Cost-effectiveness analysis of tapentadol immediate release for the treatment of acute pain

Budget Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Intravenous Meloxicam to Treat Moderate-Severe Postoperative Pain

INTRODUCTION

This study assesses the budget impact and cost-effectiveness of intravenous meloxicam (MIV) to treat moderate-severe acute postoperative pain in adults.

METHODS

A two-part Markov cohort model captured the pharmacoeconomic impact of MIV versus non-opioid intravenous analgesics (acetaminophen, ibuprofen, ketorolac) among a hypothetical adult cohort undergoing selected inpatient procedures and experiencing moderate-severe acute postoperative pain: Part 1 (postoperative hour 0 to discharge, cycled hourly), health states were defined by pain level. Pain transition rates, adverse event probabilities, and concomitant opioid utilization were derived from a network meta-analysis. Part 2 (discharge to week 52, cycled weekly), health states were defined by the presence/absence of pain-related readmission and opioid use disorder as determined by literature-based inputs relating to pain control outcomes. Healthcare utilization and direct medical costs were derived from an administrative claims database analysis. Primary outcomes were the incremental cost per member per month (PMPM) and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Scenario, univariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. The model assumed a private payer perspective in the USA (no discounting, 2019 US$).

RESULTS

Modeled outcomes indicated MIV was associated with lower accumulated postoperative pain, fewer adverse events, and less opioid utilization for most procedures and comparators, with longer-term outcomes also generally favoring MIV. The budget impact of MIV was - $0.028 PMPM. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, MIV had lower costs and better outcomes for all comparisons except against ketorolac in orthopedic procedures where the former was cost-effective but not cost saving ($95,925/QALY). Scenario and sensitivity analyses indicated that modeled outcomes were robust to alternative inputs and underlying input uncertainty. Differences in direct medical costs were driven by reduced costs attributable to length of stay and opioid-related adverse drug events.

CONCLUSION

MIV was associated with modeled clinical and economic benefits compared to commonly used non-opioid intravenous analgesics.

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.

Tapentadol Versus Tramadol: A Narrative and Comparative Review of Their Pharmacological, Efficacy and Safety Profiles in Adult Patients

We conducted a narrative review of the literature to compare the pharmacological, efficacy and safety profiles of tapentadol and tramadol, and to assess the clinical interest of tapentadol in adult patients. Tapentadol and tramadol share a mixed mechanism of action, including both mu-agonist and monoaminergic properties. Tapentadol is approximately two to three times more potent than tramadol and two to three times less potent than morphine. It has no identified analgesically active metabolite and is not significantly metabolised by cytochrome P450 enzymes, thus overcoming some limitations of tramadol, including the potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions and interindividual variability due to genetic polymorphisms of cytochrome P450 enzymes. The toxicity profiles of tramadol and tapentadol are similar; however tapentadol is likely to result in less exposure to serotoninergic adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, hypoglycaemia) but cause more opioid adverse effects (constipation, respiratory depression, abuse) than tramadol. The safety of tapentadol in real-world conditions remains poorly documented, particularly in at-risk patient subgroups and also in the ability to assess the risk associated with its residual serotonergic activity (serotonin syndrome, seizures). Because of an earlier market introduction, more real-world safety data are available for tramadol, including data from at-risk patient subgroups. The level of evidence on the efficacy of both tramadol and tapentadol for the treatment of chronic pain is globally low. The trials published to date show overall that tapentadol does not provide a clinically significant analgesic improvement compared to existing treatments, for which the safety profile is much better known. In conclusion, tapentadol is not a first-line opioid but represents an additional analgesic in the therapeutic choices, which some patients may benefit from after careful examination of their clinical situation, co-morbidities and co-medications.

Comparison of opioid prescribing upon hospital discharge in patients receiving tapentadol versus oxycodone following orthopaedic surgery

Background The changing of opioids during the transition of care from hospital to home may be associated with harm. Objective To compare patients receiving tapentadol IR versus oxycodone IR following orthopaedic surgery during hospitalisation with regard to the changing of opioids at hospital discharge. Setting A major metropolitan tertiary referral hospital in Australia. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study. Participants included adult orthopaedic surgery patients receiving postoperative tapentadol IR or oxycodone IR during hospitalisation between 1 January 2018 and 30 June 2019. Main outcome measure The proportion of patients for whom the opioid prescribed was changed at hospital discharge. Results The study cohort included 199 patients. Of these, 100 patients received oxycodone and 99 patients received tapentadol post-operatively during hospitalisation. The mean age was 66 years (SD, 12 years) and 111 (56%) were female. The most common surgeries were total knee arthroplasty (91, 46%), total hip arthroplasty (63, 32%) and shoulder surgery (26, 13%). Patients in the tapentadol group were more likely to be changed to a different opioid upon hospital discharge than the oxycodone group (57% versus 9%, difference 48% [95% CI 36-59%, p < 0.01). After adjusting for confounders, post-operative tapentadol use was more likely to be associated with opioid changing upon discharge (OR 16.5, 95% CI 6.7 to 40.8, p < 0.01). Conclusions The post-operative use of tapentadol IR during hospitalisation was associated with an increased likelihood of opioid changing at hospital discharge. This practice could have patient safety implications.

Tapentadol hydrochloride: A novel analgesic

Tapentadol is a novel, centrally acting analgesic with dual mechanism of action, combining mu-opioid receptor agonism with noradrenaline reuptake inhibition in the same molecule. It has an improved side effect profile when compared to opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The dual mechanism of action makes Tapentadol a useful analgesic to treat acute, chronic, and neuropathic pain.

Recent advances in multimodal analgesia

Greater understanding of the pathophysiology and mechanism of acute pain has led to advances in pharmacologic therapy. Understanding the principles of multimodal therapy along with surgical-specific protocols leads to improved outcome in patients. However, further large-scale randomized trials need to be performed to further establish and demonstrate the long-term benefit of multimodal therapy for patients undergoing surgery.

Tapentadol in pain management: a μ-opioid receptor agonist and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor

Several mechanisms can be proposed to explain an apparent synergistic analgesic action between μ-opioid and α(2)-adrenergic receptor agonists. Combining both effects in a single molecule eliminates the potential for drug-drug interactions inherent in multiple drug therapy. Tapentadol is the first US FDA-approved centrally acting analgesic having both μ-opioid receptor agonist and noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake inhibition activity with minimal serotonin reuptake inhibition. This dual mode of action may make tapentadol particularly useful in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Having limited protein binding, no active metabolites and no significant microsomal enzyme induction or inhibition, tapentadol has a limited potential for drug-drug interactions. Clinical trial evidence in acute and chronic non-cancer pain and neuropathic pain supports an opioid-sparing effect that reduces some of the typical opioid-related adverse effects. Specifically, the reduction in treatment-emergent gastrointestinal adverse effects for tapentadol compared with equianalgesic pure μ-opioid receptor agonists results in improved tolerability and adherence to therapy for both the immediate- and extended-release formulations of tapentadol.