A cost-utility comparison of four first-line medications in painful diabetic neuropathy

Does gabapentin provide benefit for patients with knee OA? A benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

Gabapentin can treat neuropathic pain syndromes and has increasingly been prescribed to treat nociplastic pain. Some patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) suffer from both nociceptive and nociplastic pain. We examined the cost-effectiveness of adding gabapentin to knee OA care.

METHOD

We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated Monte Carlo simulation of knee OA, to examine the value of gabapentin in treating knee OA by comparing three strategies: 1) usual care, gabapentin sparing (UC-GS); 2) targeted gabapentin (TG), which provides gabapentin plus usual care for those who screen positive for nociplastic pain on the modified PainDETECT questionnaire (mPD-Q) and usual care only for those who screen negative; and 3) universal gabapentin plus usual care (UG). Outcomes included cumulative quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime direct medical costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), discounted at 3% annually. We derived model inputs from published literature and national databases and varied key input parameters in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

UC-GS dominated both gabapentin-containing strategies, as it led to lower costs and more QALYs. TG resulted in a cost increase of $689 and a cumulative QALY reduction of 0.012 QALYs. UG resulted in a further $1,868 cost increase and 0.036 QALY decrease. The results were robust to plausible changes in input parameters. The lowest TG strategy ICER of $53,000/QALY was reported when mPD-Q specificity was increased to 100% and AE rate was reduced to 0%.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating gabapentin into care for patients with knee OA does not appear to offer good value.

Optimal pharmacotherapy pathway in adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: the OPTION-DM RCT

BACKGROUND

The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

DESIGN

A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis.

SETTING

Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using over-encapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory - Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0-10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients' preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A within-trial cost-utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6-16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; p = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -0.002 (95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.002 to 0.014) quality-adjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -£113 (95% confidence interval -£381 to £90), amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval -£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval -£13 to £398)].

LIMITATIONS

Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable.

FUTURE WORK

Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients' preference in terms of side effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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 Mirogabalin for the Treatment of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of 30 mg of mirogabalin versus no treatment or 300 mg of pregabalin in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) from a third-party perspective in Taiwan.

METHODS

A Markov model, developed with cycles of 2-week and a 1-year timeframes, consisted of 3 health states: mild, moderate, and severe pain. Average daily pain score (ADPS) was assessed at the end of each 2-week cycle. All patients entered the model in moderate (4 ≤ ADPS < 7) or severe (7 ≤ ADPS ≤ 10) pain health states. At the end of each cycle, patients remained in their assigned health state or transitioned to a different health state according to their pain score change. Efficacy data were informed by the pivotal phase III clinical trial (J303, NCT02318706) or by a network meta-analysis. Utility values were obtained from published literature, and resource use and cost data from Taiwanese clinical experts and Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration. One-way sensitivity, scenario, and probabilistic analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

A head-to-head analysis demonstrated that 30 mg of mirogabalin is a cost-effective treatment option versus placebo for DPNP. The base-case deterministic analysis estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gains of 0.02 at an incremental cost of 9697 New Taiwan dollars (NT$) (equal to $323) versus placebo (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: 489 310 NT$/QALY [$15 860/QALY]). Mirogabalin was also cost-effective compared with 300 mg of pregabalin (ICER: 18 476 NT$/QALY [$600/QALY]). Sensitivity and scenario analyses results confirmed the robustness.

CONCLUSION

Economic analysis suggests that mirogabalin 30 mg, a potent and selective α2δ ligand, is a cost-effective treatment option for DPNP in Taiwan, with an ICER below the willingness-to-pay threshold.

Cost-effectiveness of Interventions to Manage Diabetes: Has the Evidence Changed Since 2008?

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize updated evidence on the cost-effectiveness (CE) of interventions to manage diabetes, its complications, and comorbidities.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of studies from high-income countries evaluating the CE of diabetes management interventions recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and published in English between June 2008 and July 2017. We also incorporated studies from a previous CE review from the period 1985-2008. We classified the interventions based on their strength of evidence (strong, supportive, or uncertain) and levels of CE: cost-saving (more health benefit at a lower cost), very cost-effective (≤$25,000 per life year gained [LYG] or quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), cost-effective ($25,001-$50,000 per LYG or QALY), marginally cost-effective ($50,001-$100,000 per LYG or QALY), or not cost-effective (>$100,000 per LYG or QALY). Costs were measured in 2017 U.S. dollars.

