Cost analysis applied to postoperative analgesia regimens: a comparison between parecoxib and propacetamol.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain management represents a significant part of perioperative costs. Non-opioid analgesics are often used in combination with opiates to improve pain relief and reduce opioid-related side effects. OBJECTIVE: To assess the costs and cost efficacy of intravenous (i.v.) parecoxib versus i.v. propacetamol in postoperative pain. METHODS: A prospective, randomised, double-blind, clinical evaluation was performed to compare the efficacy of a single bolus injection of 40 mg parecoxib and 2 g propacetamol, administered twice within 12 h following surgical repair of inguinal hernia. Resources for each arm of treatment were collected, and total costs were determined, including costs of drug acquisition, devices and labour for preparation of the two analgesic drugs. Cost-efficacy analysis was performed as the cost to achieve complete satisfaction with analgesia. Incremental cost efficacy was determined as the ratio between the differential costs and the differential patient satisfaction. The analysis was performed from an institutional perspective over a 12 h time frame. RESULTS: A total of 182 patients was evaluated. Pain at rest and morphine consumption were observed to be reduced in the parecoxib group. The percentages of patients totally satisfied with their pain management 12 h after surgery were 87% in the parecoxib-treated group and 70% in the propacetamol-treated group (P < 0.01). The average cost per patient was higher in the parecoxib group, 6.65 euros vs 5.28 euros in the propacetamol group). Cost per patient satisfied was calculated at a mean value of 7.64 euros for parecoxib and 7.54 euros for propacetamol. Incremental cost per additional patient satisfied was 8.02 euros in the parecoxib-treated group when preparation costs were included. Sensitivity analysis (+/-15%), including a bootstrap method applied to costs and efficacy, did not modify these conclusions. CONCLUSION: Parecoxib exhibits higher cost and greater patient satisfaction than does propacetamol. From a cost-efficacy approach, incremental cost per additional patient satisfied for parecoxib treatment must be analysed in light of overall perioperative pharmaceutical cost.

A randomized, double-blind comparison between parecoxib sodium and propacetamol for parenteral postoperative analgesia after inguinal hernia repair in adult patients.

The newly injectable cyclooxygenase-2 selective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug, parecoxib, has never been compared with propacetamol, a parenteral formulation of acetaminophen. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study, we randomly assigned 182 patients scheduled for initial inguinal hernia repair under general anesthesia to receive a single injection of 40 mg parecoxib or 2 injections of 2 g propacetamol within the first 12 h after surgery. The study variables were morphine consumption, pain at rest and while coughing, and patient satisfaction throughout the first 12 h postoperatively. For statistical analysis, we used the Student's t-test, chi(2), and covariance analysis. Total morphine consumption did not differ between the two groups. Pain was less intense in the parecoxib group at rest (P = 0.035) but did not differ for pain while coughing. The incidence of side effects was similar. Significantly more patients in the parecoxib group rated their pain management as good or excellent (87% versus 70% in the propacetamol group, P = 0.001). Within the first 12 h after inguinal hernia repair in adult patients, a single injection of parecoxib 40 mg compares favorably with 2 injections of propacetamol 2 g.