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

Off-label pharmacological treatment for neuropathic pain: A Delphi study by the Spanish Pain Society Neuropathic Pain Task Force

OBJECTIVES

The use of off-label pharmacotherapies for neuropathic pain (NP) is growing relating to the many unmet needs of patients. However, clinical guidelines fail to address it, and the available evidence is sparse and fragmented. We arranged a formal expert consensus to address this controversial issue and provide some guidance on judicious use.

METHODS

A two-round standard Delphi survey that involved pain clinic specialists with experience in the research and management of NP was done over an ad hoc 40-item questionnaire prepared by the authors. Consensus on each statement was defined as at least either 80% endorsement or rejection after the second round.

RESULTS

Forty-three and thirty-seven panelists participated in the first and second round, respectively. Consensus was reached in 34 out of 40 statements. Endorsed alternatives for unresponsive patients include non-gabapentinoid antiepileptics (oxcarbazepine and eslicarbazepine), venlafaxine, intravenous lidocaine (when doses can be optimized), and some vaporized cannabinoids (under appropriate surveillance). In addition, lacosamide, low-dose naltrexone, propofol, or ketamine could prove beneficial if subjected to more research. Other options were rejected, and there was controversy about the usefulness of topical preparations.

DISCUSSION

For patients who do not respond to standard NP treatments, some other viable pharmacological options can be attempted before advancing to other therapeutic stages. This may help patients who are reluctant to or have some contraindication for interventional therapies.

Comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models highlight critical considerations which are useful to inform development of new models

Background: Comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models provide useful insights into critical issues to inform the development of new cost effectiveness models in the same disease area.Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe a comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness models and highlight the importance of such work in informing development of new models. This research uses genotypic antiretroviral resistance testing after first line treatment failure for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) as an example.Method: A literature search was performed, and published cost effectiveness models were selected according to predetermined eligibility criteria. A comprehensive comparative analysis was undertaken for all aspects of the models.Results: Five published models were compared, and several critical issues were identified for consideration when developing a new model. These include the comparator, time horizon and scope of the model. In addition, the composite effect of drug resistance prevalence, antiretroviral therapy efficacy, test performance and the proportion of patients switching to second-line ART potentially have a measurable effect on model results. When considering CD4 count and viral load, dichotomizing patients according to higher cost and lower quality of life (AIDS) versus lower cost and higher quality of life (non-AIDS) status will potentially capture differences between resistance testing and other strategies, which could be confirmed by cross-validation/convergent validation. A quality adjusted life year is an essential outcome which should be explicitly explored in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, where possible.Conclusions: Using an example of GART for HIV, this study demonstrates comparative analysis of previously published cost effectiveness models yields critical information which can be used to inform the structure and specifications of new models.

Developing a dynamic HIV transmission model for 6 U.S. cities: An evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Dynamic HIV transmission models can provide evidence-based guidance on optimal combination implementation strategies to treat and prevent HIV/AIDS. However, these models can be extremely data intensive, and the availability of good-quality data characterizing regional microepidemics varies substantially within and across countries. We aim to provide a comprehensive and transparent description of an evidence synthesis process and reporting framework employed to populate and calibrate a dynamic, compartmental HIV transmission model for six US cities.

METHODS

We executed a mixed-method evidence synthesis strategy to populate model parameters in six categories: (i) initial HIV-negative and HIV-infected populations; (ii) parameters used to calculate the probability of HIV transmission; (iii) screening, diagnosis, treatment and HIV disease progression; (iv) HIV prevention programs; (v) the costs of medical care; and (vi) health utility weights for each stage of HIV disease progression. We identified parameters that required city-specific data and stratification by gender, risk group and race/ethnicity a priori and sought out databases for primary analysis to augment our evidence synthesis. We ranked the quality of each parameter using context- and domain-specific criteria and verified sources and assumptions with our scientific advisory committee.

FINDINGS

To inform the 1,667 parameters needed to populate our model, we synthesized evidence from 59 peer-reviewed publications and 24 public health and surveillance reports and executed primary analyses using 11 data sets. Of these 1,667 parameters, 1,517 (91%) were city-specific and 150 (9%) were common for all cities. Notably, 1,074 (64%), 201 (12%) and 312 (19%) parameters corresponded to categories (i), (ii) and (iii), respectively. Parameters ranked as best- to moderate-quality evidence comprised 39% of the common parameters and ranged from 56%-60% across cities for the city-specific parameters. We identified variation in parameter values across cities as well as within cities across risk and race/ethnic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Better integration of modelling in decision making can be achieved by systematically reporting on the evidence synthesis process that is used to populate models, and by explicitly assessing the quality of data entered into the model. The effective communication of this process can help prioritize data collection of the most informative components of local HIV prevention and care services in order to reduce decision uncertainty and strengthen model conclusions.