RESULTS

Seventy-three new studies met our inclusion criteria. These were combined with 49 studies from the previous review to yield 122 studies over the period 1985-2017. A large majority of the ADA-recommended interventions remain cost-effective. Specifically, we found strong evidence that the following ADA-recommended interventions are cost-saving or very cost-effective: In the cost-saving category are 1) ACE inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy for intensive hypertension management compared with standard hypertension management, 2) ACEI/ARB therapy to prevent chronic kidney disease and/or end-stage renal disease in people with albuminuria compared with no ACEI/ARB therapy, 3) comprehensive foot care and patient education to prevent and treat foot ulcers among those at moderate/high risk of developing foot ulcers, 4) telemedicine for diabetic retinopathy screening compared with office screening, and 5) bariatric surgery compared with no surgery for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m²). In the very cost-effective category are 1) intensive glycemic management (targeting A1C <7%) compared with conventional glycemic management (targeting an A1C level of 8-10%) for individuals with newly diagnosed T2D, 2) multicomponent interventions (involving behavior change/education and pharmacological therapy targeting hyperglycemia, hypertension, dyslipidemia, microalbuminuria, nephropathy/retinopathy, secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease with aspirin) compared with usual care, 3) statin therapy compared with no statin therapy for individuals with T2D and history of cardiovascular disease, 4) diabetes self-management education and support compared with usual care, 5) T2D screening every 3 years starting at age 45 years compared with no screening, 6) integrated, patient-centered care compared with usual care, 7) smoking cessation compared with no smoking cessation, 8) daily aspirin use as primary prevention for cardiovascular complications compared with usual care, 9) self-monitoring of blood glucose three times per day compared with once per day among those using insulin, 10) intensive glycemic management compared with conventional insulin therapy for T2D among adults aged ≥50 years, and 11) collaborative care for depression compared with usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

Complementing professional treatment recommendations, our systematic review provides an updated understanding of the potential value of interventions to manage diabetes and its complications and can assist clinicians and payers in prioritizing interventions and health care resources.

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.

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.

Can Chronic Pain Patients Be Adequately Treated Using Generic Pain Medications to the Exclusion of Brand-Name Ones?

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports, approximately 8 in 10 prescriptions filled in the United States are for generic medications, with an expectation that this number will increase over the next few years. The impetus for this emphasis on generics is the cost disparity between them and brand-name products. The use of FDA-approved generic drugs saved 158 billion dollars in 2010 alone. In the current health care climate, there is continually increasing pressure for prescribers to write for generic alternative medications, occasionally at the expense of best clinical practices. This creates a conflict wherein both physicians and patients may find brand-name medications clinically superior but nevertheless choose generic ones. The issue of generic versus brand medications is a key component of the discussion of health payers, physicians and their patients. This review evaluates some of the important medications in the armamentarium of pain physicians that are frequently used in the management of chronic pain, and that are currently at the forefront of this issue, including Opana (oxymorphone; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malvern, PA), Gralise (gabapentin; Depomed, Newark, CA), and Horizant (gabapentin enacarbil; XenoPort, Santa Clara, CA) that are each available in generic forms as well. We also discuss the use of Lyrica (pregabalin; Pfizer, New York, NY), which is currently unavailable as generic medication, and Cymbalta (duloxetine; Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN), which has been recently FDA approved to be available in a generic form. It is clear that the use of generic medications results in large financial savings for the cost of prescriptions on a national scale. However, cost-analysis is only part of the equation when treating chronic pain patients and undervalues the relationships of enhanced compliance due to single-daily dosing and stable and reliable pharmacokinetics associated with extended-duration preparations using either retentive technologies or delayed absorption strategies. Medications given to chronic pain patients should be individualized to best serve analgesic needs and assure patient safety primarily, based on high levels of scientific and economic evidence. Decisions regarding utilization should not be made based solely on limited or faulty assessments of cost-benefit analyses.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of initiating treatment for painful diabetic neuropathy with pregabalin, duloxetine, gabapentin, or desipramine

