Cost Burden of Chronic Pain Patients in a Large Integrated Delivery System in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate all-cause healthcare resource utilization and costs among chronic pain patients within an integrated healthcare delivery system in the United States. METHODS: Electronic medical records and health claims data from the Henry Ford Health System were used to determine healthcare resource utilization and costs for patients with 24 chronic pain conditions. Patients were identified by ≥ 2 ICD-9-CM codes ≥ 30 days apart from January to December, 2010; the first ICD-9 code was the index event. Continuous coverage for 12 months pre- and postindex was required. All-cause direct medical costs were determined from billing data. RESULTS: A total of 12,165 patients were identified for the analysis. After pharmacy, the most used resource was outpatient visits, with a mean of 18.8 (SD 13.2) visits per patient for the postindex period; specialty visits accounted for 59.0% of outpatient visits. Imaging was utilized with a mean of 5.2 (SD 5.5) discrete tests per patient, and opioids were the most commonly prescribed medication (38.7%). Annual direct total costs for all conditions were $386 million ($31,692 per patient; a 40% increase from the pre-index). Pharmacy costs comprised 14.3% of total costs, and outpatient visits were the primary cost driver. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain conditions impose a substantial burden on the healthcare system, with musculoskeletal conditions associated with the highest overall costs. Costs appeared to be primarily related to use of outpatient services. This type of research supports integrated delivery systems as a source for assessing opportunities to improve patient outcomes and lower the costs for chronic pain patients.

Prevalence of Chronic Pain in a Large Integrated Healthcare Delivery System in the U.S.A.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of published data on the prevalence of chronic pain conditions within large, integrated healthcare organizations in the U.S.A. Such data are essential to inform the development of appropriate treatment programs. METHODS: Twenty-five selected pain conditions were used to identify patients receiving care within the Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) who were enrolled in the Health Alliance Plan (HAP), a subsidiary of HFHS. Patients aged ≥ 18 years, enrolled in HAP in 2010, and having ≥ 2 encounters, ≥ 30 days apart, with an ICD-9-CM diagnosis code for a pain condition of interest during 2010 were counted. Variables included in the study were as follows: age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and Charlson comorbidity conditions and index score. RESULTS: Altogether, 14,784 persons (11.6% of the total adult population) met the criteria for having a chronic pain condition. Overall, the study population was 64.4% female and had mean age (SD) of 61.2 (15.6) years and mean BMI of 31.4 (7.2) kg/m(2) . Musculoskeletal pain conditions were the most common diagnoses, comprising 75.4% of all pain diagnoses. Diabetes and chronic pulmonary disease were the most common medical comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: In this comprehensive analysis of 2 years of data from a large, vertically integrated metropolitan health system, chronic pain was identified in 12% of adult patients. Approximately 75% of chronic pain conditions were musculoskeletal. The triad of age ≥ 60 years, BMI ≥ 30, and female sex were the most salient demographic characteristics of patients with chronic pain conditions. These diagnostic and demographic data may be used to inform treatment program development.

The Comparative Burden of Chronic Widespread Pain and Fibromyalgia in the United States.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Little information exists on the comparative patient and economic burden of chronic widespread pain (CWP) and fibromyalgia (FM) in the United States. METHODS: This multistage, observational study included an online screening survey of a large geographically diverse US sample to assess CWP status, a physician/site visit to determine FM diagnosis, and an online subject questionnaire to capture clinical characteristics, pain, health status, functioning, sleep, healthcare resource use (HRU), productivity, and costs. Based on the screener and physician evaluation, mutually exclusive groups of subjects without CWP (CWP-), with CWP but without FM (CWP+), and with confirmed FM were identified. RESULTS: Disease burden was examined in 472 subjects (125 CWP-, 176 CWP+, 171 FM). Age, race, and ethnicity were similar across groups. Mean body mass index and number of comorbidities increased from CWP- to CWP+ to FM (P = 0.0044, P < 0.0001, respectively). From CWP- to CWP+ to FM, there were reductions in health status (EQ-5D, SF-12) and sleep outcomes (MOS-SS, SSQ) (all P < 0.05). Pain severity, interference with function (BPI-SF), and overall work impairment (WPAI:SHP) increased from CWP- to CWP+ to FM (all P < 0.0001). Higher proportions of CWP+ (52.8%) and FM subjects (62.6%) were taking pain-related prescription medications relative to CWP- subjects (32.8%; P < 0.0001). Significant differences in total direct and indirect costs across the three groups (both P < 0.0001) were observed, with highest costs among FM subjects. CONCLUSION: Fibromyalgia subjects were characterized by the greatest disease burden with more comorbidities and pain-related medications, poorer health status, function, sleep, lower productivity, and higher costs.

