Iatrogenic cost factors incorporating mild and moderate adverse events in the economic comparison of aceclofenac and other NSAIDs

A Review of Aceclofenac: Analgesic and Anti-Inflammatory Effects on Musculoskeletal Disorders

Aceclofenac is an oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties. Although there are some differences in the authorized indications between countries, aceclofenac is mainly recommended for the treatment of inflammatory and painful processes, such as low back pain (LBP), scapulohumeral periarthritis, extraarticular rheumatism, odontalgia, and osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The analgesic properties and tolerability profile of aceclofenac in musculoskeletal disorders are reviewed, focusing on relevant and recent studies. The efficacy and safety comparison of aceclofenac with other analgesics and anti-inflammatory agents in OA, AS, RA, and LBP is described. Relevant studies were identified following a literature search of PubMed using the terms "aceclofenac" and "clinical trials" published from 1 Jan 1992 to 1 Jan 2020. Aceclofenac is at least as effective as other NSAIDs in reducing pain and/or improving functional capacity in chronic pain conditions (OA, AS, RA, and LBP). It is generally well tolerated and appears to have a more favorable GI profile than other NSAIDs. Thus, current evidence indicates that aceclofenac is a useful option for the management of pain and inflammation across a wide range of painful conditions.

Economic impact of potentially inappropriate prescribing and related adverse events in older people: a cost-utility analysis using Markov models

OBJECTIVES

To determine the economic impact of three drugs commonly involved in potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in adults aged ≥65 years, including their adverse effects (AEs): long-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), benzodiazepines and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) at maximal dose; to assess cost-effectiveness of potential interventions to reduce PIP of each drug.

DESIGN

Cost-utility analysis. We developed Markov models incorporating the AEs of each PIP, populated with published estimates of probabilities, health system costs (in 2014 euro) and utilities.

PARTICIPANTS

A hypothetical cohort of 65 year olds analysed over 35 1-year cycles with discounting at 5% per year.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with 95% credible intervals (CIs, generated in probabilistic sensitivity analysis) between each PIP and an appropriate alternative strategy. Models were then used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of potential interventions to reduce PIP for each of the three drug classes.

RESULTS

All three PIP drugs and their AEs are associated with greater cost and fewer QALYs compared with alternatives. The largest reduction in QALYs and incremental cost was for benzodiazepines compared with no sedative medication (€3470, 95% CI €2434 to €5001; -0.07 QALYs, 95% CI -0.089 to -0.047), followed by NSAIDs relative to paracetamol (€806, 95% CI €415 and €1346; -0.07 QALYs, 95% CI -0.131 to -0.026), and maximal dose PPIs compared with maintenance dose PPIs (€989, 95% CI -€69 and €2127; -0.01 QALYs, 95% CI -0.029 to 0.003). For interventions to reduce PIP, at a willingness-to-pay of €45 000 per QALY, targeting NSAIDs would be cost-effective up to the highest intervention cost per person of €1971. For benzodiazepine and PPI interventions, the equivalent cost was €1480 and €831, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term benzodiazepine and NSAID prescribing are associated with significantly increased costs and reduced QALYs. Targeting inappropriate NSAID prescribing appears to be the most cost-effective PIP intervention.

Economic Impact of Pharmacists' Interventions with Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs

Objective:

To estimate the economic impact of community pharmacists' interventions following the detection of problems related to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), whether in a prescription or self-medication format. The evaluation focused on the gastroduodenal adverse events that could be avoided and the subsequent savings of healthcare resources spent on treating these adverse effects.

Methods:

A previous study conducted during a 12-week period in 924 French community pharmacies provided the number of interventions for drug-related problems concerning NSAIDs. A simulation model was constructed to compare 2 strategies: a systematic pharmacist's intervention and the absence of intervention. The base-case patient was assumed to have been taking an NSAID for 3 months. The model's inputs were extracted from medical literature and from an institutional medical database.

Results:

In this study, 608 interventions were the results of NSAID-related problems. All of these interventions reduced the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events and avoided a total cost of €37 300.