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) affects nearly half of patients with diabetes. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of starting patients with PDN on pregabalin (PRE), duloxetine (DUL), gabapentin (GABA), or desipramine (DES) over a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of third-party payers in the United States. A Markov model was used to compare the costs (2013 $US) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of first-line PDN treatments in 10,000 patients using microsimulation. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Probabilities and utilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were average wholesale price for drugs and national estimates for office visits and hospitalizations. One-way and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were used to examine parameter uncertainty. Starting with PRE was dominated by DUL as DUL cost less and was more effective. Starting with GABA was extendedly dominated by a combination of DES and DUL. DES and DUL cost $23,468 and $25,979, while yielding 3.05 and 3.16 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DUL compared with DES was $22,867/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model was most sensitive to the adherence threshold and utility for mild pain. PSA showed that, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $50,000/QALY, DUL was the most cost-effective option in 56.3% of the simulations, DES in 29.2%, GABA in 14.4%, and PRE in 0.1%. Starting with DUL is the most cost-effective option for PDN when WTP is greater than $22,867/QALY. Decision makers may consider starting with DUL for PDN patients.

Duloxetine for the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Venezuela: economic evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy affects 40-50% of patients with diabetic neuropathy, leading to impaired quality of life and substantial costs. Duloxetine and pregabalin have evidence-based support, and are formally approved for controlling painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

METHODS

We used a 12-week decision model for examining painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy first-line therapy with daily doses of duloxetine 60mg or pregabalin 300mg, under the perspective of the Instituto Venezolano de los Seguros Sociales. We gathered model parameters from published literature and expert´s opinion, focusing on the magnitude of pain relief, the presence of adverse events, the possibility of withdrawal owing to intolerable adverse events or due to lack of efficacy, and the quality-adjusted life years expected in each strategy. We analyzed direct medical costs (which are expressed in Bolívares Fuertes, BsF) comprising drug acquisition besides additional care devoted to treatment of adverse events and poor pain relief. We conducted both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Total expected costs per 1000 patients were BsF 1 046 146 (26%) lower with duloxetine than with pregabalin. Most of these savings (91%) corresponds to the difference in the acquisition’s cost of each medication. duloxetine also provided 23 more patients achieving good pain relief and a gain of about two quality-adjusted life years per 1000 treated. Model was robust to plausible changes in main parameters. Duloxetine remained the preferred option in 93.9% of the second-order Monte Carlo simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests duloxetine dominates (i.e., is more effective and lead to gains in quality-adjusted life years), remaining less costly than pregabalin for treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

A review of the clinical utility of duloxetine in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain

Diabetes mellitus is a world-wide epidemic with many long-term complications, with neuropathy being the most common. In particular, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP), can be one of the most distressing complications associated with diabetes, leading to decreases in physical and mental quality of life. Despite the availability of many efficient medications, DPNP remains a challenge to treat, and the optimal sequencing of pharmacotherapy remains unknown. Currently, there are only three medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration specifically for the management of DPNP. Duloxetine (DUL), a selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is one of these. With the goal of optimizing pharmacotherapy use in DPNP population, a review of current literature was conducted, and the clinical utility of DUL described. Along with early clinical trials, recently published observational studies and pharmacoeconomic models may be useful in guiding decision making by clinicians and managed care organizations. In real-world practice settings, DUL is associated with decreased or similar opioid utilization, increased medication adherence, and similar health care costs compared with current standard of care. DUL has consistently been found to be a cost-effective option over short time-horizons. Currently, the long-term cost-effectiveness of DUL is unknown. Evidence derived from randomized clinical trials, real-world observations, and economic models support the use of DUL as a first-line treatment option from the perspective of the patient, clinician, and managed care payer.

