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

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.

The role of the capsaicin 8% patch in the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is challenging and often limited by drug tolerability and adverse effects. This review article focuses on the high-dose (8%) capsaicin patch that allows for improved efficacy and reduced application frequency in comparison to low-dose capsaicin formulations. Systemic absorption is minimal resulting in fewer systemic side effects than first-line oral medications. There is evidence that capsaicin patch treatment is well-tolerated, safe and provides effective pain relief maintained for several weeks; well-powered studies are needed to confirm these findings. The capsaicin 8% patch may benefit patients at high risk for adverse effects from oral medication, polypharmacy or inadequate pain relief from first-line therapies.

Capsaicin 8% Dermal Patch: A Review in Peripheral Neuropathic Pain

The adhesive capsaicin dermal patch (Qutenza^®) delivers a high concentration (8% w/w) of synthetic capsaicin, a highly selective agonist of transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 (TRPV-1), directly to the site of pain. The capsaicin 8% dermal patch is indicated in the EU for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) in adults, either alone or in combination with other medicinal products for pain. In patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, a single 30-min application of the capsaicin 8% dermal patch provided 12 weeks of pain relief and improved sleep quality compared with placebo. Repeat treatment with the capsaicin 8% dermal patch plus standard of care over 52 weeks provided sustained pain relief, with no negative neurological effects compared with standard of care alone. The capsaicin 8% dermal patch was non-inferior to oral pregabalin in relieving pain in patients with non-diabetic PNP, with a faster onset of action and greater treatment satisfaction. A single 60-min application of the capsaicin 8% dermal patch provided rapid and sustained pain relief in patients with postherpetic neuralgia. Results in patients with HIV-associated neuropathy were equivocal, with a significant improvement in pain intensity observed in one trial, but not in the other. The capsaicin 8% dermal patch was generally well tolerated; transient application-site reactions were the most common adverse events. In conclusion, the capsaicin 8% dermal patch is a useful addition to the treatment options currently available for patients with PNP.

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.

Quantitative Thermal Testing Profiles as a Predictor of Treatment Response to Topical Capsaicin in Patients with Localized Neuropathic Pain

There are no reliable predictors of response to treatment with capsaicin. Given that capsaicin application causes heat sensation, differences in quantitative thermal testing (QTT) profiles may predict treatment response. The aim of this study was to determine whether different QTT profiles could predict treatment outcomes in patients with localized peripheral neuropathic pain (PeLNP). We obtained from medical records QTT results and treatment outcomes of 55 patients treated between 2010 and 2013. Warm sensation threshold (WST) and heat pain threshold (HPT) values were assessed at baseline at the treatment site and in the asymptomatic, contralateral area. Responders were defined as those who achieved a > 30% decrease in pain lasting > 30 days. Two distinct groups were identified based on differences in QTT profiles. Most patients (27/31; 87.1%) with a homogenous profile were nonresponders. By contrast, more than half of the patients (13/24, 54.2%) with a nonhomogenous profile were responders (p = 0.0028). A nonhomogenous QTT profile appears to be predictive of response to capsaicin. We hypothesize patients with a partial loss of cutaneous nerve fibers or receptors are more likely to respond. By contrast, when severe nerve damage or normal cutaneous sensations are present, the pain is likely due to central sensitization and thus not responsive to capsaicin. Prospective studies with larger patient samples are needed to confirm this hypothesis.

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.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Topical Capsaicin in Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

In particular, neuropathic pain is a major form of chronic pain. This type of pain results from dysfunction or lesions in the central and peripheral nervous system. Capsaicin has been traditionally utilized as a medicine to remedy pain. However, the effectiveness and safety of this practice is still elusive. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to investigate the effect of topical capsaicin as a pain-relieving agent that is frequently used in pain management. In brief, all the double-blinded, randomized placebo- or vehicle-controlled trials that were published in English addressing postherpetic neuralgia were included. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman^® version 5.3. Upon application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, only six trials fulfilled all the criteria and were included in the review for qualitative analysis. The difference in mean percentage change in numeric pain rating scale score ranges from -31 to -4.3. This demonstrated high efficacy of topical capsaicin application and implies that capsaicin could result in pain reduction. Furthermore, meta-analysis was performed on five of the included studies. All the results of studies are in favor of the treatment using capsaicin. The incidence of side effects from using topical capsaicin is consistently higher in all included studies, but the significance of safety data cannot be quantified due to a lack of p-values in the original studies. Nevertheless, topical capsaicin is a promising treatment option for specific patient groups or certain neuropathic pain conditions such as postherpetic neuralgia.

