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

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 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.

The prevalence of retinopathy among type 2 diabetic patients in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Diabetic retinopathy is one of the most major causes of blindness and disability in diabetic patients and imposes very high cost on Health Care System. Studies conducted in the country showed different and inconsistent prevalence of the disease. The study aims to determine the overall prevalence of retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes in Iran through a systematic review and meta-analysis. The present study was conducted via meta-analysis method during March, 2000 to October, 2018. The articles related to the subject under study were obtained from Magiran, SID, Medline (PubMed), Science Direct, Scopus and Google Scholar databases. I2 index was used to examine the heterogeneity of articles studied; and the data was analyzed by Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software. Through the study of 34 articles and 17,079 individuals with age range of 5-83, the overall prevalence of retinopathy for type 2 diabetic patients in Iran and on the basis of meta-analysis, was obtained that was 37.8% (32.84-43%, 95% confidence interval); the highest prevalence of retinopathy for type 2 diabetic patients was in Tehran province with 78% (68.8-85.1%, 95% confidence interval) in 2006 and the lowest prevalence of retinopathy for type 2 diabetic patients was in Isfahan province with 9% (7.1-11.4, 95% confidence interval) in 2006; furthermore, the prevalence of retinopathy for type 2 diabetic patients in Iran increases with increased sample size that it was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Regarding the high prevalence of retinopathy for type 2 diabetic patients in the country, it is essential that health policy makers take effective measures to reduce the disease incidence in diabetic patients.

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.