Exceptional Prices of Medical and Other Supplies during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Ecuador.

Shortages of essential supplies used to prevent, diagnose, and treat COVID-19 have been a global concern, and price speculation and hikes may have negatively influenced access. This study identifies variability in prices of products acquired through government-driven contracts in Ecuador during the early pandemic response, when the highest mortality rates were registered in a single day. Data were obtained from the National Public Procurement Service (SERCOP) database between March 1 and July 31, 2020. A statistical descriptive analysis was conducted to extract relevant measures for commonly purchased products, medical devices, pharmaceutical drugs, and other goods. Among the most frequently purchased products, the greatest amounts were spent on face masks (US$4.5 million), acetaminophen (US$2.2 million), and reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay kits (US$1.8 million). Prices varied greatly, depending on each individual contract and on the number of units purchased; some were exceptionally higher than their market value. Compared with 2019, the mean price of medical examination gloves increased up to 1,307%, acetaminophen 500 mg pills, up to 796%, and oxygen flasks, 30.8%. In a context of budgetary constraints that actually required an effective use of available funds, speculative price hikes may have limited patient access to health care and the protection of the general population and health care workers. COVID-19 vaccine allocations to privileged individuals have also been widely reported. Price caps and other forms of regulation, as well as greater scrutiny and transparency of government-driven purchases, and investment in local production, are warranted in Ecuador for improved infectious disease prevention.

A systematic review and trial sequential analysis of intravenous vs. oral peri-operative paracetamol.

Postoperative pain might be different after intravenous vs. oral paracetamol. We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials in patients >15 years that compared intravenous with oral paracetamol for postoperative pain. We identified 14 trials with 1695 participants. There was inconclusive evidence for an effect of route of paracetamol administration on postoperative pain at 0-2 h (734 participants), 2-6 h (766 participants), 6-24 h (1115 participants) and >24 h (248 participants), with differences in standardised mean (95%CI) pain scores for intravenous vs. oral of -0.17 (-0.45 to 0.10), -0.09 (-0.24 to 0.06), 0.06 (-0.12 to 0.23) and 0.03 (-0.22 to 0.28), respectively. Trial sequential analyses suggested that a total of 3948 participants would be needed to demonstrate a meaningful difference in pain or its absence at 0-2 h. There were no differences in secondary outcomes. Intravenous paracetamol is more expensive than oral paracetamol. Substitution of oral paracetamol in half the patients given intravenous paracetamol in our hospital would save around £ 38,711 (€ 43,960 or US$ 47,498) per annum.

Cost-effectiveness of 12 weeks of supervised treatment compared to written advice in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a secondary analysis of the 2-year outcome from a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the 24-month cost-effectiveness of supervised treatment compared to written advice in knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: 100 adults with moderate-severe OA not eligible for total knee replacement (TKR) randomized to a 12-week individualized, supervised treatment (exercise, education, diet, insoles and pain medication) or written advice. Effectiveness was measured as change in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from baseline to 24 months, including data from baseline, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months, while healthcare costs and transfer payments were derived from national registries after final follow-up. Incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis resampling existing data was conducted and the probability of cost-effectiveness was estimated using a 22,665 Euros/QALY threshold. In a sensitivity analysis, cost-effectiveness was calculated for different costs of the supervised treatment (actual cost in study; cost in private practice; and in-between cost). RESULTS: Average costs were similar between groups (6,758 Euros vs 6,880 Euros), while the supervised treatment were close to being more effective (incremental effect (95% CI) of 0.075 (-0.005 to 0.156). In the primary analysis excluding deaths, this led the supervised treatment to be cost-effective, compared to written advice. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were sensitive to changes in the cost of treatment, but in all scenarios the supervised treatment was cost-effective (ICERs of 6,229 to 20,688 Euros/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: From a 24-month perspective, a 12-week individualized, supervised treatment program is cost-effective compared to written advice in patients with moderate-severe knee OA not eligible for TKR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01535001.

The Headache Pipeline: Excitement and Uncertainty.

