Pharmacoeconomic outcomes for pregabalin: a systematic review in neuropathic pain, generalized anxiety disorder, and epilepsy from a Spanish perspective

Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment compared to medical treatment in patients with drug-refractory epilepsy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Approximately 30% of epilepsy patients develop a drug-refractory epilepsy, that is, seizures cannot be controlled with antiepileptic drugs. Surgery has been evaluated as an effective but costly form of treatment. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment compared to medical treatment for these patients.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database until September 2022. Title, abstract and full-text screening were conducted by two researchers. Original studies published in English or German analyzing the cost-effectiveness of surgical compared to medical treatment were included. Study characteristics, effectiveness measures, costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were extracted. The quality of studies was assessed using the Drummond checklist.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included. Most studies evaluated surgery as cost-effective. The ICER per patient seizure free ranged from dominant to purchasing power parity US dollars (PPP-USD) 479,275. The ICER per 1% seizure reduction ranged from PPP-USD 227 to PPP-USD 342. The ICER per year without seizures was PPP-USD 4202 and the ICER per quality-adjusted life-year ranged from dominant to PPP-USD 90,874. The studies varied greatly in their methodology and time horizon.

CONCLUSION

Surgical treatment is cost-effective compared to medical treatment, especially when a lifetime horizon is adopted. It is concluded that all disease-specific costs should be considered over a long period when assessing the cost-effectiveness of epilepsy treatment. From an economic perspective, efforts should be made to improve access to surgical treatment for patients with drug-refractory epilepsy.

CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022

This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1-49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Options for Neuropathic Pain: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain significantly reduces an individual's quality of life and places a significant economic burden on society. As such, many cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have been published for treatments available for neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic review was to provide a detailed summary of the estimates of cost-effectiveness from published CEAs comparing available treatments for neuropathic pain. The secondary objectives were to identify the key drivers of cost-effectiveness and to assess the quality of published CEAs in neuropathic pain.

METHODS

We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and seven other databases to identify CEAs reporting the costs, health benefits (e.g., quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years) and summary statistics, such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, of treatments for neuropathic pain. We excluded studies reporting diseases other than neuropathic pain, those for which the full text was not available (e.g., conference abstracts), studies not written in English or not published in peer-reviewed journals, and narrative reviews, editorials and opinion papers. Titles and abstract reviews, full-text reviews, and data extraction were all performed by two independent reviewers, with disagreement resolved by a third reviewer. Mean costs, health benefits, and summary statistics were reported and qualitatively compared across studies, stratified by time horizon. Drivers of cost-effectiveness were assessed using reported one-way sensitivity analyses. The quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Tufts CEA Registry Quality Score and study reporting using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies were identified and included in this systematic review. Included studies were heterogeneous in the treatments compared, methodology and design, perspectives, and time horizons considered, making cross-study comparisons difficult. No single treatment was consistently the most cost-effective across all studies, but tricyclic antidepressants were the preferred treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $US50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in several studies with a short time horizon and a US payer perspective. Among the 14 studies reporting one-way sensitivity analyses, drivers of cost-effectiveness included utility values for health states and the likelihood of pain relief with treatment. The quality of the identified CEAs was moderate to high, and overall reporting largely met CHEERS recommendations.

LIMITATIONS

To assess drivers of cost-effectiveness and quality, we only included studies with the full text available and thus excluded some CEAs that reported cost-effectiveness results. The heterogeneity of the included studies meant that the study results could not be synthesized and comparison across studies was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Though many pulished studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of treatments for neuropathic pain, significant heterogeneity between CEAs prevented synthesis of the results. Standardized methodology and improved reporting would allow for more reliable comparisons across studies.