Health-resource use and costs associated with fibromyalgia in France, Germany, and the United States.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic disorder characterized by widespread, persistent pain. Prospective and retrospective studies have demonstrated substantial health-care costs associated with FM in a number of countries. This study evaluated and compared health-resource use (HRU) and associated costs related to FM in routine clinical practice across the US, France, and Germany. METHODS: Two separate, cross-sectional, observational studies of subjects with FM were conducted: one in the US and one in France and Germany. HRU related to prescription medication, physician office visits, diagnostic tests, and hospitalizations was abstracted from chart review; patient out-of-pocket costs and lost productivity were collected via subject self-report. Costs were assigned to HRU based on standard algorithms. Direct and indirect costs were evaluated and compared by simple linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 442 subjects (203 US, 70 France, 169 Germany) with FM were analyzed. The mean (standard deviation) age in the US, France, and Germany was 47.9 (10.9), 51.2 (9.5), and 49.2 (9.8), respectively (P = 0.085). Most subjects were female (95% US, 83% France, 80% Germany) (P < 0.001). Adjusted annual direct costs per subject for FM were significantly higher in the US ($7087) than in France ($481, P < 0.001) or Germany ($2417, P < 0.001). Adjusted mean annual indirect costs per subject for FM were lower in the US ($6431) than in France ($8718) or Germany ($10,001), but represented a significant proportion of total costs in all countries. CONCLUSION: The significant HRU and costs associated with FM in the US, France, and Germany documented in this study highlight the substantial global economic burden of FM. Indirect costs represented a significant proportion of the total costs, particularly in Europe. Comparisons between the three countries show differences in HRU, with significantly higher direct costs in the US compared with France and Germany.

Estimating the economic benefits of positive shifts in fibromyalgia severity: an exploratory analysis based on modeling of clinical trial data of pregabalin.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the annualized differences in direct medical and indirect costs associated with improvement in fibromyalgia (FM) severity among pregabalin-treated patients. METHODS: Data from three clinical trials of pregabalin in patients with FM were modeled; efficacy results were extrapolated. Mean annual costs (direct and indirect) were assigned based on FM severity levels (mild: $10,219; moderate: $26,217; severe: $42,456). FM severity levels were defined using established cut-points on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ). Mean annualized costs at end-point were estimated for all patients within each cohort and the mean differences in costs were compared using a regression model. RESULTS: Relative to placebo, there was a significantly higher proportion of subjects with mild FM at end-point with pregabalin 450 mg and a significantly lower proportion of subjects with severe FM. Mean total costs were lower with pregabalin (300 mg, $25,721; 450 mg, $24,103) than placebo ($26,162). The difference in mean annual costs was $2059 lower for pregabalin 450 mg (p = 0.003) and $441 lower for pregabalin 300 mg (p = 0.52). Mean direct medical costs were higher with pregabalin (300 mg, $4962; 450 mg, $4820) than placebo ($4364). The difference in mean annual direct medical costs was significantly higher for pregabalin 450 mg by $456 (p < 0.0001) and by $599 for pregabalin 300 mg (p < 0.0001). Mean indirect costs for pregabalin (300 mg, $20,783; 450 mg, $19,306) were lower than placebo ($21,735). The difference in mean annual indirect costs for pregabalin 450 mg was lower by $2429 (p < 0.0001); pregabalin 300 mg was lower by $951 (p = 0.12). LIMITATIONS: Use of 13-week end-point data from clinical trials to extrapolate to annual costs and an assumption of continuous therapy over the course of 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in FM severity were associated with overall reductions in cost. Reductions in indirect costs may offset the costs of treatment with pregabalin.

The comparative economic burden of mild, moderate, and severe fibromyalgia: results from a retrospective chart review and cross-sectional survey of working-age U.S. adults.