Capsaicin 8 % Patch: A Review in Peripheral Neuropathic Pain

The capsaicin 8 % patch (QUTENZA®) is an adhesive patch containing a high concentration (8 % w/w) of synthetic capsaicin, a selective agonist of transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 channel. It is approved for treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain in adults either alone or in combination with other medicinal products for pain in the EU; it is only approved to treat postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) in the USA. In patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN), a single 30-min application of the capsaicin 8 % patch significantly improved pain relief and sleep quality compared with placebo in a 12-week double-blind trial. In a 52-week, randomized trial, up to seven consecutive 30-min treatments with the capsaicin 8 % patch (≤7 treatments each at least 8 weeks apart) plus standard of care therapy was associated with sustained pain relief and no negative neurological safety consequences compared with standard of care. In two randomized trials, a single 60-min application of the capsaicin 8 % patch reduced pain scores significantly more than a low-concentration (0.04 %) capsaicin control patch in patients with PHN. Capsaicin 8 % patch treatment was noninferior to pregabalin (optimized dosage) in a randomized trial in patients with nondiabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. Results in two trials in patients with HIV-AN were equivocal, with a significant improvement in pain intensity observed in one trial, but not in the other. The capsaicin 8 % patch was associated with expected, transient, capsaicin-related application-site adverse events such as erythema and pain.

Cost-Effectiveness of Capsaicin 8% Patch Compared with Pregabalin for the Treatment of Patients with Peripheral Neuropathic Pain in Scotland

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of capsaicin 8% patch (QUTENZA™) versus pregabalin in patients with PNP from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal and Social Services in Scotland, UK. A decision-tree cost-effectiveness model was developed for non-diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) who were pregabalin-naïve and had not achieved adequate pain relief or tolerated conventional first- or second-line treatments. Patients entering the model received either a single application of capsaicin 8% patch or titrated daily dosing with pregabalin; after 8 weeks patients were classified as responders, non-responders, or were assumed to discontinue treatment due to intolerable adverse events. Responders continued to receive baseline treatment at intervals observed in clinical practice. Non-responders and those who discontinued treatment were assumed to receive last-line therapy (duloxetine). The base-case time horizon was 2 years. Model inputs for effectiveness, discontinuations and health-state utilities were taken from a head-to-head non-inferiority study (ELEVATE, NCT01713426). Other inputs were obtained from published sources or clinical expert opinion. Costs were expressed in GBP 2013/14. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), i.e. cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Model assumptions were tested with scenario analyses. Parameter uncertainty was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Compared with dose-optimized pregabalin, capsaicin 8% patch was the dominant treatment strategy (total cost difference, –£11; total QALY gain, 0.049). Capsaicin 8% patch was also the dominant treatment strategy versus pregabalin in 6 out of 7 scenario analyses. The model was most sensitive to variation in time to capsaicin 8% patch retreatment (maximum ICER, £7,951/QALY at lower-bound 95% confidence interval). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, the probability of capsaicin 8% patch being cost-effective versus pregabalin was 97%. Capsaicin 8% patch is a cost-effective treatment option compared with dose-optimized pregabalin in patients with PNP who have failed one or more previous systemic treatments.