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.

Cost-effectiveness modeling for neuropathic pain treatments: investigating the relative importance of parameters using an open-source model

AIMS

The study objective was to develop an open-source replicate of a cost-effectiveness model developed by National Institute for Health and Care (NICE), in order to explore uncertainties in health economic modeling of novel pharmacological neuropathic pain treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The NICE model, consisting of a decision tree with branches for discrete levels of pain relief and adverse event (AE) severities, was replicated using R, and used to compare a hypothetical neuropathic pain drug to pregabalin. Model parameters were sourced from NICE's clinical guidelines and associated with probability distributions to account for underlying uncertainty. A simulation-based scenario analysis was conducted to assess how uncertainty in efficacy and AEs affected the net monetary benefit (NMB) for the hypothetical treatment at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY.

RESULTS

Relative to pregabalin, an increase in efficacy was associated with greater NMB than an improvement in tolerability. A greater NMB was observed when efficacy was marginally higher than that of pregabalin, while maintaining the same level of AEs than when efficacy was equivalent to pregabalin, but with a more substantial reduction in AEs. In the latter scenario, the NMB was only positive at a low cost-effectiveness threshold.

LIMITATIONS

The replicate model shares the limitations described in the NICE guidelines. There is a lack of support in scientific literature for the assumption that increased efficacy is associated with a greater reduction in tolerability. The replicate model also included a single comparator, unlike the NICE model.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain relief is a stronger driver of NMB than tolerability, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY. Health technology assessment decisions which are influenced by NICE's model may reward efficacy gains, even if they are associated with more severe AEs. This contrasts with recommendations from clinical guidelines for neuropathic pain, which place more equal weighting on improvements in efficacy and tolerability as value drivers.

Cost Utility Analysis of Cervical Therapeutic Medial Branch Blocks in Managing Chronic Neck Pain

Background: Controlled diagnostic studies have established the prevalence of cervical facet joint pain to range from 36% to 67% based on the criterion standard of ≥ 80% pain relief. Treatment of cervical facet joint pain has been described with Level II evidence of effectiveness for therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy and with no significant evidence for intraarticular injections. However, there have not been any cost effectiveness or cost utility analysis studies performed in managing chronic neck pain with or without headaches with cervical facet joint interventions. Study Design: Cost utility analysis based on the results of a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of cervical therapeutic medial branch blocks in managing chronic neck pain. Objectives: To assess cost utility of therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks in managing chronic neck pain. Methods: A randomized trial was conducted in a specialty referral private practice interventional pain management center in the United States. This trial assessed the clinical effectiveness of therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks with or without steroids for an established diagnosis of cervical facet joint pain by means of controlled diagnostic blocks. Cost utility analysis was performed with direct payment data for the procedures for a total of 120 patients over a period of 2 years from this trial based on reimbursement rates of 2016. The payment data provided direct procedural costs without inclusion of drug treatments. An additional 40% was added to procedural costs with multiplication of a factor of 1.67 to provide estimated total costs including direct and indirect costs, based on highly regarded surgical literature. Outcome measures included significant improvement defined as at least a 50% improvement with reduction in pain and disability status with a combined 50% or more reduction in pain in Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores. Results: The results showed direct procedural costs per one-year improvement in quality adjusted life year (QALY) of United States Dollar (USD) of $2,552, and overall costs of USD $4,261. Overall, each patient on average received 5.7 ± 2.2 procedures over a period of 2 years. Average significant improvement per procedure was 15.6 ± 12.3 weeks and average significant improvement in 2 years per patient was 86.0 ± 24.6 weeks. Limitations: The limitations of this cost utility analysis are that data are based on a single center evaluation. Only costs of therapeutic interventional procedures and physician visits were included, with extrapolation of indirect costs. Conclusion: The cost utility analysis of therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks in the treatment of chronic neck pain non-responsive to conservative management demonstrated clinical effectiveness and cost utility at USD $4,261 per one year of QALY.