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

Cost-Effectiveness of Mirogabalin for the Treatment of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of 30 mg of mirogabalin versus no treatment or 300 mg of pregabalin in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) from a third-party perspective in Taiwan.

METHODS

A Markov model, developed with cycles of 2-week and a 1-year timeframes, consisted of 3 health states: mild, moderate, and severe pain. Average daily pain score (ADPS) was assessed at the end of each 2-week cycle. All patients entered the model in moderate (4 ≤ ADPS < 7) or severe (7 ≤ ADPS ≤ 10) pain health states. At the end of each cycle, patients remained in their assigned health state or transitioned to a different health state according to their pain score change. Efficacy data were informed by the pivotal phase III clinical trial (J303, NCT02318706) or by a network meta-analysis. Utility values were obtained from published literature, and resource use and cost data from Taiwanese clinical experts and Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration. One-way sensitivity, scenario, and probabilistic analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

A head-to-head analysis demonstrated that 30 mg of mirogabalin is a cost-effective treatment option versus placebo for DPNP. The base-case deterministic analysis estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gains of 0.02 at an incremental cost of 9697 New Taiwan dollars (NT$) (equal to $323) versus placebo (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: 489 310 NT$/QALY [$15 860/QALY]). Mirogabalin was also cost-effective compared with 300 mg of pregabalin (ICER: 18 476 NT$/QALY [$600/QALY]). Sensitivity and scenario analyses results confirmed the robustness.

CONCLUSION

Economic analysis suggests that mirogabalin 30 mg, a potent and selective α2δ ligand, is a cost-effective treatment option for DPNP in Taiwan, with an ICER below the willingness-to-pay threshold.

γ-Aminobutyric Acid and Derivatives Reduce the Incidence of Acute Pain after Herpes Zoster - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Herpes zoster (HZ) causes considerable pain and distress, and γ-Aminobutyric acid (GABA) and its derivatives are assumed to control this, but the available data are inconsistent. This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of GABA derivatives in the prevention of acute herpetic pain. The metaanalysis was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines using PICO format, registered in PROSPERO number CRD42018095758. PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid, Scopus, and EMBASE databases were searched. Records were included if they were randomized controlled trials of patients undergoing HZ infection, investigating the effect of GABA derivatives versus placebo in the treatment of HZ pain. Eligible trials were evaluated for the risk of bias. Then data were extracted and analysed. The number of patients with observed presence of pain after treatment was used to calculate odds ratio in a random effect model with the DerSimonian-Laird estimator. The I2 statistic was analysed for heterogeneity. The potential risk of bias was measured using Egger's regression test. The meta-analysis included three randomized controlled trials with a total of 297 patients. The incidence of acute HZ pain events for GABA group was significantly lower compared to placebo group,18/148 vs 44/149, respectively (OR = 0.36; 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.93; Z = 2.11; P = 0.035), Egger's test yielded P = 0.308. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis demonstrates that GABA derivatives reduce the incidence of acute herpetic pain. However, additional, well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to determine their dose- and time-dependency regarding this symptom.

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.

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness modeling of pharmaceutical therapies in neuropathic pain: variation in practice, key challenges, and recommendations for the future

OBJECTIVES

Complexities in the neuropathic-pain care pathway make the condition difficult to manage and difficult to capture in cost-effectiveness models. The aim of this study is to understand, through a systematic review of previous cost-effectiveness studies, some of the key strengths and limitations in data and modeling practices in neuropathic pain. Thus, the aim is to guide future research and practice to improve resource allocation decisions and encourage continued investment to find novel and effective treatments for patients with neuropathic pain.

