A cost-effectiveness analysis of the effect of pregabalin versus usual care in the treatment of refractory neuropathic pain in routine medical practice in Spain

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.

A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of the pharmacotherapeutic options for painful diabetic neuropathy

INTRODUCTION

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a high incidence and severe complication of diabetes mellitus, significantly compromising patients' quality of life and causing tremendous economic burden. Considering drug costs becomes part of treatment decisions, with the growing choice of monotherapy or combination treatment strategies for PDN treatment.

AREAS COVERED

This systematic review aims to identify the cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapies in PDN, summarize key findings, and assess the quality of studies to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions and future research. Economic evaluations were identified by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and health technology assessment (HTA) databases, as well as screening reference lists of previously identified studies. Relevant data was extracted, and the CHEERS checklist was used to assess the quality of the studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Collectively, the findings indicate that more pharmacoeconomics research is urgently needed to directly compare high-quality research for PDN combination medication/sequential treatment, and which is performed from a societal perspective. Simultaneously, to strengthen the reliability of the analysis, metrics such as adherence, incidence of adverse drug reactions, and pain levels utility value should be examined to verify the robustness of the basic results.

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.

Smoking Status and Cost of Illness in Patients with Depressive Disorder Based on the National Health Survey in Spain

BACKGROUND

Twenty-one percent of subjects with depressive disorder (DD) smoke. This prevalence is expected to be related to healthcare resources utilization (HRU) and sick leave, thereby accounting for substantial costs to the National Health System (NHS) and to society that still need to be characterized. The objective was to estimate cost of illness in patients with DD according to their smoking status.

METHODS

We used the 2011/2012 National Health Survey to document HRU and lost-workday equivalents (LWDE). Men and women 18+ years old with a DD self-reported to a physician in the past 12 months were categorized into: smokers (daily smokers), former smokers, and never smokers. HRU and LWDE were computed on an annualized basis. Multivariate general linear models adjusted for sex, age, and comorbidities were applied.

RESULTS

Data from 1,816 subjects (381 smokers, 290 former smokers, and 1,145 never smokers) were analyzed. Smokers had higher total per patient annual costs (thousands, €3.14), and higher annual healthcare costs (€2.53) than former smokers (€2.35, p < .1; and €1.93, p < .05) and never smokers (€2.42, p < .05; and €2.06, p < .1): with excess costs of €0.79 and €0.72 for total annual costs and €0.60 and €0.47 for annual healthcare costs (p = .029 and p = .056, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking DD subjects were associated with higher HRU and costs from both the societal and healthcare perspectives, when compared with former and never smokers in the Spanish general population. Supporting people with DD to quit smoking might therefore be a value-for-money health policy in Spain.

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.

Add-on treatment with pregabalin for patients with uncontrolled neuropathic pain who have been referred to pain clinics

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of pregabalin on pain, other symptoms, and patient-reported outcomes for patients with uncontrolled pain who have been referred to pain clinics.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adult patients with uncontrolled pain who had a score of ≥4 in the DN4 questionnaire were evaluated at baseline, month 3, and month 6. Evaluations included pain levels using a visual analog (VAS) scale as well as anxiety, depression, sleep, disability, and treatment satisfaction employing validated tools.

RESULTS

Our sample comprised 413 patients who met the selection criteria, had not received pregabalin previously, and were prescribed pregabalin at the study initiation, mainly (97 %) as add-on therapy. Overall, patients had a statistically significant reduction in VAS pain score of 41 points (54 % reduction, p < 0.001), varying from 64 % reduction (oncological pain) to 31 % reduction (central neuropathic pain). Effect sizes for anxiety, depression, sleep, and treatment satisfaction improvement were moderate to large depending on the dimension and clinical entity.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that in patients with uncontrolled neuropathic pain of various origins who were treated at pain clinics, the addition of pregabalin to a wider pharmacological treatment regimen was associated with a clinically relevant improvement of pain and psychological well-being and a reduction in the impact of neuropathic pain on daily activities. Add-on treatment with pregabalin was well tolerated.

Update on neuropathic pain treatment: ion channel blockers and gabapentinoids

Neuropathic pain is a debilitating chronic pain condition, which remains difficult to treat. The current mainstays of treatment include physical therapy, interventional procedures and medications. Among medications, ion channel blockers and gabapentinoids are the 2 classes of drugs commonly used to treat neuropathic pain. It has been suggested that these medications may be useful to treat a variety of neuropathic pain conditions. This article provides several updates on the utility of both ion channel blockers and gabapentinoids for the treatment of neuropathic pain.

Pregabalin in neuropathic pain: evidences and possible mechanisms

Pregabalin is an antagonist of voltage gated Ca2+ channels and specifically binds to alpha-2-delta subunit to produce antiepileptic and analgesic actions. It successfully alleviates the symptoms of various types of neuropathic pain and presents itself as a first line therapeutic agent with remarkable safety and efficacy. Preclinical studies in various animal models of neuropathic pain have shown its effectiveness in treating the symptoms like allodynia and hyperalgesia. Clinical studies in different age groups and in different types of neuropathic pain (peripheral diabetic neuropathy, fibromyalgia, post-herpetic neuralgia, cancer chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain) have projected it as the most effective agent either as monotherapy or in combined regimens in terms of cost effectiveness, tolerability and overall improvement in neuropathic pain states. Preclinical studies employing pregabalin in different neuropathic pain models have explored various molecular targets and the signaling systems including Ca2+ channel-mediated neurotransmitter release, activation of excitatory amino acid transporters (EAATs), potassium channels and inhibition of pathways involving inflammatory mediators. The present review summarizes the important aspects of pregabalin as analgesic in preclinical and clinical studies as well as focuses on the possible mechanisms.

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

INTRODUCTION

Pregabalin is an anticonvulsant approved in Europe for the treatment of neuropathic pain, as an adjunct therapy for epileptic seizures, and recently for generalized anxiety disorder. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin associated with the treatment of its labeled indications from a societal perspective in Spain.

METHODS

Data from the MEDLINE database were searched using algorithms to identify relevant economic evaluations published in English or Spanish on pregabalin for the management of neuropathic pain, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and epilepsy in Spanish patients over the last 10 years.

RESULTS

In total, 52 potentially relevant abstracts were identified from the MEDLINE database. Twenty manuscripts met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the selected papers (14/20) evaluated pregabalin for neuropathic pain from a societal perspective in Spain (5 economic models of pregabalin vs. gabapentin, 4 economic analyses of pregabalin in comparison with usual care, 4 economic evaluations comparing pregabalin monotherapy with add-on strategies, and one that evaluated different times of initiating pregabalin therapy). Five studies analyzed the use of pregabalin in Spain for the management of GAD (one cost-effectiveness model that compared pregabalin with venlafaxine, 2 secondary analyses in benzodiazepine-refractory patients, and 2 studies evaluating pregabalin vs. usual care in patients refractory to standard regimens). The last manuscript described a cost-effectiveness model that compared pregabalin versus levetiracetam use for the treatment of refractory partial epilepsy.

CONCLUSION

The majority of published evidence supports the possibility that pregabalin could be a cost-effective and/or cost-saving alternative for the treatment of refractory epilepsy, GAD, and neuropathic pain, in both treatment-naïve patients and in those who have demonstrated inadequate response or intolerance to previous therapy.