Cost effectiveness of duloxetine for osteoarthritis: a Quebec societal perspective

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of duloxetine compared to other oral postacetaminophen treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) from a Quebec societal perspective.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed enhancing the Markov model from the 2008 OA guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). The NICE model was extended to include opioid and antidepressant comparators, adding titration, discontinuation, and relevant adverse events (AEs). Comparators included duloxetine, celecoxib, diclofenac, naproxen, hydromorphone, and oxycodone extended release (oxycodone). AEs included gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), as well as fracture, opioid abuse, and constipation, among others. Costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated in 2011 Canadian dollars. The base case modeled a cohort of 55-year-old patients with OA for a 12-month period of treatment, followed by treatment from a basket of post-discontinuation oral therapies until death. Sensitivity analyses (one-way and probabilistic) were conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, naproxen was the least expensive treatment, whereas oxycodone was the most expensive. Duloxetine accumulated the highest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with an ICER of $36,291 per QALY versus celecoxib. Duloxetine was dominant over opioids. In subgroup analyses, ICERs for duloxetine versus celecoxib were $15,619 and $20,463 for patients at high risk of NSAID-related AEs and patients ages >65 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Duloxetine was cost effective for a cohort of 55-year-old patients with OA, and more so in older patients and those with greater AE risks.

Duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy, chronic pain or fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Duloxetine is a balanced serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor licensed for the treatment of major depressive disorders, urinary stress incontinence and the management of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. A number of trials have been conducted to investigate the use of duloxetine in neuropathic and nociceptive painful conditions. This is the first update of a review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy and different types of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

On 19th November 2013, we searched The Cochrane Neuromuscular Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, DARE, HTA, NHSEED, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials in April 2013. We also searched the reference lists of identified publications for trials of duloxetine for the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy or chronic pain.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised or quasi-randomised trials of any formulation of duloxetine, used for the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy or chronic pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 18 trials, which included 6407 participants. We found 12 of these studies in the literature search for this update. Eight studies included a total of 2728 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy and six studies involved 2249 participants with fibromyalgia. Three studies included participants with depression and painful physical symptoms and one included participants with central neuropathic pain. Studies were mostly at low risk of bias, although significant drop outs, imputation methods and almost every study being performed or sponsored by the drug manufacturer add to the risk of bias in some domains. Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is effective in treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the short term, with a risk ratio (RR) for ≥ 50% pain reduction at 12 weeks of 1.73 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.08). The related NNTB is 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is also effective for fibromyalgia over 12 weeks (RR for ≥ 50% reduction in pain 1.57, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.06; NNTB 8, 95% CI 4 to 21) and over 28 weeks (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.27) as well as for painful physical symptoms in depression (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.59; NNTB 8, 95% CI 5 to 14). There was no effect on central neuropathic pain in a single, small, high quality trial. In all conditions, adverse events were common in both treatment and placebo arms but more common in the treatment arm, with a dose-dependent effect. Most adverse effects were minor, but 16% of participants stopped the drug due to adverse effects. Serious adverse events were rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is adequate amounts of moderate quality evidence from eight studies performed by the manufacturers of duloxetine that doses of 60 mg and 120 mg daily are efficacious for treating pain in diabetic peripheral neuropathy but lower daily doses are not. Further trials are not required. In fibromyalgia, there is lower quality evidence that duloxetine is effective at similar doses to those used in diabetic peripheral neuropathy and with a similar magnitude of effect. The effect in fibromyalgia may be achieved through a greater improvement in mental symptoms than in somatic physical pain. There is low to moderate quality evidence that pain relief is also achieved in pain associated with depressive symptoms, but the NNTB of 8 in fibromyalgia and depression is not an indication of substantial efficacy. More trials (preferably independent investigator led studies) in these indications are required to reach an optimal information size to make convincing determinations of efficacy.Minor side effects are common and more common with duloxetine 60 mg and particularly with 120 mg daily, than 20 mg daily, but serious side effects are rare.Improved direct comparisons of duloxetine with other antidepressants and with other drugs, such as pregabalin, that have already been shown to be efficacious in neuropathic pain would be appropriate. Unbiased economic comparisons would further help decision making, but no high quality study includes economic data.

Considerations for neuropathic pain conditions in life care planning

Significant progress has been made in assessing and managing neuropathic pain. Newer, more effective treatments with minimal side effects are available. Despite advances in treatments, neuropathic pain remains a multifaceted phenomenon that can be difficult to alleviate. Diagnosis, mechanisms of injury, and treatment recommendations are critical components of life care plans for patients with neuropathic pain. A clear understanding of the underlying issues and careful coordination with neurologists and other treatment providers are key to providing optimal life care plans. Understanding that pain treatments vary over time and by individual patient is integral to comprehensive life care planning.

