Health Care Costs in Patients with Fibromyalgia on Pregabalin vs. Duloxetine

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.

Healthcare Costs and Medication Adherence Among Patients with Fibromyalgia: Combination Medication vs. Duloxetine, Milnacipran, Venlafaxine, and Pregabalin Initiators

OBJECTIVE

To examine medication adherence and healthcare costs for combination prescription initiators (duloxetine/milnacipran/venlafaxine with pregabalin) vs. monotherapy initiators (duloxetine, milnacipran, venlafaxine, and pregabalin) among patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS).

METHODS

Our retrospective cohort study used claims data for the South Carolina Blue Cross Blue Shield State Health Plan (SHP). Patients with FMS ≥ 18 years of age, with prescription initiation from July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2010, and SHP enrollment for 12 months pre- and post-index periods were included (combination: n = 100; pregabalin: n = 665; duloxetine: n = 713; milnacipran: n = 131; venlafaxine: n = 272). Medication adherence measures included high adherence (medication possession ratio ≥ 80%) and total supply days. Healthcare costs comprised direct medical expenditures. Propensity score methods of inverse probability of treatment weights were used to control for selection bias due to differing pre-index characteristics.

RESULTS

Odds ratios for high adherence were significantly increased (P < 0.05) among the combination cohort vs. the venlafaxine (2.15), duloxetine (1.39), and pregabalin (2.20) cohorts. Rate ratios for total supply days were significantly higher (P < 0.05) for combination vs. venlafaxine (1.23), duloxetine (1.08), and pregabalin (1.32) cohorts. Expenditures for total health care were significantly higher (P < 0.05) for combination vs. duloxetine ($26,291 vs. $17,190), milnacipran ($33,638 vs. $22,886), and venlafaxine ($26,586 vs. $16,857) cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication adherence was considerably better for combination prescription initiators; however, expenditures for total health care were higher. Still, our findings suggest important clinical benefits with the use of combination prescription therapy, and prospective studies of medication adherence are warranted to examine causal relationships with outcomes not captured by healthcare claims databases.

Impact of potential pregabalin or duloxetine drug-drug interactions on health care costs and utilization among Medicare members with fibromyalgia

PURPOSE

To examine the impact of newly initiated pregabalin or duloxetine treatment on fibromyalgia (FM) patients' encounters with potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs), the health care cost and utilization consequences of those interactions, and the impact of treatment on opioid utilization.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Subjects included those with an FM diagnosis, a pregabalin or duloxetine prescription claim (index event), ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient medical claims, and ≥12 months preindex and ≥6 postindex enrollment. Propensity score matching was used to help balance the pregabalin and duloxetine cohorts on baseline demographics and comorbidities. Potential DDIs were defined based on Micromedex 2.0 software and were identified by prescription claims.

RESULTS

No significant differences in baseline characteristics were found between matched pregabalin (n=794) and duloxetine cohorts (n=794). Potential DDI prevalence was significantly greater (P<0.0001) among duloxetine subjects (71.9%) than among pregabalin subjects (4.0%). There were no significant differences in all-cause health care utilization or costs between pregabalin subjects with and without a potential DDI. By contrast, duloxetine subjects with a potential DDI had higher mean all-cause costs ($9,373 versus $7,228; P<0.0001) and higher mean number of outpatient visits/member (16.0 versus 13.0; P=0.0009) in comparison to duloxetine subjects without a potential DDI. There was a trend toward a statistically significant difference between pregabalin and duloxetine subjects in their respective pre- versus post-differences in use of ≥1 long-acting opioids (1.6% and 3.4%, respectively; P=0.077).

CONCLUSION

The significantly higher prevalence of potential DDIs and potential cost impact found in FM duloxetine subjects, relative to pregabalin subjects, underscore the importance of considering DDIs when selecting a treatment.

Direct medical costs and medication compliance among fibromyalgia patients: duloxetine initiators vs. pregabalin initiators

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare direct medical costs and medication compliance between patients with fibromyalgia who initiated duloxetine and patients with fibromyalgia who initiated pregabalin in 2008.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study design was used based on a large US national commercial claims database (2006 to 2009). Patients with fibromyalgia aged 18 to 64 who initiated duloxetine or pregabalin in 2008 and who had continuous health insurance 1 year preceding and 1 year following the initiation were selected into duloxetine cohort or pregabalin cohort based on their initiated agent. Medication compliance was measured by total supply days, medication possession ratio (MPR), and proportion of patients with MPR ≥ 0.8. Direct medical costs were measured by annual costs per patient and compared between the cohorts in the year following the initiation. Propensity score stratification and bootstrapping methods were used to adjust for distribution bias, as well as cross-cohort differences in demographic, clinical and economic characteristics, and medication history prior to the initiation.

RESULTS

Both the duloxetine (n = 3,033) and pregabalin (n = 4,838) cohorts had a mean initiation age around 49 years, 89% were women. During the postindex year, compared to the pregabalin cohort, the duloxetine cohort had higher totally annual supply days (273.5 vs. 176.6, P < 0.05), higher MPR (0.7 vs. 0.5, P < 0.05), and more patients with MPR ≥ 0.8 (45.1% vs. 29.4%, P < 0.05). Further, relative to pregabalin cohort, duloxetine cohort had lower inpatient costs ($2,994.9 vs. $4,949.6, P < 0.05), lower outpatient costs ($8,259.6 vs. $10,312.2, P < 0.05), similar medication costs ($5,214.6 vs. $5,290.8, P > 0.05), and lower total medical costs ($16,469.1 vs. $20,552.6, P < 0.05) in the postinitiation year.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, patients with fibromyalgia who initiated duloxetine in 2008 had better medication compliance and consumed less inpatient, outpatient, and total medical costs than those who initiated pregabalin.

