Economic outcomes for celecoxib: a systematic review of pharmacoeconomic studies

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.

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Management for Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent, disabling disease requiring chronic management that is associated with an enormous individual and societal burden. This systematic review provides a global cost-effectiveness evaluation of pharmacological therapy for the management of OA.

METHODS

Following Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidance, a literature search strategy was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation database (NHS EED) to identify original articles containing cost-effectiveness evaluation of OA pharmacological treatment published before 4 November 2021. Risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for economic evaluations. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to assess the reporting quality of included articles.

RESULTS

Database searches identified 43 cost-effectiveness analysis studies (CEAs) on pharmacological management of OA that were conducted in 18 countries and four continents, with one study containing multiple continents. A total of four classes of drugs were assessed, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioid analgesics, symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs), and intra-articular (IA) injections. The methodological approaches of these studies showed substantial heterogeneity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were (in 2021 US dollars) US$44.40 to US$307,013.56 for NSAIDS, US$11,984.84 to US$128,028.74 for opioids, US$10,930.17 to US$27,799.73 for SYSADOAs, and US$258.36 to US$58,447.97 for IA injections in different continents. The key drivers of cost effectiveness included medical resources, productivity, relative risks, and selected comparators.

CONCLUSION

This review showed substantial heterogeneity among studies, ranging from a finding of dominance to very high ICERs, but most studies found interventions to be cost effective based on specific ICER thresholds. Important challenges in the analysis were related to the standardization and methodological quality of studies, as well as the presentation of results.

Economic Outcomes Related to Persistence and Dosing of Celecoxib in Patients with Osteoarthritis (OA) Using a Retrospective Claims Database Analysis

Objective

This study describes treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs associated with persistence, switching, and dosing of branded celecoxib in osteoarthritis (OA) patients.

Methods

This retrospective claims database analysis used MarketScan^® Commercial Claims and Encounters (MarketScan) data from 2009 to 2013. Included patients were adult (≥ 18 years), incident celecoxib users with ≥ 1 OA claim. The treatment switch analysis analyzed outcomes in patients persistent on celecoxib versus switched to a generic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). The dosing analysis stratified patients as under-dose (<200 mg per day) and standard dose (≥200 mg per day). HCRU, costs, and treatment duration were compared in persistent versus switched and standard dose versus under-dose patients using descriptive, multivariate logistic regression, and Kaplan–Meier analysis.

Results

A total of 65,530 patients met the inclusion criteria. During follow-up, 83% discontinued celecoxib without switching, 10% were persistent, and 5% switched to a generic NSAID. Ninety percent received a standard dose of celecoxib. Switched (versus persistent) patients had significantly higher all-cause hospital admissions, length of stay, emergency room (ER) visits, and office visits per person year (PPY), all P <0.001; and under-dosed (versus standard dose) patients had significantly higher hospital admissions (P<0.001), length of stay (P<0.001), and ER visits (P= 0.021) PPY. Persistent versus switched patients had lower mean total all-cause costs PPY ($20,378 vs $23,949, P<0.001). Standard dose versus under-dose patients had lower mean total all-cause costs ($23,680 vs $26,955 PPY, P<0.001), and not statistically significant higher mean total OA-related costs ($5698 vs $5524 PPY, P=0.441).

Conclusion

Patients that switched from branded celecoxib to a generic NSAID or received an under-dose of branded celecoxib had higher average overall HCRU and costs. OA-related inpatient and outpatient cost savings may offset the higher drug cost of celecoxib for persistent patients.

The economic and clinical burden of early versus late initiation of celecoxib among patients with osteoarthritis

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics associated with early versus late initiation of celecoxib treatment after osteoarthritis (OA) diagnosis and whether economic and safety outcomes differ between patients with early versus late initiation of celecoxib.

Methods

Adults (≥18 years) with a confirmed OA diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition, Clinical Modifications code: 715.XX), ≥12 months of continuous pre- and post-index enrollment, and ≥1 post-index claim for celecoxib were included from the MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounter Database (2009-2013). Index date was defined as initial OA diagnosis. Patients were categorized as initiating celecoxib early (within 6 months of index date) or late (≥6 months after index date). Logistic regressions were used to assess characteristics associated with early versus late celecoxib initiation. Key outcomes included health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs post-index, and adverse event incidence post-celecoxib initiation. Unadjusted and adjusted comparisons (using generalized linear models with a gamma distribution for costs and Poisson distribution for event and resource utilization) were made between early and late celecoxib initiators.