An economic evaluation of pregabalin versus usual care in the management of community-treated patients with refractory painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in primary care settings

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin versus usual care (UC) in the management of community-treated patients with refractory painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN) in primary care settings (PCS) in Spain.

METHODS

Data was extracted from a 12-week registry study assessing costs of neuropathic pain in Spain. Pregabalin-naïve outpatients treated with UC or newly prescribed pregabalin were selected for inclusion in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Effectiveness was expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gain. Perspectives of the Spanish National Health System (NHS) and society (2006) were applied for cost calculations. Results were expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Bootstrapping techniques (10,000 re-samples) were used to obtain the probabilistic ICER and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.

RESULTS

A total of 189 patients were included in the economic analysis. Compared with UC, pregabalin was associated with higher QALY gain in a period of 12-weeks; 0.0406±0.0343 versus 0.0285±0.0350 (p=0.167). Overall total costs (€1368±1229 vs. €1258±1474; p=0.587) and healthcare costs (€628±590 vs. €469±420; p=0.134) were similar for both pregabalin and UC, respectively. ICERs for pregabalin varied from €5302 (95% CI: dominant; €144,105) for total costs to €14,381 (dominant; €115,648) for healthcare costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that 79-84% of ICERs were below the threshold of €30,000/QALY.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that pregabalin may be cost-effective in the management of community-treated refractory outpatients, with pDPN when compared with usual care in the primary care setting in Spain. These findings may help policy makers when making health decision in the management of diabetes in the community.

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

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin vs usual care (UC) in outpatients with refractory neuropathic pain (NeP), treated according to routine medical practice in primary care settings in Spain.

METHODS

Patients were extracted from a 12-week noninterventional prospective study conducted to ascertain the costs of NeP. Pairs of pregabalin-naïve patients receiving UC or pregabalin, matched by age, gender, pain intensity, and refractory to previous treatment, were selected in a 1:1 ratio. Refractory was considered a patient with actual pain (scoring >40 in a 100 mm in a pain visual analog scale) after receiving a course of a standard analgesic, at its recommended doses. Perspectives of the Spanish National Healthcare System and society were included in the analysis. Effectiveness was expressed as quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain. Results of the cost-effectiveness analysis were expressed as an incremental cost per QALY (ICER) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using bootstrapping techniques was also carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 160 pairs were extracted. Compared with UC, pregabalin was associated with significantly higher QALY gain; 0.0374 ± 0.0367 vs 0.0224 ± 0.0313 (P < 0.001). Despite drug acquisition costs being higher for pregabalin (€251 ± 125 vs €104 ± 121; P < 0.001), total and health care costs incurred for pregabalin were similar in both groups; €1,335 ± 1,302 vs €1,387 ± 1,489 (P = 0.587) and €529 ± 438 vs €560 ± 672 (P = 0.628), respectively, yielding a dominant ICER for both total and health care costs in the base case scenario; 95% confidence intervals, respectively, dominant to €17,268, and dominant to €6,508. Sensitivity analysis confirmed results of the basecase scenario.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that pregabalin may be cost-effective in the treatment of refractory NeP patients when compared with UC in routine medical practice in Spain.

Economic evaluation of duloxetine as a first-line treatment for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Mexico

OBJECTIVE

To perform an economic evaluation of duloxetine, pregabalin, and both branded and generic gabapentin for managing pain in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) in Mexico.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The analysis was conducted using a 3-month decision model, which compares duloxetine 60 mg once daily (DUL), pregabalin 150 mg twice daily (PGB), and gabapentin 600 mg three-times daily (GBP) for PDPN patients with moderate-to-severe pain. A systematic review was performed and placebo-adjusted risk ratios for achieving good pain relief (GPR), adverse events (AE), and withdrawal owing to intolerable AE were calculated. Direct medical costs included drug acquisition and additional visits due to lack of efficacy (poor pain relief) or intolerable AE. Unit costs were taken from local sources. Adherence rates were used to estimate the expected drug costs. All costs are expressed in 2010 Mexican Pesos (MXN). Utility values drawn from published literature were applied to health states. The proportion of patients with GPR and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were assessed.