BACKGROUND: Patients with fibromyalgia report persistent widespread pain, fatigue, and substantial functional limitations, which may lead to high health resource use (HRU) and lost productivity. Previous analyses of the U.S. population have not examined the direct and indirect costs of fibromyalgia by severity level. OBJECTIVES: To assess (a) HRU, direct and indirect costs associated with fibromyalgia in routine clinical practice in the United States using a patient-centric approach, and (b) the relationship of fibromyalgia severity level to HRU and costs. METHODS: This study recruited a nonprobability convenience sample of 203 subjects aged 18 through 65 years between August 2008 and February 2009 from 20 U.S. community-based physician offices. Subjects had a prior diagnosis of fibromyalgia by a rheumatologist, neurologist, or pain specialist; received treatment at the enrolling physician's practice for at least 3 months; experienced widespread pain for at least 3 months; and experienced pain in the previous 24 hours. Subjects completed a 106-item patient questionnaire that included 5 validated health-related quality-of-life instruments and study-specific questions about demographics; clinical history; overall health; treatment satisfaction; and impact of fibromyalgia on cognitive function, daily activities, and employment status. Subjects also self-reported hours of unpaid informal caregiver time because of inability to perform daily activities (e.g., housework, child care), out-of-pocket expenses for medical and nonmedical services, and lost productivity related to fibromyalgia for the previous 4 weeks. The 20-item Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire total score was used to stratify subjects into fibromyalgia severity groups (0 to less than 39 = mild, 39 to less than 59 = moderate, 59 to 100 = severe). Staff at each site recorded clinical characteristics, HRU, and medication use attributable to fibromyalgia on a paper clinical case report form (CRF) based on a 3-month retrospective medical chart review. Unit costs for 2009 were assigned to the 3-month HRU data reported on the CRF and 4-week subject-reported lost productivity. Costs were then annualized and reported in the following categories: direct medical, direct nonmedical, and indirect. Differences across severity levels were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test (continuous measures) and Pearson chi-square or Fisher's exact tests (categorical measures) at the 0.05 alpha level. RESULTS: Of the 203 subjects, 21 (10.3%) had mild, 49 (24.1%) had moderate, and 133 (65.5%) had severe fibromyalgia. For subjects with mild, moderate, and severe fibromyalgia, respectively, the number of fibromyalgia-related medications (3-month means: 1.8, 2.3, and 2.8, P = 0.011) and office visits to health care providers (3-month means: 2.7, 5.2, and 6.9, P < 0.001) significantly differed across severity levels. Across severity levels, total medical and nonmedical out-of-pocket costs also differed (P = 0.025). Mean [median] 3-month total direct costs (including payer costs for HRU and out-of-pocket costs for medical and nonmedical services) were $1,213 [$1,150], $1,415 [$1,215], and $2,329 [$1,760] for subjects with mild, moderate, and severe fibromyalgia, respectively (P = 0.002); and mean [median] 3-month indirect costs (including subject-reported absenteeism, unemployment, disability, and the estimated value of unpaid informal care) were $1,341 [$0], $5,139 [$1,680], and $8,285 [$7,030] (P < 0.001). Mean total indirect costs accounted for 52.5%, 78.4%, and 78.1% of mean total costs for subjects with mild, moderate, and severe fibromyalgia, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Direct and indirect costs related to fibromyalgia are higher among subjects with worse fibromyalgia severity. Indirect costs account for a majority of fibromyalgia-related costs at all fibromyalgia severity levels.

Societal and individual burden of illness among fibromyalgia patients in France: association between disease severity and OMERACT core domains.

BACKGROUND: Patients with fibromyalgia (FM) report widespread pain, fatigue, and other functional limitations. This study aimed to provide an assessment of the burden of illness associated with FM in France and its association with disease severity and core domains as defined by Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) for FM. METHODS: This cross-sectional, observational study recruited patients with a prior diagnosis of FM from 18 community-based physician offices in France. Patients completed questions about FM impact (Fibromyalgia-Impact Questionnaire [FIQ]), core symptoms (defined by OMERACT), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D), current overall health status (rated on a scale from 0 to 100), productivity, treatment satisfaction, and out-of-pocket expenses related to FM. Site staff recorded patients' treatment and health resource use based on medical record review. Costs were extrapolated from 4-week patient-reported data and 3-month clinical case report form data and calculated in 2008 Euros using a societal perspective. Tests of significance used the Kruskal-Wallis test or Fisher's Exact test where P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients (mean 55.2 y; female:male 74:14) were recruited. The majority of patients (84.1%) were prescribed medications for FM. Patients mainly described medications as a little/not at all effective (40.0%) or somewhat effective (52.9%). Current Overall Health rating was 52.9 (± 17.8) and FIQ total score was 54.8 (± 17.3). FIQ total score was used to define FM severity, and 17 patients scored 0- < 39 (mild FM), 33 patients 39- < 59 (moderate FM), and 38 scored 59-100 (severe FM). As FM severity level worsened, patients had poorer overall health status and perceived their prescription medications to be less effective. Average cost/FM patient was higher for severe (€10,087) vs. moderate (€6,633) or mild FM (€5,473); however, the difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: In a sample of 88 patients with FM from France, we found that FM poses a substantial economic and human burden on patients and society. FM severity level was significantly associated with patients' health status and core symptom domains.