Overlaps in pharmacology for the treatment of chronic pain and mental health disorders

There is significant overlap in the pharmacological management of pain and psychological disorders. Appropriate treatment of patients' comorbid psychological disorders, including sleep disturbances often leads to an improvement in reported pain intensity. The three first line agents for neuropathic pain include tricyclic antidepressants and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors which are medications originally developed as antidepressants. The other first line medication for chronic neuropathic pain are anticonvulsant medications initially brought to the market-place for the treatment of epilepsy and are also now being used for the treatment of anxiety disorders and substance withdrawal symptoms. The efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is contentious, but it is agreed that the patients at highest risk for opioid misuse and addiction are patients with underlying psychological disorders who use opioids for their euphoric effects. Similarly, benzodiazepines may present a problem in patients with chronic pain, as up to one third of patients with pain are concomitantly prescribed benzodiazepines, and when combined with other sedating analgesic medications they put patients at increased risk for adverse events and polysubstance misuse. Finally, there is growing evidence for the efficacy of cannabis for treating neuropathic pain, but the consumption of cannabis has been associated with increased risk of psychosis in adolescents, and may be associated with an increased risk for developing bipolar disorder and anxiety disorders. The use of cannabis is associated with an increased risk of substance misuse in both adolescents and adults. In this narrative review, we examine the evidence for the use of several medications used for the treatment of both pain and psychological disorders, and their proposed mechanisms of action, in addition to special concerns for patients with comorbid pain and psychological disorders.

Consequences on economic outcomes of generic versus brand-name drugs used in routine clinical practice: the case of treating peripheral neuropathic pain or generalized anxiety disorder with pregabalin

BACKGROUND

Discrepancies are seen between arguments in favor of and against prescribing generic versus brand-name drugs.

OBJECTIVE

To provide real-world evidence on treatment persistence, economic and clinical outcomes of pregabalin, generic versus brand-name (Lyrica®, Pfizer), routinely used to treat neuropathic pain (NP) or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).

METHODS

Electronic medical records from subjects' first starting treatment with pregabalin between January-2015 and June-2016 were analyzed. Persistence, resources utilization, and costs were assessed, along with remitter and responder rates.

RESULTS

A total of 4860 records were analyzed. Discontinuation was lower with brand-name than with generic in NP (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.58-0.85], p < 0.001) and GAD patients (HR: 0.63 [0.45-0.84], p < 0.001). Adjusted mean total costs were lower with brand-name: €1500 [1428-1573] vs. €2003 [1864-2143] in NP and €1528 [1322-1734] vs. €2150 [1845-2454] in GAD (both p < 0.001). More patients were remitters/ responders with brand-name in NP (55.0% vs. 46.7% and 59.2% vs. 48.4%, respectively; p < 0.001) and GAD (58.6% vs. 48.7% and 64.6% vs. 47.2%, respectively; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

As a consequence of higher persistence in routine practice, patients who first started therapy with pregabalin brand-name versus generic showed better pain or anxiety outcomes at a lower cost to payers in Spain.

Cost of treating peripheral neuropathic pain with pregabalin or gabapentin at therapeutic doses in routine practice

AIM

To analyze the cost of peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) treatment with pregabalin or gabapentin at therapeutic doses in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

Analysis of a retrospective, observational study of electronic medical records of patients treated for PNP with therapeutic doses of pregabalin or gabapentin, with 2 years' follow-up, considering PNP type, comorbidities, concomitant analgesia and resource use.

RESULTS

The weighted total average cost/patient was lower for pregabalin than gabapentin (€2464 [2197-2730] vs €3142 [2670-3614]; p = 0.014) due to significantly lower both healthcare and non-healthcare costs. This is explained by a significantly lower use of concomitant analgesia, fewer primary care visits and fewer days of sick leave.

CONCLUSION

At therapeutic doses, pregabalin was found to have lower healthcare and non-healthcare costs than gabapentin in routine practice.