Results

Of the 62,434 OA patients identified, 27,402 were early and 35,032 were late initiators. Post-index hospital admissions and length of stay did not differ statistically between early versus late initiators after controlling for pre-index event rates and covariates, but early patients had significantly fewer outpatient (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95, 0.97) and emergency room visits (IRR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.95). After adjustment for key covariates, early initiators (versus late initiators) had lower all-cause (US$12,909 versus US$13,781, P<0.001) and OA-related (US$4,988 versus US$5,178, P=0.015) costs per person-year. Early initiators had no statistically significant difference in the incidence of post-celecoxib cardiovascular (IRR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.14), gastrointestinal (IRR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.81, 1.92), or renal (IRR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.65, 2.18) events, controlling for pre-index event rates and covariates when compared to late initiators.

Conclusion

In this real-world cohort, patients initiated on celecoxib early (versus late) had significantly lower costs and HCRU; this may warrant consideration when making treatment decisions for OA patients.

Effects of dexamethasone, celecoxib, and methotrexate on the histology and metabolism of bone tissue in healthy Sprague Dawley rats

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the long-term effects of three antiarthritics, namely dexamethasone, celecoxib, and methotrexate on the histology and metabolism of intact bone tissue in rats.

METHODS

Thirty-two 12-week-old healthy female Sprague Dawley rats were randomly allocated into four groups: 1) control (saline, daily); 2) dexamethasone (2 mg/kg, twice weekly); 3) celecoxib (50 mg/kg, daily); and 4) methotrexate (0.5 mg/kg, twice weekly). The drugs were administered to the rats for 12 weeks and the animals were weighed on a weekly basis. The femurs and lumbar vertebrae were harvested for bone mineral density and bone mechanical properties analyses. The proximal tibiae were processed for bone histomorphometry and micro-computed tomography analyses.

RESULTS

The following results were obtained: 1) dexamethasone strongly inhibited bone formation rate accompanied with a decrease in bone mineral density and bone biomechanical properties; 2) celecoxib stimulated bone resorption, leading to a decrease of bone mass and femur biomechanic properties; and 3) methotrexate caused bone loss and bone quality deterioration to a lesser extent due to the increase of the bone turnover rate on the proximal tibial metaphysis of the rats.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a comparative profile of the long-term effects of clinical doses of celecoxib, methotrexate, and dexamethasone on intact skeletons of the rats. The results indicate that the three antiarthritics have varying degrees of side effects on bone metabolism, and these findings will help physicians to learn more about the potential effects of antiarthritics on bone metabolism.

Comparison between 200 mg QD and 100 mg BID oral celecoxib in the treatment of knee or hip osteoarthritis

This network meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of 100 mg BID and 200 mg QD oral celecoxib in the treatment of OA of the knee or hip. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched through from inception to August 2014. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to combine direct and indirect evidences on treatment effectiveness and safety. A total of 24 RCTs covering 11696 patients were included. For the comparison in between the two dosage regimens, 100 mg BID oral celecoxib exhibited a greater probability to be the preferred one either in terms of pain intensity or function at the last follow-up time point. For total gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects (AEs), both of the two dosage regimens demonstrated a higher incidence compared to the placebo group. Further analyses of GI AEs revealed that only 200 mg QD was associated with a significantly higher risk of abdominal pain when compared with placebo. Furthermore, 100 mg BID showed a significantly lower incidence of skin AEs when compared with 200 mg QD and placebo. Maybe 100 mg BID should be considered as the preferred dosage regimen in the treatment of knee or hip OA.

Efficacy and safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in Asian patients with knee osteoarthritis: summary of a randomized, placebo-controlled study

Aim

To compare the efficacy, tolerability and safety of celecoxib, naproxen and placebo in Asian patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

Method

Patients of Asian descent with knee OA, aged ≥ 45 years, in a flare state with a functional capacity classification of I–III, received celecoxib 200 mg once daily, naproxen 500 mg twice daily or placebo, for 6 weeks. The change in Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (week 6 vs. baseline) was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints, including Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments of Arthritis, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC), use of complementary and alternative medicines, incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and measurements of upper gastrointestinal tolerability, were also assessed.

Results

Three hundred and sixty‐seven patients were randomized: 145 to celecoxib, 144 to naproxen and 78 to placebo. Celecoxib was as effective as naproxen in reducing OA pain (least squares mean change from baseline in visual analogue scale score [standard error] −37.1 [2.0] for celecoxib and −37.5 [2.0] for naproxen). Patient's and Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis, WOMAC scores, Pain Satisfaction Scale and Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 showed statistically significant improvement in active treatment groups versus placebo, with the exception of naproxen WOMAC scores. Treatment‐related TEAEs occurred in 19 (13%), 34 (24%) and six (8%) patients in the celecoxib, naproxen and placebo groups, respectively.

Conclusion

Celecoxib and naproxen were comparable in their effects to reduce the signs and symptoms of knee OA in Asian patients. Celecoxib was shown to be safe and well tolerated in this patient population.