The cost-effectiveness of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia: US perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia in a US patient population. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed comparing pregabalin 150 mg twice a day (BID) and pregabalin 225 mg BID to placebo, duloxetine, gabapentin, tramadol, milnacipran, and amitriptyline in patients with severe fibromyalgia (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire score >59; pain score >6.5). The model estimated response rates for all treatments at 12 weeks based on three randomized trials with pregabalin and a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials. Response was categorized as ≥30% improvement in baseline pain score plus global impression of change rating of much improved or very much improved. After 12 weeks of treatment, responders to treatment entered a treatment Markov model in which response was maintained, lost, or treatment discontinued. The cost-effectiveness end-points were cost per responder at 12 weeks and 1 year. Resource use was estimated from published studies and costs were estimated from the societal perspective. RESULTS: Over 12 weeks, total cost per patient was $229 higher with pregabalin 150 mg BID than placebo, whereas pregabalin 225 mg BID was $866 less costly than placebo. At 1 year, pregabalin was cost saving and more effective than placebo, duloxetine, tramadol, milnacipran, and gabapentin. Compared with amitriptyline, pregabalin was not cost-effective at both dosages, although when excluding old and methodologically weak studies of clinical effectiveness of amitriptyline, pregabalin 225 mg BID became cost saving and pregabalin 150 mg BID was cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: Comparisons between pregabalin and other active agents are based on indirect comparisons, not head-to-head trials, and so should be interpreted with caution. Limitations for comparators include an inability to access sub-group data, inconsistency of response definitions, inclusion of older trials, and absence of long-term studies. CONCLUSIONS: This model found pregabalin to be cost-effective in treating patients with severe fibromyalgia.

Clinical characteristics, pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use among patients with fibromyalgia newly prescribed pregabalin or tricyclic antidepressants.

OBJECTIVE: To examine treatment patterns and costs among patients with fibromyalgia prescribed pregabalin or tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). METHODS: Using the LifeLink™ Health Plan Claims Database, patients with fibromyalgia (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 729.1X) newly prescribed (index date) TCAs (n = 898) were identified and propensity score-matched (PSM) with patients newly prescribed pregabalin (n = 898). Pain-related pharmacotherapy, comorbidities, and healthcare resource use/costs were examined during the 12 months, pre-index, and follow-up periods. RESULTS: Both patient groups reported multiple comorbidities and received pain medications in the pre-index and follow-up periods. Among patients prescribed pregabalin, use of non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (43.3% vs 39.8%), other anticonvulsants (28.6% vs 23.3%), and tetracyclic/miscellaneous antidepressants (28.5% vs 25.8%) significantly decreased, and cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors (7.7% vs 10.4%), TCAs (4.8% vs 7.9%), and topical agents (10.8% vs 15.1%) increased in the follow-up period (p < 0.05). Among patients prescribed TCAs, there were significant decreases in muscle relaxants (42.0% vs 38.4%) and sedative hypnotics (27.4% vs 23.9%), and increases in COX-2 inhibitors (5.8% vs 7.9%) and anticonvulsants (25.1% vs 33.7%; p < 0.05). There were increases (p < 0.0001) in pharmacy costs in both cohorts and total healthcare costs in the pregabalin cohort from pre-index to follow-up. Median total costs were higher (p < 0.05) in the pregabalin group vs TCAs in the pre-index ($9935 vs $8771) and follow-up ($10,689 vs $8379) periods. LIMITATIONS: Despite attempts to address bias through PSM, the higher pre-index costs in the pregabalin cohort suggest a channeling of patients with more severe fibromyalgia to pregabalin. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with fibromyalgia prescribed pregabalin or TCAs had multiple comorbidities and a sizeable pain medication burden, which increased in the follow-up period for both cohorts. Only 5% of pregabalin initiators had been treated with concomitant TCAs at baseline, suggesting that TCAs were inappropriate for these patients owing to their contraindications.

Clinical comorbidities, treatment patterns, and healthcare costs among patients with fibromyalgia newly prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine in usual care.

OBJECTIVE: To assess comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use among patients with fibromyalgia (FM) newly prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine (index event) in usual care settings. METHODS: Using the LifeLink™ Health Plan Claims Database, patients with FM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 729.1X) were identified. Patients initiated on duloxetine were propensity score-matched with patients initiated on pregabalin (n = 826; mean age [standard deviation] of 48.3 [9.3] years for both groups). Prevalence of comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use/costs were examined during the 12-month pre-index and follow-up periods. RESULTS: Both patient groups had multiple comorbidities and a substantial pain-related and adjuvant medication burden. In the pregabalin group, use of other anticonvulsants decreased significantly (31.6% vs 24.9%), whereas use of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs; 16.5% vs 22.5%) and topical agents (10.1% vs 13.2%) increased in the follow-up period (p < 0.01). In the duloxetine group, there were significant decreases in the use of other SNRIs (13.0% vs 5.7%), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (41.3% vs 21.7%), and tricyclic antidepressants (18.8% vs 13.2%), and an increase in the use of anticonvulsants (28.6% vs 40.1%; p < 0.0001). There were significant increases (p < 0.0001) in pharmacy and total healthcare costs in both cohorts, and a significant increase in outpatient costs (p = 0.0084) in the duloxetine cohort from pre-index to follow-up. There were no significant differences in median total healthcare costs between the pregabalin and duloxetine groups in both the pre-index ($10,159 vs $9,556) and follow-up ($11,390 vs $11,746) periods. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study are typical of those associated with retrospective database analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with FM prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine were characterized by a significant comorbidity and pain/adjuvant medication burden. Although healthcare costs increased in both groups, there were no statistically significant differences in direct healthcare costs between the two groups.