Capsaicin and Its Role in Chronic Diseases

A significant number of experimental and clinical studies published in peer-reviewed journals have demonstrated promising pharmacological properties of capsaicin in relieving signs and symptoms of non-communicable diseases (chronic diseases). This chapter provides an overview made from basic and clinical research studies of the potential therapeutic effects of capsaicin, loaded in different application forms, such as solution and cream, on chronic diseases (e.g. arthritis, chronic pain, functional gastrointestinal disorders and cancer). In addition to the anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties of capsaicin largely recognized via, mainly, interaction with the TRPV1, the effects of capsaicin on different cell signalling pathways will be further discussed here. The analgesic, anti-inflammatory or apoptotic effects of capsaicin show promising results in arthritis, neuropathic pain, gastrointestinal disorders or cancer, since evidence demonstrates that the oral or local application of capsaicin reduce inflammation and pain in rheumatoid arthritis, promotes gastric protection against ulcer and induces apoptosis of the tumour cells. Sadly, these results have been paralleled by conflicting studies, which indicate that high concentrations of capsaicin are likely to evoke deleterious effects, thus suggesting that capsaicin activates different pathways at different concentrations in both human and rodent tissues. Thus, to establish effective capsaicin doses for chronic conditions, which can be benefited from capsaicin therapeutic effects, is a real challenge that must be pursued.

Profile of the capsaicin 8% patch for the management of neuropathic pain associated with postherpetic neuralgia: safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability

Capsaicin is a naturally occurring irritant active ingredient found in hot peppers. It is a ligand for transient receptor potential channel vanilloid receptors, which are found in nociceptive nerve terminals in the skin. Initial exposure to topical capsaicin leads to excitation of these receptors, release of vasoactive mediators, erythema, intense burning, pain, and thereafter desensitization of sensory neurons resulting in inhibition of pain transmission. Capsaicin 8% has been licensed for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia pain in recent years. A single application of high-concentration capsaicin for 60 minutes for postherpetic neuralgia has been robustly evaluated. Capsaicin 8% patches are applied to the most painful areas of healthy skin and allowed to remain for 60 minutes. Treatment can be repeated every 90 days if the pain persists or returns. The patches are usually applied in specialist pain clinics where patients can be pretreated and monitored. Health care staff need to take certain precautions before administering these patches to avoid unintentional contact. Common adverse effects of the capsaicin 8% patch are transient mild-to-moderate self-limiting application-site burning, pain, erythema, pruritus, papules, swelling, dryness, and hypertension. To manage local pain from capsaicin application, the skin is pretreated with a local anesthetic such as topical lidocaine or an oral analgesic such as oxycodone for up to 5 days. A transient increase in pain is usually seen within 48 hours of patch application before the pain-relieving effect starts. Systemic absorption is minimal and clinically insignificant. The nature of administration and relatively high cost of capsaicin patches can significantly limit their use to a small number of patients with severe refractory symptoms. This review highlights recent evidence related to the use and effectiveness of the 8% capsaicin patch for Postherpetic Neuralgia and discusses its safety and side-effect profiles.

Capsaicin 8 % as a cutaneous patch (Qutenza™): analgesic effect on patients with peripheral neuropathic pain

Evaluation of the analgesic effect after a single application of the capsaicin 8 % cutaneous patch (Qutenza™) in 37 patients suffering from painful, distal symmetric polyneuropathy (PNP) for an average of 5 years. Patients ranged from 40 to 78 years of age and 22 subjects were HIV-positive. Patients were observed 4 weeks prior to 12 weeks post administration. An evaluation of the therapeutic effect of capsaicin 8 % as a dermal patch in terms of pain reduction, change of sleeping behavior and social activities was performed and statistical analysis of data was conducted using non-parametric methods. Patients were selected according to clinical criteria. Numerical rating scale (NRS 0-10) was used to inquire pain intensity and a pain score was calculated using the painDETECT(©) questionnaire Freynhagen R (Curr Med Res Opin 22:1911-1920, [2006]). A significant reduction of pain was achieved for up to 12 weeks, with a maximum after 2-4 weeks post administration. After patient education and before application of capsaicin patch, a significant reduction of three levels on the NRS was observed. Symptoms of painful PNP decreased over the period of investigation and 8 patients reported a reduction of systemic pain medication. In patients with an HIV infection, a significant extension of sleep was achieved for 2, 4 and 8 weeks after application. Thus, the application of the capsaicin 8 % patch resulted in a significant relief of neuropathic pain, a prolongation of sleep, a reduction of oral pain medication and a resumption of social activities.