RESULTS

Branded-GBP was dominated by all the other options. PGB was more costly and less effective than DUL. Compared with branded-GBP and PGB, DUL led to savings of 1.01 and 1.74 million MXN (per 1000 patients). The incremental cost per QALY gained with DUL used instead of generic-GBP was $102 433 MXN. This amount is slightly lower than the estimated gross domestic product per capita in Mexico for 2010. During a second-order Monte Carlo simulation, DUL had the highest probability of being cost-effective (61%), followed by generic-GBP (25%) and PGB (14%).

LIMITATIONS

Study limitations include a short timeframe and using data from different dosage schemes for GBP and PGB.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that DUL provides overall savings and better health outcomes compared with branded-GBP and PGB. Administering DUL rather than generic-GBP is a cost-effective intervention to manage PDPN in Mexico.

Duloxetine in the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain

Diabetic neuropathy affects up to 70% of diabetics, and diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is the most common and debilitating of the diabetic neuropathies. DPNP significantly reduces quality of life and increases management costs in affected patients. Despite the impact of DPNP, management is poor with one-quarter of patients receiving no treatment and many treated with medications having little or no efficacy in managing DPNP. Duloxetine is one of two drugs approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for DPNP management. Duloxetine is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) proven safe, effective, and cost-saving in reducing DPNP symptoms at a dose of 60 mg/day. Duloxetine doses greater than 60 mg/day for DPNP management are not recommended since they are no more efficacious and associated with more side effects; addition of pregabalin or gabapentin for these patients may be beneficial. Side effects of duloxetine are generally mild and typical for the SNRI class including nausea, dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, sweating, dry mouth, constipation, and diarrhea. Given its other indications, duloxetine is a particularly good choice for DPNP treatment in patients with coexisting depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia, or chronic musculoskeletal pain. Duloxetine treatment had no clinically significant effect on glycemic control and did not increase the risk of cardiovascular events in diabetes patients. However, duloxetine use should be avoided in patients with hepatic disease or severe renal impairment. Given its safety, efficacy, and tolerability, duloxetine is an excellent choice for DPNP treatment in many patients.

Pharmacological treatment of diabetic neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain continues to be a difficult and challenging clinical issue to deal with effectively. Painful diabetic polyneuropathy is a complex pain condition that occurs with reasonable frequency in the population and it may be extremely difficult for clinicians to provide patients with effective analgesia. Chronic neuropathic pain may occur in approximately one of every four diabetic patients. The pain may be described as burning or a deep-seated ache with sporadic paroxysms of lancinating painful exacerbations. The pain is often constant, moderate to severe in intensity, usually primarily involves the feet and generally tends to worsen at night. Treatment may be multimodal but largely involves pharmacological approaches. Pharmacological therapeutic options include antidepressants (tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors), α2δ ligands and topical (5%) lidocaine patch. Other agents may be different antiepileptic drugs (carbamazepine, lamotrigine, topiramate), topical capsaicin, tramadol and other opioids. Progress continues with respect to understanding various mechanisms that may contribute to painful diabetic neuropathy. Agents that may hold some promise include neurotrophic factors, growth factors, immunomodulators, gene therapy and poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. It is hoped that in the future clinicians will be able to assess patient pathophysiology, which may help them to match optimal therapeutic agents to target individual patient aberrant mechanisms.

Impact of postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy on health care costs

Knowledge of the health care costs associated with neuropathic pain is limited. Existing studies have not directly compared the health care costs of different neuropathic pain conditions, and patients with neuropathic pain have not been compared with control subjects with the same underlying conditions (for example, diabetes). To determine health care costs associated with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), patients with these conditions were selected from 2 different administrative databases of health care claims and respectively matched to control subjects who had a diagnosis of herpes zoster without persisting pain or a diagnosis of diabetes without neurological complications using propensity scores for demographic and clinical factors. Total excess health care costs attributable to PHN and painful DPN and excess costs for inpatient care, outpatient/professional services, and pharmacy expenses were calculated. The results indicated that the annual excess health care costs associated with peripheral neuropathic pain in patients of all ages range from approximately $1600 to $7000, depending on the specific pain condition. Total excess health care costs associated with painful DPN were substantially greater than those associated with PHN, which might reflect the great medical comorbidity associated with DPN.