The comparative burden of mild, moderate and severe fibromyalgia: results from a cross-sectional survey in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia (FM) is characterized by chronic, widespread pain, fatigue, and other symptoms; yet few studies have comprehensively assessed its humanistic burden. This observational study evaluates the impact of FM severity on patients' symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and productivity in the United States. METHODS: 203 FM subjects were recruited from 20 physician offices. Subjects completed a questionnaire including the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D), Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF), Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and questions about demographics, pain and other symptoms, HRQoL and productivity. FIQ total scores were used to define FM severity, with 0- < 39, 39- < 59, and 59-100, representing mild, moderate, and severe FM, respectively. Sites recorded subjects' clinical characteristics and FM treatment on case report forms using medical records. Summary statistics were calculated for continuous variables and frequency distributions for categorical variables. Differences across FM severity groups were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis or Chi-square tests. Statistical significance was evaluated at the 0.05 level. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age was 47.9 (10.9); 95% were female. Most (92%) were prescribed medication for FM; 24% and 66% reported moderate and severe FM, respectively. Mean (SD) scores were: 6.3 (2.1) for pain intensity; 0.35 (0.35) for EQ-5D; 30.7 (14.2) for MAF; 57.5 (18.4) for MOS-SS Sleep Problems Index; 10.2 (4.8) for HADS anxiety and 9.4 (4.4) for HADS depression. Subjects with worse FM severity reported significantly increased pain severity, HRQoL, fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety and depression (p < 0.001). Overall, 50% of subjects reported some disruption in their employment due to FM; this differed across severity levels (p < 0.001). Employed subjects missed a mean (SD) of 1.8 (3.9) workdays during the past 4 weeks; this also differed across severity levels (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: FM imposes a substantial humanistic burden on patients in the United States, and leads to substantial productivity loss, despite treatment. This burden is higher among subjects with worse FM severity.

Clinical characteristics, pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use among patients with diabetic neuropathy newly prescribed pregabalin or gabapentin.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use among patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN) newly prescribed pregabalin or gabapentin in clinical practice. METHODS: Using the LifeLink(™) Health Plan Claims Database, patients with pDPN (ICD-9-CM codes 357.2 or 250.6) newly prescribed (index event) gabapentin (n = 1,178; 56.9 ± 10.3 years old) were identified and propensity score-matched with patients initiated on pregabalin (n = 1,178; 56.4 ± 9.8 years old). Comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use/costs were examined during the 12-month pre-index and follow-up periods. RESULTS: Both cohorts were characterized by multiple comorbidities and substantial use of pain-related and adjunctive medications. In the pregabalin cohort, the use of tricyclic antidepressants significantly decreased (16.0% vs. 13.2%) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (30.8% vs. 34.8%), muscle relaxants (19.2% vs. 22.9%), anticonvulsants (14.4% vs. 18.1%), benzodiazepines (22.3% vs. 25.0%), and topical agents (7.0% vs. 9.8%) increased (P < 0.05) in the follow-up period. In the gabapentin cohort, there were significant increases (P < 0.05) in the use of short-acting (55.4% vs. 61.2%) and long-acting (9.4% to 12.8%) opioids, serotonin-norepinephrine re-uptake inhibitors (14.2% vs. 16.7%), anticonvulsants (7.1% vs. 19.2%), benzodiazepines (19.1% vs. 24.3%), sedative/hypnotics (14.9% vs. 18.0%), and tramadol (13.3% vs. 16.8%). There were significant increases (P < 0.05) in pharmacy, outpatient, and total costs in both cohorts and in costs of physician office visits in the gabapentin cohort. There was no difference in postindex median total costs between the pregabalin and gabapentin cohorts ($16,137 vs. $15,766). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pDPN prescribed pregabalin and gabapentin had a substantial comorbidity and pain medication burden. Although healthcare costs increased in both groups, the increase in pain medication burden was higher in the gabapentin group. Direct medical costs were similar for both groups. Given the human and economic burden of pDPN, future research may benefit from a focus on efficacy parameters to further differentiate treatment options.