Topical analgesics for neuropathic pain in the elderly: current and future prospects

Neuropathic pain (NeP) is a significant medical and socioeconomic burden with limited therapeutic options. Elderly patients exhibit a higher incidence of several NeP conditions and pose a particular challenge due to age-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic issues, comorbid conditions, and polypharmacy, as well as frailty and cognitive decline. Topical analgesics are of interest because of their comparable efficacy to oral agents, good tolerability and safety, and potential to be add-on therapies to oral treatments. In recent years, two topical formulations for NeP have been approved (5% lidocaine medicated plaster, 8% capsaicin patch) but are not available in all countries. There are controlled trials and a growing body of open-label reports on their use in clinical care. Some studies provide a post hoc analysis of data in relation to older age (≥65 years), which is useful. The body of evidence relating to topical investigational agents is growing and involves controlled trials as well as individual cases. The largest single body of information is for topical ketamine, administered either alone or combined with other agents (particularly amitriptyline), and some large randomized controlled trials report efficacy. Other large trials involve topical clonidine and further ketamine combinations. Compounding analgesics involves challenges, including uncertain composition (two to five ingredients are used) and concentrations (range 0.5-5%), as well as the heterogeneity of data that support choices. Nevertheless, case reports and acceptable response rates in larger cohorts are intriguing, and this area merits further investigation in controlled settings as well as continued documentation of clinical experiences.

Assessment of the feasibility of high-concentration capsaicin patches in the pain unit of a tertiary hospital for a population of mixed refractory peripheral neuropathic pain syndromes in non-diabetic patients

Background

High-concentration-capsaicin-patches (Qutenza®) have been put on the market as a treatment for peripheral neuropathic pain. A minimum infrastructure and a determinate skill set for its application are required. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of treatment with high-concentration-capsaicin-patches in clinical practice in a variety of refractory peripheral neuropathic pain syndromes in non-diabetic patients.

Methods

Observational, prospective, single-center study of patients attended to in the Pain Unit of a tertiary hospital, ≥18 year-old non-responders to multimodal analgesia of both genders. The feasibility for the application of capsaicin patch in clinical practice was evaluated by means of the number of patients controlled per day when this one was applied and by means of the times used for patch application.

Results

Between October 2010 and September 2011, 20 consecutive non-diabetic patients (7 males, 13 females) with different diagnoses of refractory peripheral neuropathic pain syndromes, with a median (range) age of 60 (33–88) years-old were treated with a single patch application. The median (range) number of patients monitored per day was not modified when the capsaicin patch was applied [27 (26–29)] in comparison with it was not applied [28 (26–30)]. The median (range) total time to determine and mark the painful area was 9 (6–15) minutes and of patch application was 60 (58–65) minutes. No important adverse reactions were observed.

Conclusion

High-concentration-capsaicin-patch treatment was feasible in our unit for the treatment of a population with refractory peripheral neuropathic pain. The routine of our unit was not affected by its use.

Topical capsaicin formulations in the management of neuropathic pain

This chapter reviews the scientific and clinical evidence supporting the use of topical formulations containing the pungent principle of chili peppers--capsaicin, for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain. Given the limitations of current oral and parenteral therapies for the management of pain arising from various forms of nerve injury, alternate therapeutic approaches that are not associated with systemic adverse events that limit quality of life, impair function, or threaten respiratory depression are critically needed. Moreover, neuropathic conditions can be complicated by progressive changes in the central and peripheral nervous system, leading to persistent reorganization of pain pathways and chronic neuropathic pain. Recent advances in the use of high-dose topical capsaicin preparations hold promise in managing a wide range of painful conditions associated with peripheral neuropathies and may in fact help reduce suffering by reversing progressive changes in the nervous system associated with chronic neuropathic pain conditions.

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.