METHODS

The search strategy was designed to identify peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness evaluations of non-surgical, pharmaceutical therapies for neuropathic pain published since January 2000, accessing five key databases. All identified publications were reviewed and screened according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. Data extraction was designed to reflect key data challenges and approaches to modeling in neuropathic pain and based on published guidelines.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 20 cost-effectiveness analyses meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 14 had original model structures. Cost-effectiveness modeling in neuropathic pain is established and increasing across multiple jurisdictions; however, amongst these studies, there is substantial variation in modeling approach, and there are common limitations. Capturing the effect of treatments upon health outcomes, particularly health-related quality-of-life, is challenging, and the health effects of multiple lines of ineffective treatment, common for patients with neuropathic pain, have not been consistently or robustly modeled.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve future economic modeling in neuropathic pain, further research is suggested into the effect of multiple lines of treatment and treatment failure upon patient outcomes and subsequent treatment effectiveness; the impact of treatment-emergent adverse events upon patient outcomes; and consistent and appropriate pain measures to inform models. The authors further encourage transparent reporting of inputs used to inform cost-effectiveness models, with robust, comprehensive and clear uncertainty analysis and, where feasible, open-source modeling is encouraged.

Impact of topical 5% lidocaine-medicated plasters on sleep and quality of life in patients with postherpetic neuralgia

Aim: To determine the impact of 5% lidocaine-medicated plasters on sleep, quality of life and pain in 265 patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Patients & methods: An 8-week, open-label arm of a double-blind controlled withdrawal study. Results: Patients treated with 5% lidocaine had less trouble falling asleep, used less sleep medication, had fewer awakenings due to pain at night or in the morning and their perception of quality of life was improved. The 15 pain descriptors in the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire were improved from baseline to week 8, with a decrease in the proportion of patients reporting ‘severe’ pain and an increase in the number reporting ‘none/mild’ pain. Conclusion: 5% lidocaine-medicated plasters provide benefits beyond pain relief for patients with postherpetic neuralgia.

Effect of lidocaine patches on upper trapezius EMG activity and pain intensity in patients with myofascial trigger points: A randomized clinical study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of 5% lidocaine patches and placebo patches on pain intensity and electromyographic (EMG) activity of an active myofascial trigger point (MTrP) of the upper trapezius muscle.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six patients with a MTrP in the upper trapezius muscle were randomly divided into two groups: 20 patients received lidocaine patches (lidocaine group) and 16 patients received placebo patches (placebo group). They used the patches for 12 h each day, for 2 weeks. The patch was applied to the skin over the upper trapezius MTrP. Spontaneous pain, pressure pain thresholds, pain provoked by a 4-kg pressure applied to the MTrP and trapezius EMG activity were measured before and after treatment.

RESULTS

Baseline spontaneous pain values were similar in both groups and significantly lower in the lidocaine group than the placebo group after treatment. The baseline pressure pain threshold was significantly lower in the lidocaine group, but after treatment it was significantly higher in this group. Baseline and final values of the pain provoked by a 4-kg pressure showed no significant difference between the groups. Baseline EMG activity at rest and during swallowing of saliva was significantly higher in the lidocaine group, but no significant difference was observed after treatment. Baseline EMG activity during maximum voluntary clenching was similar in both groups, but significantly higher in the lidocaine group after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

These clinical and EMG results support the use of 5% lidocaine patches for treating patients with MTrP of the upper trapezius muscle.

Health economic evidence of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster in post-herpetic neuralgia

BACKGROUND

Post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) is the most common and most debilitating complication of herpes zoster, and involves considerable associated costs.

OBJECTIVE

This paper presents results from nine health economic studies undertaken in eight European countries that compared lidocaine medicated plaster with gabapentin and/or pregabalin in PHN. It aims to support the increasing need for published cost-effectiveness data for health care decision-making processes in Europe.

METHODS

All studies were based on a similar core Markov model with data derived from clinical trials, local Delphi panels, and official national price and tariff lists. The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life year gained; time without pain or intolerable adverse events was also included as a secondary outcome measure. All studies focused on an elderly population of patients with PHN who had insufficient pain relief with standard analgesics and could not tolerate or had contraindications to tricyclic antidepressants.

RESULTS

Despite considerable differences in many of the variables used, the results showed remarkable similarity and suggested that use of lidocaine medicated plaster offered cost-savings in many of the countries studied, where it proved a highly cost-effective alternative to both gabapentin and pregabalin.

CONCLUSION

Lidocaine medicated plaster is a cost-effective alternative to gabapentin and pregabalin in the treatment of PHN. These savings are largely the result of the superior safety profile of the lidocaine medicated plaster.