Conclusions:

This model indicates that the dispensing of NSAIDs by pharmacists and related pharmaceutical care activities have a positive impact by reducing the number of gastrointestinal complications. The model quantifies the costs thus avoided. It also underlines the necessity of effective collaboration between the prescriber and the pharmacist if optimal patient management is to be achieved.

Aceclofenac vs paracetamol in the management of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee: a double-blind 6-week randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of aceclofenac, 200 mg/day, and paracetamol, 3000 mg/day, in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre clinical trial involving patients with symptomatic OA of the knee, conducted in Spain. Patients were randomly allocated to aceclofenac 100 mg twice daily (n=82) or paracetamol 1000 mg three times daily (n=86). Patients were assessed at baseline and 6 weeks. Primary efficacy measures were severity of pain (visual analogue scale, VAS), Lequesne OA knee index, and patient's and physician's global assessment of disease activity. Severity of knee pain at rest or walking, stiffness, knee swelling and tenderness, and assessment of health-related quality of life (Health Assessment Questionnaire, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Short Form 36) were included as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Both treatment groups showed significant improvement compared with their baseline values in the four primary endpoints. Mean between-treatment differences favoured aceclofenac over paracetamol on pain (VAS, 7.64 mm [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.44-14.85 mm]), Lequesne OA index (1.41 [95% CI, 0.45-2.36]), and patient's (0.33 [95% CI, 0.06-0.61]) and physician's (0.23 [95% CI, 0.01-0.47]) global assessments. Adverse events were similar for both drugs (paracetamol, 29% patients vs aceclofenac, 32%; P=0.71). Four patients withdrew in each group due to adverse events. Patients tended to prefer aceclofenac to paracetamol (P=0.001), and more treated with paracetamol withdrew from the study due to lack of efficacy (n=8 vs n=1, P=0.035, for paracetamol and aceclofenac, respectively).

CONCLUSION

At 6 weeks, patients with symptomatic OA of the knee showed a greater improvement in pain and functional capacity with aceclofenac than paracetamol with no difference in tolerability.

Preventing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: are older strategies more cost-effective in the general population?

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative cost-effectiveness of five gastroprotective strategies for patients in the general population not judged to be at high gastrointestinal (GI) risk requiring regular traditional (t) non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for over 3 weeks: tNSAID/H(2) receptor antagonists (H(2)RAs); tNSAID/proton pump inhibitors (PPIs); tNSAID/misoprostol; COX-2 preferential NSAIDs or COX-2-specific NSAIDs (COXIBs).

METHODS

A systematic review of outcomes and UK cost data were combined in an incremental economic analysis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were generated for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.

RESULTS

Cost-utility analysis showed a tNSAID with a H(2)RA is safer and less costly than tNSAIDs alone, and equally effective and less costly than COXIBs. tNSAID/misoprostol was also dominated by tNSAID/H(2)RA due to withdrawal caused by side-effects reducing overall health status. The incremental increase in QALYs gained by using COXIBs instead of tNSAID/H(2)RA would cost 670,000 pounds per QALY gained. The incremental increase in QALYs gained by using tNSAID/PPI instead of COXIBs would cost 26,000 pounds per QALY gained. If the decision-maker will pay up to 140,000 pounds per extra QALY, the optimal strategy is tNSAID/H(2)RA. If the decision-maker will pay over this the optimal strategy is tNSAID/PPI.

CONCLUSION

The economic analysis suggests that there may be a case for prescribing H(2)RAs in all patients requiring NSAIDs. Our recommendations are tentative due to the quality of the data available and the assumptions we have had to make in our model, and it is possible that other strategies may be preferred in patients with higher baseline GI risk.

Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: application of bootstrap data expansion

BACKGROUND

Delphi surveys with panels of experts in a particular area of interest have been widely utilized in the fields of clinical medicine, nursing practice, medical education and healthcare services. Despite this wide applicability of the Delphi methodology, there is no clear identification of what constitutes a sufficient number of Delphi survey participants to ensure stability of results.