Relationships between changes in pain severity and other patient-reported outcomes: an analysis in patients with posttraumatic peripheral neuropathic pain.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to use the pain numeric rating scale (NRS) to evaluate associations between change in pain severity and changes in sleep, function, and mood assessed via patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with posttraumatic pain. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a clinical trial evaluating pregabalin in patients with posttraumatic peripheral neuropathic pain (N = 254). Regression models were used to determine associations between changes in pain (0-10 NRS) as the predictor and scores on the following PRO measures as the outcome: Pain Interference Index; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety and depression subscales; Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep Scale 9-item Sleep Problems Index and Sleep Disturbance subscale; and Daily Sleep Interference Scale (0-10 NRS). RESULTS: Change in pain severity showed clear, direct relationships with changes in function, anxiety, depression, and sleep PROs, all of which were statistically significant (P <.001). Results from subgroup analyses (≥30% or ≥50% pain responders, pregabalin or placebo treatment, age ≤ 51 years or > 51 years) tended to be consistent with results from the overall sample. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a direct relationship exists between pain and various aspects of patient's well-being and functioning, which can provide a quantitative assessment of how improvements in pain may be expected to relate to other patient outcomes. (http://ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier number NCT00292188; EudraCT #2005-003048-78).

Impact of fibromyalgia severity on health economic costs: results from a European cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic disorder characterized by persistent and widespread pain, often accompanied with fatigue, sleep disturbance and other symptoms. FM affects a population mostly of a productive age and is thus associated with significant lost productivity and disability, in addition to healthcare costs for medications and physician office visits. While other studies have examined FM costs in Europe, few, if any, have examined cost by FM severity level. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine health resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with FM in routine clinical practice in France and Germany across disease severity levels. METHODS: A total of 299 patients with FM, previously diagnosed by a rheumatologist, were recruited from physician offices in France and Germany during routine visits. Subjects completed questions about their pain, health-related quality of life, treatment satisfaction, productivity and FM-related out-of-pocket expenses; site staff recorded clinical, treatment and HRU information for the previous 3 months based on a review of medical records. FM severity was defined using subjects' Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) total scores. Annual costs from a societal perspective were calculated in €, year 2008 values, and included direct costs (e.g. physician office visits, medications, out-of-pocket expenses) and indirect costs (e.g. missed days of work and lost productivity). The mean annual costs were calculated based on 3-month data. RESULTS: Subjects were reported to have a mean (SD) of 2.9 (1.9) physician office visits in France and 4.9 (3.2) visits in Germany over the past 3 months, corresponding to an average of 11.6 and 19.6 visits a year, respectively. A total of 91% of subjects were receiving prescription medication for their FM. French subjects reported a lower use of anti-inflammatories (39% of subjects) and a higher use of other analgesics (59% of subjects) than German subjects (67% and 34%, respectively). Subjects in full- or part-time employment reported missing a mean (SD) of 2.7 (6.0) days of work due to FM in France and 2.1 (3.8) days in Germany over the last 4 weeks (corresponding to 32.4 and 25.2 days of work missed due to FM per year in France and Germany, respectively). In France, total costs were €7900 (direct €910, indirect €6990). In Germany, total costs were €7256 (direct €1765, indirect €5491). A trend of higher total costs was seen as FM severity increased; however, the results were significant (p = 0.003) only for Germany. CONCLUSIONS: FM imposes a significant economic burden on society. Consistent with other studies, FM subjects were found to have substantial costs, over 75% of which were driven by indirect costs from lost productivity. These costs increased as FM severity increased, resulting in a more than 200% difference in cost between mild and severe FM. Overall FM costs were similar between France and Germany; although lost productivity accounted for a higher proportion of costs in France.

Treatment patterns among physician specialties in the management of fibromyalgia: results of a cross-sectional study in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia (FM) is characterized by persistent and widespread pain and often associated with other symptoms and comorbidities. Thus, FM patients seek care from multiple physician specialties. This study compared prescribing patterns, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), healthcare resource use (HRU), and direct costs related to FM in routine clinical practice across physician specialties. METHODS: This cross-sectional, observational study recruited 203 FM subjects from 20 community-based physician offices (eight primary care, six rheumatology, three neurology, three psychiatry). Subjects completed questions about pain, other symptoms, quality of life, productivity, treatment effectiveness and satisfaction, and out-of-pocket expenses related to FM; site staff recorded subjects' treatment and HRU based on medical chart review. Results were compared across specialties. Statistical significance was evaluated at the 0.05 level. Annual direct costs associated with FM were calculated in 2009 US dollars. RESULTS: Subject demographic and clinical characteristics were not significantly different across physician specialties, except psychiatry subjects had the highest mean number of co-morbid conditions; p < 0.001. PROs were similar across physician specialties except fatigue; neurology subjects reported the highest levels. There were no significant differences in subject-reported outcomes of medication effectiveness (p = 0.782) and medication satisfaction (p = 0.338) for FM. Psychiatry subjects had more FM-related physician visits compared to other specialties (p = 0.013) and a higher proportion received diagnostic tests related to FM (p = 0.013). The mean (SD) number of FM prescription medications prescribed per subject was highest in the primary care and lowest in the neurology group; p = 0.024. The proportion of hypnotic (p = 0.001), muscle relaxant (p = 0.005), anxiolytic (p = 0.005), anti-epileptic (p = 0.007), and other medications (p = 0.044) prescribed for FM were significantly different across specialties. Overall direct medical costs did not differ significantly (p = 0.284) across specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Patient characteristics were similar across specialties, except with regards to comorbidity burden. This study noted significant differences among physician specialties in HRU and treatment patterns among medications, diagnostics, and outpatient visits. Consistent with other studies, this study did not identify a dominant strategy for FM management across physician specialties as overall per patient medical costs and subject-reported treatment satisfaction were similar. Future research to better characterize differences among physician specialties in FM management, as well as the reasons for these differences, would be useful.