PERSPECTIVE

The data demonstrate that the health care costs associated with 1 peripheral neuropathic pain condition cannot be extrapolated to other neuropathic pain conditions. The results also increase understanding of the economic burden of PHN and painful DPN and provide a basis for evaluating the impact on health care costs of new interventions for their treatment and prevention.

Duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy or chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Duloxetine is a balanced serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor licensed for the treatment of major depressive disorders, urinary stress incontinence and the management of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. A number of trials have been conducted to investigate the use of duloxetine in neuropathic and nociceptive painful conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy and different types of chronic pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Neuromuscular Group Specialized Register (10 March 2009), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2009), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2009), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2009), and www.clinicaltrials.gov to March 2009 and the reference lists of identified publications for trials of duloxetine used for the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy or chronic pain.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised or quasi-randomised trials of any formulation of duloxetine, used for the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy or chronic pain in adult participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently onto a specially designed proforma and cross checked them.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials were identified including 2220 participants. Three studies included participants with painful diabetic neuropathy and three treated participants with fibromyalgia. Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is effective in treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the short-term to 12 weeks with a risk ratio (RR) for 50% pain reduction at 12 weeks of 1.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.03), number needed to treat (NNT) 6 (95% CI 5 to 10). Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is also effective in fibromyalgia over 12 weeks (RR 50% reduction in pain 1.57, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.06; NNT 8, 95% CI 5 to 17) and 28 weeks (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.27). Adverse events were common in both treatment and placebo arms but more common in the treatment arm with a dose dependent effect. Most side effects were minor, but 16% of participants stopped the drug due to side effects. Serious adverse events were rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderately strong evidence that duloxetine 60 mg and 120 mg daily are efficacious for treating pain in diabetic peripheral neuropathy and fibromyalgia but 20 mg daily is not. Minor side effects are common at therapeutic doses but serious side effects are rare. Direct comparisons of duloxetine with other antidepressants and with other drugs already shown to be efficacious in neuropathic pain would be appropriate and should include unbiased economic analyses.

Neuropathic pain: quality-of-life impact, costs and cost effectiveness of therapy

A number of different diseases or injuries can damage the central or peripheral nervous system and produce neuropathic pain (NP), which seems to be more difficult to treat than many other types of chronic pain. As a group, patients with NP have greater medical co-morbidity burden than age- and sex-adjusted controls, which makes determining the humanistic and economic burden attributable to NP challenging. Health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) is substantially impaired among patients with NP. Patients describe pain-related interference in multiple HR-QOL and functional domains, as well as reduced ability to work and reduced mobility due to their pain. In addition, the spouses of NP patients have been shown to experience adverse social consequences related to NP. In randomized controlled trials, several medications have been shown to improve various measures of HR-QOL. Changes in HR-QOL appear to be tightly linked to pain relief, but not to the development of adverse effects. However, in cross-sectional studies, many patients continue to have moderate or severe pain and markedly impaired HR-QOL, despite taking medications prescribed for NP. The quality of NP treatment appears to be poor, with few patients receiving recommended medications in efficacious dosages. The substantial costs to society of NP derive from direct medical costs, loss of the ability to work, loss of caregivers' ability to work and possibly greater need for institutionalization or other living assistance. No single study has measured all of these costs to society for chronic NP. The cost effectiveness of various interventions for the treatment or prevention of different types of NP has been assessed in several different studies. The most-studied diseases are post-herpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, for which tricyclic antidepressants (both amitriptyline and desipramine) have been found to be either cost effective or dominant relative to other strategies. Increasing the use of cost-effective therapies such as tricyclic antidepressants for post-herpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy may improve the HR-QOL of patients and decrease societal costs. Head-to-head clinical trials comparing NP therapies are needed to help assess the relative clinical efficacy of treatments, ideally using HR-QOL and utility outcomes. The full costs to society of NP, including productivity loss costs, have not been determined for chronic NP. Improved relative efficacy, utility and cost estimates would facilitate future cost-effectiveness research in NP.