Treatment of neuropathic pain with 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster: Five years of clinical experience

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain is often severe and adversely affects patients' quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a retrospective, observational study investigating the efficacy and safety of treating refractory chronic neuropathic pain with 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster, in patients attending pain centres.

METHODS

Medical records from 467 patients treated with 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster were evaluated for efficacy (maximum and minimum pain intensities and coanalgesic consumption) and adverse events. Data from an initial assessment and at least one follow-up visit had to be available, and separate analyses were conducted for the general population and the subpopulation older than 70 years of age.

RESULTS

Of the patients enrolled, 25.0% were older than 70 years of age. While 20.6% had postherpetic neuralgia, 76.3% had other types of peripheral pain. Approximately 78.1% of cases of peripheral neuropathic pain followed surgery, and 23% were post-traumatic pain. The time from onset to referral was more than one year in two- thirds of cases. All patients experienced pain of at least moderate severity (mean [± SD] 11-point numerical rating scale score 5.2 ± 2.4 to 8.2 ± 1.6). Treatment with 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster reduced pain intensity by more than 50% in 45.5% of patients, and by at least 30% in 82.2%. Of note, the consumption of analgesics and coanalgesics was significantly reduced. Results were similar in both the general population and the subpopulation older than 70 years of age, at high risk and often receiving multiple medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of refractory neuropathic pain with 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster clearly demonstrated efficacy and an excellent safety profile in patients with refractory neuropathic pain.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new 8% capsaicin patch compared to existing therapies for postherpetic neuralgia

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of a new 8% capsaicin patch, compared to the current treatments for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), including tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), topical lidocaine patches, duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregabalin.

METHODS

A 1-year Markov model was constructed for PHN with monthly cycles, including dose titration and management of adverse events. The perspective of the analysis was from a payer perspective, managed-care organization. Clinical trials were used to determine the proportion of patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in PHN pain, the efficacy parameter. The outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); second-order probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The effectiveness results indicated that 8% capsaicin patch and topical lidocaine patch were significantly more effective than the oral PHN products. TCAs were least costly and significantly less costly than duloxetine, pregabalin, topical lidocaine patch, 8% capsaicin patch, but not gabapentin. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the 8% capsaicin patch overlapped with the topical lidocaine patch and was within the accepted threshold of cost per QALY gained compared to TCAs, duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregablin. The frequency of the 8% capsaicin patch retreatment assumption significantly impacts its cost-effectiveness results. There are several limitations to this analysis. Since no head-to-head studies were identified, this model used inputs from multiple clinical trials. Also, a last observation carried forward process was assumed to have continued for the duration of the model. Additionally, the trials with duloxetine may have over-predicted its efficacy in PHN. Although a 30% improvement in pain is often an endpoint in clinical trials, some patients may require greater or less improvement in pain to be considered a clinical success.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness results demonstrated that 8% capsaicin and topical lidocaine patches had significantly higher effectiveness rates than the oral agents used to treat PHN. In addition, this cost-effectiveness analysis found that the 8% capsaicin patch was similar to topical lidocaine patch and within an accepted cost per QALY gained threshold compared to the oral products.

5% lidocaine-medicated plaster vs other relevant interventions and placebo for post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN): a systematic review

