffer adverse events, pain recurrence, or discontinue the opioid. Each is assigned an initial sleep problems score, and an improved score from a treatment dependent distribution at the end of titration; these are translated to a utility value. Utilities are assigned pre-treatment, updated until the patient reaches the optimal dose or is non-compliant or dissatisfied. The OROS hydromorphone and ER oxycodone doses are converted to equianalgesic morphine doses using the following ratios: hydromorphone to morphine ratio; 1:5, oxycodone to morphine ratio; 1:2. Sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty in the conversion ratios and other key parameters. Direct medical costs are in 2005 euros.

RESULTS

Over 1 year on a mean daily morphine-equivalent dose of 90 mg, 14% were estimated to be dissatisfied with each opioid. OROS hydromorphone was predicted to yield 0.017 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)/patient for a small additional annual cost (E141/patient), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of E8343/QALY gained. Changing the assumed conversion ratio for oxycodone:morphine to 1:1.5 led to lower net costs of E68 per patient, E3979/QALY, and for hydromorphone to 1:7.5 to savings.

CONCLUSION

Based on these analyses, OROS hydromorphone is expected to yield health benefits at reasonable cost in Germany.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Lidocaine 5% Medicated Plaster Relative to Gabapentin for Postherpetic Neuralgia in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Approximately 50% of elderly patients develop postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) after herpes zoster infection (shingles). A lidocaine 5% medicated plaster marketed in the United Kingdom in January 2007 has been shown to be an effective topical treatment for PHN with minimal risk of systemic adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

This paper assessed the cost-effectiveness of using a lidocaine plaster in place of gabapentin in English primary care practice to treat those PHN patients who had insufficient pain relief with standard analgesics and could not tolerate or had contraindications to tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). The analysis took the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

The costs and benefits of gabapentin and the lidocaine plaster were calculated over a 6-month time horizon using a Markov model. The model structure allowed for differences in costs, utilities, and transition probabilities between the initial 30-day run-in period and maintenance therapy and also accounted for add-in medications and drugs received by patients who discontinued therapy. Most transition probabilities were based on non-head-to-head clinical trials identified through a systematic review. Data on resource utilization, discontinuation rates, and add-in or switch medications were obtained from a Delphi panel; cost data were from official price tariffs. Published utilities were adjusted for age and were supplemented and validated by the Delphi panel.

RESULTS

Six months of therapy with the lidocaine plaster cost pound 549 per patient, compared with pound 718 for gabapentin, and generated 0.05 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The lidocaine plaster therefore dominated gabapentin (95% CI, dominant- pound 2163/QALY gained). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was a 90.15% chance that the lidocaine plaster was both less costly and more effective than gabapentin and a 99.99% chance that it cost < pound 20,000/QALY relative to gabapentin. Extensive deterministic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the conclusions.

CONCLUSION

This study found that the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster was a cost-effective alternative to gabapentin for PHN patients who were intolerant to TCAs and in whom analgesics were ineffective, from the perspective of the NHS.