There are many new treatment options available for migraine and more are coming. Three calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist monoclonal antibodies have been approved and a 4th is due in early 2020. Small molecule CGRP receptor-blocking oral compounds, both for acute care and prevention, are also coming. Four neurostimulators are available, with others on the way. New acute treatments coming soon include the 5HT1F agonist lasmiditan, a zolmitriptan intradermal micro-needle patch, and a nasal mist sumatriptan with a permeability enhancer. Farther out, three novel dihydroergotamine delivery systems, and a liquid-filled capsule of celecoxib show early promise. A new, safer form of methysergide is in the works, as is a longer-duration onabotulinumtoxinA. As always with new products, questions regarding safety, tolerability, cost, and insurance coverage will need to be addressed. Despite these concerns and uncertainties, a robust headache treatment pipeline is good for patients who are not satisfied with the results of their treatment and/or cannot tolerate existing treatments.

Trend and Economic Burden of Intravenous Narcotic Analgesic Utilization in Major Vascular Interventions in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The use of IV narcotic analgesics (IVNA) within the context of vascular procedures is not fully described. We sought to evaluate the burden of IVNA including narcotic analgesia-related adverse drug events (NARADE), associated mortality and hospitalization cost in open and endovascular vascular procedures, and to compare it with nonnarcotic analgesia (IVNNA). METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study in hospitals participating in Premier database (2009-2015). Logistic regression analysis was implemented to report the risks of NARADE and in-hospital mortality. Negative binomial regression was used to assess length of stay and generalized linear modeling was used to estimate the hospitalization cost. RESULTS: A total of 171,473 patients were identified. NARADE occurred in 6.2% of the cohort. NARADE group was similar in gender and race but was slightly older (median age 71 vs. 70; P < 0.001). After risk-adjustment, NARADE risk was higher in patients who received IVNA-alone in carotid and lower extremity revascularization (LER) [OR (odds ratio) (95% confidence interval [CI]): 1.17 (1.02-1.34) and 1.31 (1.14-1.50)] or combined with IVNNA [OR (95% CI): 1.34 (1.13-1.59) and 1.81 (1.54-2.13)], respectively. Patients receiving aortic repair benefited from the use of IVNA + IVNNA [OR (95% CI): 0.82 (0.69-0.98)]. Occurrence of NARADE doubled the LOS, amplified mortality risk and increased cost in all domains. NARADE increased the odds of mortality by 24.3, 6.5 (4.9-8.68) and 16.6 times and added $5,368, $12,737 and $11,349 to the cost of carotid, aortic and LER interventions, respectively. In contrast, IVNNA was not associated with NARADE risk, increased LOS or cost and showed a survival benefit in patients undergoing open aortic repair [aOR (95% CI): 0.52 (0.36-0.75)]. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The use of opioid-based narcotics had increased the risk of NARADE, resources utilization and NARADE-related mortality. Yet the use of nonopioid-based analgesic was safe, did not increase the cost and reduced mortality in open AA repair. This entices shifting the paradigm toward exploring nonopioid-based analgesia options in order to replace or minimize opioid requirements.

A cluster randomized trial to measure the impact on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and proton pump inhibitor prescribing in Italy of distributing cost-free paracetamol to osteoarthritic patients.