Correlations between fibromyalgia symptom and function domains and patient global impression of change: a pooled analysis of three randomized, placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to conduct an analysis of pooled data from pregabalin fibromyalgia clinical trials to determine which fibromyalgia symptom and function domains drive patient perception of improvement. DESIGN: Data from three double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin in fibromyalgia patients were pooled for this analysis. Changes in independent variables, including the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep Scale, sleep quality score from the daily sleep diary, pain score from the daily pain diary, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, and Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue were analyzed as predictors of outcome on the dependent variable, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Correlation analysis assessed relationships between the independent variables and PGIC. Cluster analysis identified dependencies among variables, and a shrinkage and selection method and stepwise logistic regression determined rank order of variables. RESULTS: Improvement in PGIC at endpoint showed highest correlation with pain improvement, fatigue, sleep, and work and physical function (0.4 < r < 0.6). Cluster analysis identified three main clusters of symptoms at endpoint: mood (anxiety and depression), pain and sleep, and function and fatigue. Pain was ranked as the most important outcome explaining variability in PGIC, followed by fatigue and sleep. CONCLUSIONS: Pain, fatigue, and sleep associate most strongly with improvement in PGIC. Physical- and work-related function also correlated with patients' overall assessment of improvement. These domains and their respective outcome measures can be used to improve assessment of patients' response to treatment.

Applying area-under-the-curve analysis to enhance interpretation of response profiles: an application to sleep quality scores in patients with fibromyalgia.

PURPOSE: To introduce an application of area-under-the-curve (AUC) that can enrich interpretation of response analysis and illustrate this method on sleep quality scores in patients with fibromyalgia. METHODS: Data were from a 14-week, randomized trial conducted in 750 patients with fibromyalgia treated with placebo or pregabalin (300, 450, or 600 mg/day); sleep quality was assessed daily by the patient using an 11-point numeric rating scale. RESULTS: Response profiles were implemented for responders who improved (or stayed the same) numerically in sleep quality scores from baseline to week 14 and, separately, for non-responders who worsened (numerically less favorable scores at week 14). Differences between pregabalin and placebo were assessed using an AUC analysis. Improvement in sleep quality was significantly better with pregabalin and can be interpreted as if pregabalin responders improved by 10.8% (300 mg), 14.7% (450 mg), and 19.0% (600 mg) above the placebo responders. Conversely, decrement in sleep quality was worse with placebo and can be interpreted as if placebo non-responders worsened by 3.6% (300 mg), 2.9% (450 mg), and 3.9% (600 mg) over pregabalin non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: The application of an AUC analysis to response profiles for responders and non-responders can enrich the interpretation of sleep quality scores in patients with fibromyalgia. The method can be applied more generally to facilitate and enhance the interpretation of treatment differences on outcomes.

Simplifying Fibromyalgia Assessment: The VASFIQ Brief Symptom Scale.