Estimating the economic benefits of positive shifts in fibromyalgia severity: an exploratory analysis based on modeling of clinical trial data of pregabalin

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the annualized differences in direct medical and indirect costs associated with improvement in fibromyalgia (FM) severity among pregabalin-treated patients.

METHODS

Data from three clinical trials of pregabalin in patients with FM were modeled; efficacy results were extrapolated. Mean annual costs (direct and indirect) were assigned based on FM severity levels (mild: $10,219; moderate: $26,217; severe: $42,456). FM severity levels were defined using established cut-points on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ). Mean annualized costs at end-point were estimated for all patients within each cohort and the mean differences in costs were compared using a regression model.

RESULTS

Relative to placebo, there was a significantly higher proportion of subjects with mild FM at end-point with pregabalin 450 mg and a significantly lower proportion of subjects with severe FM. Mean total costs were lower with pregabalin (300 mg, $25,721; 450 mg, $24,103) than placebo ($26,162). The difference in mean annual costs was $2059 lower for pregabalin 450 mg (p = 0.003) and $441 lower for pregabalin 300 mg (p = 0.52). Mean direct medical costs were higher with pregabalin (300 mg, $4962; 450 mg, $4820) than placebo ($4364). The difference in mean annual direct medical costs was significantly higher for pregabalin 450 mg by $456 (p < 0.0001) and by $599 for pregabalin 300 mg (p < 0.0001). Mean indirect costs for pregabalin (300 mg, $20,783; 450 mg, $19,306) were lower than placebo ($21,735). The difference in mean annual indirect costs for pregabalin 450 mg was lower by $2429 (p < 0.0001); pregabalin 300 mg was lower by $951 (p = 0.12).

LIMITATIONS

Use of 13-week end-point data from clinical trials to extrapolate to annual costs and an assumption of continuous therapy over the course of 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in FM severity were associated with overall reductions in cost. Reductions in indirect costs may offset the costs of treatment with pregabalin.

Pain-related pharmacotherapy, healthcare resource use and costs in spinal cord injury patients prescribed pregabalin

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To describe comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, healthcare resource use and costs among patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) newly prescribed pregabalin.

SETTING

United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

Using The Health Improvement Network database, SCI patients newly prescribed (index event) pregabalin (N=72; average age 48 years; 53% female) were selected. Study measures were evaluated during both the 9-months pre-index and follow-up periods.

RESULTS

Prevalent comorbidities included musculoskeletal disorders (51.4%), digestive disorders (23.6%) and urogenital disorders (20.8%). Opioids were the most frequently prescribed medications (pre-index, 58.3%; follow-up, 61.1%, P=not significant (NS)) followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (43.1 and 45.8%, P=NS). Use of anti-epileptics (other than pregabalin) recommended for SCI neuropathic pain decreased (25.0 vs 12.5%, P=0.0290), whereas sedative/hypnotic use (18.1 vs 26.4%, P=0.034) increased during follow-up. Over 50% of patients had visits to specialists, and at least 1 in every 10 had laboratory/radiology-related visits. There were numerical decreases in proportions of patients with emergency room visits (22.2 vs 13.9%, P=NS) and hospitalizations (16.7 vs 12.5%, P=NS) during follow-up. Medication costs were higher during follow-up (median, £ 561.4 vs £ 889.5, P<0.0001). Costs of outpatient visits were similar during both study periods (£ 1082.1 vs £ 1066.1) as were total medical costs (£ 1689.0 vs £ 2169.4) when costs of pregabalin prescriptions were excluded. Inclusion of pregabalin costs resulted in higher (P<0.0001) total medical costs during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

SCI patients had a high comorbidity, medication and healthcare resource use burden in clinical practice. Further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive data sources may serve to clarify study findings.

[Placebo responders in randomized controlled drug trials of fibromyalgia syndrome : Systematic review and meta-analysis]

BACKGROUND

The superiority of true drug treatment over placebo in reducing symptoms of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is small. Drug placebo treatment of functional somatic syndromes (FSS) such as FMS has been discussed. We determined the magnitude of placebo responders in drug trials with FMS patients to substantiate further research on placebo treatment of FSS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Scopus, and the databases of the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America were searched for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with a parallel design and treatment duration of ≥ 12 weeks in FMS patients from inception to 31 December 2010. The magnitude of placebo responders was assessed by the pooled estimate of patients with a 30% and 50% reduction in pain.

RESULTS

Thirty studies with 3,846 patients on placebo were included. The pooled estimate of a 30% placebo pain reduction was 30.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 29.4-32.3%) and of a 50% placebo pain reduction was 18.8% (95% CI 17.5-20.1%). The pooled estimate of the risk ratio of 30% pain reduction by true drug versus placebo was 1.38 (95% CI 1.27-1.49). The pooled estimate of the risk ratio of 50% pain reduction by true drug versus placebo response was 1.57 (95% CI 1.36-1.81).

CONCLUSION

The magnitude of responders to placebo in drug trials of FMS is substantial. The efficacy, safety, and costs of drugs recommended for FMS therapy and open-label placebo should be compared in large multinational trials sponsored by public institutions. The English full-text version of this article is available at SpringerLink (under "Supplemental").

Recent Publications on Medications and Pharmacy

Hospital Pharmacy presents this feature to keep pharmacists abreast of new publications in the medical/pharmacy literature. Articles of interest regarding a broad scope of topics are abstracted monthly. Suggestions or comments may be addressed to Flint Russett, St. Claire Regional Medical Center, 222 Medical Circle, Morehead, KY 40351, or e-mail: FSRussett@st-claire.org .