Several pharmacological treatments are used to manage post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). The use of topical analgesics, such as 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster (5% LMP), may be preferable to systemic treatments in that they are formulated to produce a local pain relieving effect with minimal systemic absorption. However, direct head-to-head comparisons are relatively few, and a rigorous assessment of the relative efficacy and safety of the various treatment options is lacking. The objective of this study was to compare 5% LMP for the relief of PHN with other relevant interventions and placebo. Six databases were searched up to May 2010. Quantitative methods for data synthesis were used, and a network meta-analysis was conducted. Twenty unique studies (32 publications) were included. Placebo-controlled studies showed 5% LMP to be effective in providing pain relief and reducing allodynia while adverse event rates were generally low. A comparison between 5% LMP and pregabalin indicated the non-inferiority of 5% LMP for pain reduction and showed greater improvement of quality of life for 5% LMP. Adverse events (AE) were significantly fewer with 5% LMP. In the network meta-analysis, only 5% LMP and gabapentin were associated with a greater change in pain from baseline than placebo [-15.50 (95% CI -18.85 to -12.16) and -7.56 (95% CI -12.52 to -2.59) respectively]. 5% LMP was shown to be more effective than capsaicin [-16.45 (95% CI -20.04 to -12.86)], gabapentin [-7.95 (95% CI -13.29 to -2.61)] and pregabalin [-13.45 (95% CI -19.19 to -7.71)]. For pain relief, two comparators were more effective than placebo [mean pain relief, gabapentin: 32.77 (95% CI 15.57-49.97); 5% LMP: 26.77 (95% CI 9.11-44.43)]. 5% LMP was shown to be comparable to gabapentin [-6.00 (95% CI -25.32-13.32)]. The results suggest that 5% LMP and gabapentin have similar effects on pain relief and that 5% LMP is more effective than capsaicin and pregabalin (change in pain from baseline). Topical agents, such as 5% LMP, are associated with fewer and less clinically significant AE than is the case for systemic agents. However, small numbers, and limited size and quality of included studies should be taken into account. Further studies are needed.

Lidocaine 5% medicated plaster: a review of its use in postherpetic neuralgia

The lidocaine 5% medicated plaster (Versatis) is a topical analgesic, indicated for the symptomatic relief of neuropathic pain associated with previous herpes zoster infection (i.e. postherpetic neuralgia [PHN]) in adults. The lidocaine 5% medicated plaster has a direct local action with low systemic exposure and is effective in the treatment of patients with PHN. Limited data, from a study in patients with PHN or painful diabetic neuropathy, show that short-term treatment with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster was associated with numerically higher pain intensity response rates than pregabalin in the PHN subgroup. The efficacy of the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster was maintained in the longer term. Additionally, the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster was well tolerated, with application site reactions being the most commonly reported drug-related adverse events; drug-related adverse events were few, and most were of mild to moderate severity. Due to its low systemic exposure, the drug may be of particular advantage in the treatment of patients with a low tolerance for adverse events, or who are receiving concomitant drugs that may otherwise result in drug interactions. Thus, the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster is a useful first-line option for the treatment of patients with PHN.

Comparing healthcare costs of Medicaid patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) treated with lidocaine patch 5% versus gabapentin or pregabalin

OBJECTIVE

To compare healthcare resource utilization and costs of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) patients initiating lidocaine patch 5% (lidocaine patch) or oral gabapentin/pregabalin.

METHODS

Patients with PHN diagnosis, or herpes zoster diagnosis and ≥30 days PHN-recommended treatment were selected from de-identified Medicaid claims data from Florida, Iowa, Missouri, and New Jersey, 1999-2007. Patients initiated monotherapy with lidocaine patch or gabapentin/pregabalin after PHN diagnosis, had continuous eligibility 6 months before (baseline) and 6 months after (study period) medication index date, and were ≥18 years old. Lidocaine patch patients were matched to gabapentin/pregabalin patients based on their propensity to initiate treatment. Study period resource utilization and costs from a Medicaid perspective were compared between treatment groups using univariate analysis.

RESULTS

Matched patients were on average 61.3 years old, approximately 73% were women, and 55% had other painful conditions during the baseline period. 6-month per patient PHN-related prescription drug costs were similar for matched lidocaine patch (n=312) and gabapentin/pregabalin (n=312) patients ($854 vs. 820, p=0.75), while PHN-related medical costs appeared lower in the lidocaine patch group ($145 vs. 353, p=0.12). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups during the observation period in overall resource utilization, total prescription drug costs, and total medical costs per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of higher list prices, PHN patients treated with lidocaine patch cost no more than patients treated with gabapentin or pregabalin in terms of overall healthcare costs over the 6-month study period. The study suggests that PHN-related medical costs may be lower among lidocaine patch patients.

LIMITATIONS

Findings are based on a Medicaid sample and may not be generalizable to all PHN patients.

A randomized, controlled study comparing a lidocaine patch, a placebo patch, and anesthetic injection for treatment of trigger points in patients with myofascial pain syndrome: evaluation of pain and somatic pain thresholds

BACKGROUND

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS), a regional pain condition caused by trigger points in muscle or muscle fascia, produces muscle pain, tenderness, and disability. The gold standard of treatment for MPS-infiltration of trigger points with anesthetic-may provoke discomfort to the patients and require medical intervention.