OBJECTIVES: We tested the ability of the VASFIQ, a seven-item scale composed of Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) visual analog scales (VASs), to quantify fibromyalgia global disease severity and identify fibromyalgia patients with significant symptoms of fatigue, poor sleep, depression or anxiety. METHODS: Spearman rank correlations were used to compare global VASFIQ, FIQ and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores and individual FIQ VAS scores with full-length, validated questionnaire scores for fatigue (Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue-Global Fatigue Index [MAF-GFI]), poor sleep (Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Problems Index [SPI]) and depression and anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]). Patient scores used in the analyses were derived from 2229 patients enrolled in three pregabalin fibromyalgia trials. Receiver operating characteristic analyses determined VASFIQ cutoff scores identifying patients with clinically significant symptom levels using full-length, validated symptom questionnaires to define cases. RESULTS: Global VASFIQ and FIQ scores correlated highly at baseline and study endpoints (ρ = 0.94 and 0.97, respectively; both p<0.0001). Change in global VASFIQ and FIQ scores correlated similarly to PGIC scores at study endpoints (ρ = 0.58 and 0.61, respectively; both p<0.0001). Individual FIQ VAS scores correlated with corresponding full-length symptom questionnaire scores at baseline and study endpoints (VASfatigue with MAF-GFI, ρ = 0.64 and 0.76; VASsleep with SPI, ρ = 0.50 and 0.67; VASdepression with HADS-D, ρ = 0.43 and 0.62; VASanxiety with HADS-A, ρ = 0.47 and 0.67, respectively; p <0.0001 for all). Patients with significant symptoms of fatigue were identified by VASfatigue >7.5, poor sleep by VASsleep >7.9, depression by VASdepression >5.8 and anxiety by VASanxiety >6.0. VASFIQ global scores ≥31.4 and ≥45.0 identified patients with moderate and severe global fibromyalgia symptoms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The VASFIQ scale accurately quantifies global fibromyalgia severity and identifies patients with significant symptoms of fatigue, poor sleep, depression or anxiety with brevity, enabling rapid patient assessment and informing treatment decisions in busy clinics.

Retrospective evaluation of clinical characteristics, pharmacotherapy and healthcare resource use among patients prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine for diabetic peripheral neuropathy in usual care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment patterns and costs among patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN) newly prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine in usual care settings. METHODS: Using the PharMetrics® Database, patients with pDPN (ICD-9-CM codes 357.2 or 250.6x) newly prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine were identified. Patients initiated on duloxetine (n=713; mean age 55.4 ± 9.5 years) were propensity score-matched with patients initiated on pregabalin (n=713; mean age 56.3 ± 9.3 years). Prevalence of comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy and healthcare resource use/costs (pharmacy, outpatient, inpatient, total) were examined during the 12 months preceding (pre-index) and following (follow-up) the date of the first pregabalin or duloxetine prescription. RESULTS: Both cohorts had multiple comorbidities and a substantial pain medication burden. Among pregabalin patients, use of other anticonvulsants (35.6% vs. 24.7%) and tricyclic antidepressants significantly decreased (18.2% vs. 13.7%) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) increased (7.9 % vs. 12.9%) in the follow-up period; all P values <0.05. Among duloxetine patients, use of other SNRIs (8.7% vs. 5.2%) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors decreased significantly (32.1% vs. 18.9%) in the follow-up period, but there were increases for anticonvulsants (42.1% vs. 48.4%), benzodiazepines (25.5% vs. 32%), and sedative/hypnotics (22.6% vs. 25.8%); all P values <0.05. Among pregabalin and duloxetine patients there were increases (P<0.05) in pharmacy, outpatient, and total healthcare costs from the pre-index to the follow-up period. Total medication costs in the follow-up period were significantly higher for duloxetine (median $6,763 [IQR $3,970-$10,914]) relative to pregabalin (median $6,059 [IQR $3,277-$9,865]); P=0.0017. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pDPN prescribed pregabalin and duloxetine were characterized by a substantial comorbidity and pain medication burden. Although there were no differences in total healthcare costs, medication costs were significantly higher in the duloxetine cohort relative to the pregabalin cohort.

Further qualification of a therapeutic responder index for patients with chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: Previously, a preliminary patient responder index (RI) in chronic low back pain (CLBP) was developed and validated in 5 placebo-controlled clinical trials. The resulting RI was a > 30% improvement in CLBP and patient global assessment (PGA), and no worsening (< 20%) in the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) total score. Our objective was to provide further characterization of the preliminary RI in a trial with an active control. METHODS: Data from a 6-week randomized, double-blind study of celecoxib compared to tramadol hydrochloride was analyzed to determine differences by treatment group on the CLBP RI and its components, to compare the CLBP RI with each of its individual components, and to reanalyze the original cutoff points for the responder criteria. RESULTS: Of the celecoxib arm, 50.7%, and of the tramadol hydrochloride arm, 43.7% were classified as responders under the CLBP RI (p = 0.043). The PGA is the most important component in the RI (45% of the sample failed to reach the > 30% improvement criteria on the PGA compared to 34% on the low back pain visual analog scale and only 11% on the RMDQ. The agreement among the CLBP RI with each of its 3 components was largest for the PGA component (κ coefficient 0.849) and smallest for the RMDQ component (κ coefficient 0.207). CONCLUSION: The RI appears to be particularly sensitive to the cutoff point used for improvement in the PGA component. Further testing of the index in trials with other active comparators is required to gain a fuller understanding of its performance.