METHODS

The study analyzed the response characteristics from the first round of a Delphi survey conducted with 23 experts in healthcare quality and patient safety. The panel members had similar training and subject matter understanding of the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence in Healthcare. The raw data from the first round sampling, which usually contains the largest diversity of responses, were augmented via bootstrap sampling to obtain computer-generated results for two larger samples obtained by sampling with replacement. Response characteristics (mean, trimmed mean, standard deviation and 95% confidence intervals) for 54 survey items were compared for the responses of the 23 actual study participants and two computer-generated samples of 1000 and 2000 resampling iterations.

RESULTS

The results from this study indicate that the response characteristics of a small expert panel in a well-defined knowledge area are stable in light of augmented sampling.

CONCLUSION

Panels of similarly trained experts (who possess a general understanding in the field of interest) provide effective and reliable utilization of a small sample from a limited number of experts in a field of study to develop reliable criteria that inform judgment and support effective decision-making.

The cost of glucocorticoid-associated adverse events in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the costs of glucocorticoid associated adverse events (GAEs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We conducted a literature review of studies reporting GAEs in RA patients, and developed a Markov model with the following GAEs: fractures (vertebral, hip, pelvic), hypertension, diabetes, gastrointestinal complications, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, cataract and, in an extended model, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. Two-year total costs were calculated using direct medical costs (2001 US dollars [USD]) and by running 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations with probability values randomly selected from the GAE literature.

RESULTS

On average, glucocorticoid users spent USD 445 more than non-users, or USD 0.46 for each dollar spent on purchasing the drug. When adding MI and stroke, users spent on average USD 430 more than non-users, or USD 0.44 for each dollar spent on purchasing the drug; this incremental cost ranged from USD 193 to USD 682 if MI and stroke were excluded, respectively. In 70% of the simulations there were more deaths among users than among non-users, in both the model with and without MI and stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Although results varied depending on attributed GAEs, in general glucocorticoid users spent more than non-users on GAE treatment, and had higher mortality. Patients, providers and policy makers should consider these potential costs of GAEs when making treatment decisions.

Treatment costs to prevent or treat upper gastrointestinal adverse events associated with NSAIDs

The widespread use of nonselective NSAIDs and cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors has a substantial impact on healthcare budgets worldwide. The cost of their gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects is a major component of their direct cost and has received much attention in the literature. Published studies have often differed in their methodologies and results. It is important for decision makers to understand the reasons for these differences in order to make informed decisions. We conducted a literature review to summarise data that evaluate the direct costs of NSAID-related GI adverse effects worldwide. This resulted in 789 articles from which 29 studies met the inclusion criteria and were fully reviewed. Of these 29, the 9 studies that assessed the cost of COX-2 inhibitors were all based on decision economic models, compared with only 7 of the remaining 20 studies, which assessed the cost of nonselective NSAIDs. In most studies, the perspective was that of the healthcare payer and the costs assessed were reimbursement costs. Costs of GI events almost doubled between regular users and non-users of nonselective NSAIDs and were much higher in high-dose versus low-dose users. The ratio of the total cost of nonselective NSAIDs to their acquisition cost reported in all studies varied from 1.36 to 2.12. Both of these numbers were reported in one single study assessing several different NSAIDs in France. Thus, the GI adverse events attributable to nonselective NSAIDs are substantial, and their costs often exceed the cost of the nonselective NSAID itself.The acquisition cost of the COX-2 inhibitors was the main driver of their total cost. The GI adverse effects with the COX-2 inhibitors added 10-20% to their acquisition cost in North America, while this increase was about 50% in some European countries. Decision analysis models showed that the direct costs of COX-2 inhibitors were lower than those of nonselective NSAIDs in patients at risk of NSAID gastropathy but higher in patients at no to low risk of gastropathy. Thus, from an economic perspective, the healthcare system would benefit from treating patients at risk of NSAID gastropathy with COX-2 inhibitors, but not those at no to low risk.