Cost of treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain with pregabalin or gabapentin in routine clinical practice: impact of their loss of exclusivity

To analyze the effect of loss of exclusivity of data on the cost of treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) with pregabalin or gabapentin in routine clinical practice. A retrospective observational study, with electronic medical records for patients enrolled at primary care centers managed by the health care provider Badalona Serveis Assistencials, who initiated treatment of PNP with pregabalin or gabapentin. The analysis used drugs and resources prices for year 2015. The 1163 electronic medical records (pregabalin; N = 764, gabapentin; N = 399) for patients (62.2% women) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 59.2 (14.7) years were analyzed. Treatment duration was slightly shorter with pregabalin than with gabapentin (5.2 vs 5.5 months; P = 0.124), with mean doses of 227.4 (178.6) mg and 900.0 (443.4) mg, respectively. The average study drug cost per patient was higher for pregabalin than for gabapentin; €214.6 (206.3) vs €157.4 (181.9), P < 0.001, although the cost of concomitant analgesic medication was lower; €176.5 (271.8) vs €306.7 (529.2), P < 0.001. The adjusted average total cost per patient was lower in those treated with pregabalin than in those treated with gabapentin; €2,413 (2119-2708) vs €3201 (2806-3.597); P = 0.002, owing to significantly lower health care costs; €1307 (1247-1367) vs €1538 (1458-1618), P < 0.001, and also non-health care costs; €1106 (819-1393) vs €1663 (1279-2048), P = 0.023, that was caused by a significantly lower use of concomitant medication, fewer medical visits to primary care, and fewer days of sick leave. After loss of exclusivity of both drugs, pregabalin continued to show lower health care and non-health care costs than gabapentin in the treatment of PNP in routine clinical practice.

Shift, Interrupted: Strategies for Managing Difficult Patients Including Those with Personality Disorders and Somatic Symptoms in the Emergency Department

Difficult patients are often those who present with a mix of physical and psychiatric symptoms, and seem refractory to usual treatments or reassurance. such patients can include those with personality disorders, those with somatization symptoms; they can come across as entitled, drug-seeking, manipulative, or simply draining to the provider. Such patients are often frequent visitors to Emergency Departments. Other reasons for difficult encounters could be rooted in provider bias or countertransference, rather than sole patient factors. Emergency providers need to have high awareness of these possibilities, and be prepared to manage such situations, otherwise workup can be sub-standard and dangerous medical mistakes can be made.

Effects of single and combined gabapentin use in elevated plus maze and forced swimming tests

BACKGROUND

Gabapentin, a third-generation antiepileptic drug, is a structural analogue of γ-aminobutyric acid, which is an important mediator of central nervous system. There is clinical data indicating its effectiveness in the treatment of psychiatric illnesses such as bipolar disorder and anxiety disorders.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate the antidepressant and anxiolytic-like effects and mechanisms of gabapentin in rats.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Female Spraque-Dawley rats weighing 250±20 g were used. A total of 13 groups were formed, each containing 8 rats: gabapentin (5, 10, 20, 40 mg/kg), amitriptyline (10 mg/kg), sertraline (5 mg/kg), diazepam (5 mg/kg), ketamine (10 mg/kg), gabapentin 20 mg/kg was also combined with amitriptyline (10 mg/kg), sertraline (5 mg/kg), diazepam (5 mg/kg) and ketamine (10 mg/kg). All the drugs were used intraperitoneally as single dose. Saline was administered to the control group. Elevated plus maze and forced swimming tests were used as experimental models of anxiety and depression, respectively.

RESULTS

It was observed that gabapentin showed an anxiolytic-like and antidepressant-like effect in all doses in rats. Its antidepressant effect was found to be the same as the antidepressant effects of amitriptyline and sertraline. There was no change in the antidepressant effect when gabapentin was combined with amitriptyline and ketamine, but there was an increase when combined with sertraline and diazepam. Gabapentin and amitriptyline showed similar anxiolytic effect, whereas ketamine and diazepam had more potent anxiolytic effect compared with them.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that gabapentin may possess antidepressant- and anxiolytic-like effects.