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to compare the effects of a topical lidocaine patch, a placebo patch, and injection of anesthetic (infiltration) for the symptoms of MPS in terms of pain, disability, and local tissue hypersensitivity, and to determine the acceptability of the lidocaine patch to the patients.

METHODS

Patients were randomly allocated to receive 1 of 3 treatments: a lidocaine patch applied to the trigger point for 4 days (replacement every 12 hours; total daily dose, 350 mg), a placebo patch applied to the trigger point for 4 days (replacement every 12 hours), or infiltration of the trigger point with two 1-mL injections of 0.5% bupivacaine hydrochloride given 2 days apart. Treatment with the patches was double-blinded, whereas treatment with infiltration was single-blinded. The number of pain attacks, pain intensity at rest and on movement, and pain-related interference with daily activity, work activity, mood, and quality of life were recorded before, during, and after treatment using a visual analog scale (VAS). Pressure and electrical pain thresholds of the skin, subcutis, and muscle in the trigger point, target area, and a pain-free area were evaluated before starting therapy (day 1) and on days 5 and 9. A VAS was used to measure discomfort from therapy, and a diary was given to each patient to record requests for additional treatment (if needed) and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Sixty white patients (46 women and 14 men) 19 to 76 years of age were studied. Mean (SD) age was 46.88 (15.37) years, and mean (SD) weight was 69.58 (13.94) kg. Twenty patients were assigned to each treatment group. Subjective symptoms did not change with placebo, but decreased significantly with the lidocaine patch and infiltration (both, P < 0.001) relative to baseline. Pain thresholds did not vary with the placebo patch, but increased significantly with the lidocaine patch and infiltration (all, P < 0.001); effects at muscle trigger points and target areas were greater with infiltration. Discomfort from therapy was greater with infiltration than with the lidocaine patch. Only patients in the placebo group requested additional treatment (P < 0.001). No adverse events occurred in any group.

CONCLUSION

Lidocaine patches were effective in, and highly acceptable to, these patients with MPS and high tissue hypersensitivity.

Neuropathic pain: quality-of-life impact, costs and cost effectiveness of therapy

A number of different diseases or injuries can damage the central or peripheral nervous system and produce neuropathic pain (NP), which seems to be more difficult to treat than many other types of chronic pain. As a group, patients with NP have greater medical co-morbidity burden than age- and sex-adjusted controls, which makes determining the humanistic and economic burden attributable to NP challenging. Health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) is substantially impaired among patients with NP. Patients describe pain-related interference in multiple HR-QOL and functional domains, as well as reduced ability to work and reduced mobility due to their pain. In addition, the spouses of NP patients have been shown to experience adverse social consequences related to NP. In randomized controlled trials, several medications have been shown to improve various measures of HR-QOL. Changes in HR-QOL appear to be tightly linked to pain relief, but not to the development of adverse effects. However, in cross-sectional studies, many patients continue to have moderate or severe pain and markedly impaired HR-QOL, despite taking medications prescribed for NP. The quality of NP treatment appears to be poor, with few patients receiving recommended medications in efficacious dosages. The substantial costs to society of NP derive from direct medical costs, loss of the ability to work, loss of caregivers' ability to work and possibly greater need for institutionalization or other living assistance. No single study has measured all of these costs to society for chronic NP. The cost effectiveness of various interventions for the treatment or prevention of different types of NP has been assessed in several different studies. The most-studied diseases are post-herpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, for which tricyclic antidepressants (both amitriptyline and desipramine) have been found to be either cost effective or dominant relative to other strategies. Increasing the use of cost-effective therapies such as tricyclic antidepressants for post-herpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy may improve the HR-QOL of patients and decrease societal costs. Head-to-head clinical trials comparing NP therapies are needed to help assess the relative clinical efficacy of treatments, ideally using HR-QOL and utility outcomes. The full costs to society of NP, including productivity loss costs, have not been determined for chronic NP. Improved relative efficacy, utility and cost estimates would facilitate future cost-effectiveness research in NP.