Aceclofenac in the management of inflammatory pain

Aceclofenac (Almirall Prodesfarma SA) is an oral NSAID that is effective in the treatment of painful inflammatory diseases and has been used to treat > 75 million patients worldwide. It has proved as effective as diclofenac, naproxen and piroxicam in patients with osteoarthritis, diclofenac, ketorolac, tenoxicam and indomethacin in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and tenoxicam, naproxen and indomethacin in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. It also provides effective analgesia in other indications, such as dental or gynaecological pain, lower back pain and ear, nose and throat indications. Aceclofenac appears to be particularly well-tolerated amongst the NSAIDs, with a lower incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects. This good tolerability profile results in a reduced withdrawal rate and hence greater compliance with treatment.

Economic evaluation of osteoarthritis treatment in Europe

Osteoarthritis is one of the leading causes of disability. Among the available treatments, NSAIDs are the most common. The present paper reviews economic studies conducted in the last five years on the treatment of osteoarthritis in Europe. The majority focus on NSAID therapy, mainly comparing COX2-specific inhibitors against COX non-specific inhibitors. The reviewed studies estimate healthcare costs only. The final results indicate that, owing to the lower incidence of adverse events, COX2-specific inhibitors should now dominate over traditional NSAIDs. However, the differences found in the methods used to measure costs suggest that results should be interpreted with caution. To estimate costs, authors used diverse values that were not always consistent with the studies' perspective. Furthermore, many did not report resource consumption patterns, making comparisons among the studies difficult, as economic results are influenced by the price/charging policies of different countries. Economic evaluations have the potential to affect health policy by assisting the ranking and prioritisation obligations of decision makers. In this context, it is important to meet strict methodological guidelines.

Aceclofenac: a reappraisal of its use in the management of pain and rheumatic disease

Aceclofenac is an orally administered phenylacetic acid derivative with effects on a variety of inflammatory mediators. Through its analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties, aceclofenac provides symptomatic relief in a variety of painful conditions. In patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, the drug decreases pain, reduces disease severity and improves the functional capacity of the knee to a similar extent to diclofenac, piroxicam and naproxen. Aceclofenac reduces joint inflammation, pain intensity and the duration of morning stiffness in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and is similar in efficacy to ketoprofen, diclofenac, indomethacin and tenoxicam in these patients. The duration of morning stiffness and pain intensity are reduced, and spinal mobility improved, by aceclofenac in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, with improvements being similar to those observed with indomethacin, naproxen or tenoxicam. Aceclofenac is also effective in other painful conditions (e.g. dental and gynaecological). In contrast to some other NSAIDs, aceclofenac has shown stimulatory effects on cartilage matrix synthesis. Aceclofenac is well tolerated, with most adverse events being minor and reversible, and affecting mainly the GI system. Although the incidence of GI adverse events with aceclofenac was similar to those of comparator NSAIDs in individual clinical trials, withdrawal rates due to these events were significantly lower with aceclofenac than with ketoprofen and tenoxicam. Superior overall and/or GI tolerability of the drug relative to other NSAIDs has been indicated by a nonrandomised comparison with sustained release diclofenac in 10,142 patients, a meta-analysis of 13 comparisons with diclofenac, naproxen, piroxicam, indomethacin, tenoxicam or ketoprofen in 3574 patients, and preliminary details of a comparison with 10 other NSAIDs in 142,776 patients. Further analysis of the above meta-analytical data has indicated that costs incurred as a result of adverse event management are lower with aceclofenac than with a range of comparator NSAIDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Trials of 2 to 6 months' duration have shown aceclofenac to be an effective agent in the management of pain and rheumatic disease. Data from in vitro studies indicate properties of particular interest with respect to cartilage matrix effects and selectivity for cyclo-oxygenase-2. Aceclofenac is well tolerated, with encouraging reports of improved general and GI tolerability relative to other NSAIDs from a meta-analysis of double-blind trials and from large nonblind studies.