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol is recommended as first-line treatment for pain control in osteoarthritis because it has fewer side effects than do other therapeutic options, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Prescribing proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) as gastric bleeding prophylaxis in chronic NSAID users is also common, although not recommended. In Italy, paracetamol is not reimbursed by the National Health System. The aim of this trial was to test whether the availability to osteoarthritis patients of free paracetamol would decrease their use of NSAIDs and, as a secondary objective, whether opioid and PPI consumption would also decrease. METHODS: Eight general practitioners (GPs) (59 patients) were randomized to usual care and 8 (58 patients) to the experimental arm, where prescribed paracetamol was directly distributed for free by the local hospital. After 6 months, paracetamol was also available for free in the control arm. The main outcome was the pre/post difference in average NSAID and PPI consumption. Differences between experimental and control arms in pre/post differences are reported, as registered by the drug prescription information system. RESULTS: Average NSAID consumption decreased non-significantly, from 6.79 to 2.16 defined daily dose (DDD) in the experimental arm and from 3.19 to 2.97 DDD in the control group (p = 0.067). No changes were observed for PPIs (from 11.27 to 14.65 DDD and from 9.74 to 12.58 DDD in experimental and control arms, respectively, p = 0.788) or opioids (from 1.61 to 1.14 DDD and from 1.41 to 1.56 DDD in experimental and control arms, respectively, p = 0.419). When the intervention was extended to the control arm, no decrease in NSAID consumption was observed (from 2.46 to 2.43 DDD, p = 0.521). CONCLUSIONS: Removing small economic barriers had small or no effect on the appropriateness of opioid or PPI prescribing to patients with osteoarthritis; a reduction in NSAID consumption cannot be ruled out. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02691754 (Approved February 24, 2016).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the pharmacological management of chronic low back pain with four leading drugs.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is a major health problem that has a substantial effect on people's quality of life and places a significant economic burden on healthcare systems. However, there has been little cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatments for it. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the pharmacological management of chronic low back pain. METHODS: A total of 474 patients received pharmacological management for chronic low back pain using four leading drugs for 6 months at 28 institutions in Japan. Outcome measures, including EQ-5D, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, the JOA back pain evaluation questionnaire (BPEQ), the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Medical Outcomes Study SF-8, and the visual analog scale, were investigated at baseline and every one month thereafter. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was calculated as drug cost over the quality-adjusted life years. An economic estimation was performed from the perspective of a public healthcare payer in Japan. Stratified analysis based on patient characteristics was also performed to explore the characteristics that affect cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The ICUR of pharmacological management for chronic low back pain was JPY 453,756. Stratified analysis based on patient characteristics suggested that the pharmacological treatments for patients with a history of spine surgery or cancer, low frequency of exercise, long disease period, low scores in lumbar spine dysfunction and gait disturbance of the JOA BPEQ, and low JOA score at baseline were not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacological management for chronic low back pain is cost-effective from the reference willingness to pay. Further optimization based on patient characteristics is expected to contribute to the sustainable development of a universal insurance system in Japan.

The cost-effectiveness of oral contraceptives compared to 'no hormonal treatment' for endometriosis-related pain: An economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a preliminary cost-effectiveness model that compares oral contraceptives and 'no hormonal treatment' for the treatment of endometriosis-related pain. METHODS: A de novo preliminary state transition (Markov) model was developed. The model was informed by systematic literature review and expert opinion. The uncertainty around the results was assessed both by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The economic evaluation was conducted from National Health Service (NHS) England perspective. The main outcome measure was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), with cost-effectiveness plane and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves presented for alternative willingness-to-pay thresholds. RESULTS: Oral contraceptives dominated 'no hormonal treatment' and provided more QALYs at a lower cost than 'no hormonal treatment', with a cost-effectiveness probability of 98%. A one-way sensitivity analysis excluding general practitioner consultations showed that oral contraceptives were still cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses showed that oral contraceptives could be an effective option for the treatment of endometriosis, as this treatment was shown to provide a higher level of QALYs at a lower cost, compared to 'no hormonal treatment'. The results are subject to considerable parameter uncertainty as a range of assumptions were required as part of the modelling process.

Implementation of an Evidence-Based Practice Change to Offer Nitrous Oxide During Labor.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this evidence-based practice change was to implement use of nitrous oxide as a pain management option during labor and to examine women's satisfaction with that option. DESIGN: Evidence-based practice change guided by the model for evidence-based practice change. SETTING: Labor and delivery unit in a tertiary medical center in the southwestern United States. PARTICIPANTS: Laboring women who met eligibility criteria were offered the option of nitrous oxide during a 2-month period. MEASUREMENTS: Process indicators to measure compliance with the practice change among staff, uptake of nitrous oxide among women, and women's satisfaction with the choice to use nitrous oxide. RESULTS: Nitrous oxide was offered to 26% (n = 55) of eligible women. Most of the 55 women who used nitrous oxide during the implementation period reported satisfaction with it and indicated that they would consider nitrous oxide for a future labor. CONCLUSION: Our experience implementing a practice change to offer nitrous oxide to laboring women indicated that use of nitrous oxide was feasible in this setting and that women were receptive to this option, were satisfied with its use, and would use nitrous oxide for a future labor.

Administration of Oral Acetaminophen to Reduce Costs for the Hysterectomy Patient at a Community Hospital.

PURPOSE: This quality improvement project aimed to change the practice of administration route of acetaminophen from intravenous (IV) to oral to patients having a hysterectomy at a community hospital, reduce costs, and maintain postanesthesia care unit pain scores for patients who receive oral acetaminophen comparable to those who receive IV acetaminophen. DESIGN: There were 46 participants: 23 in the preintervention group and 23 in the postintervention group. METHODS: Data retrieved from the electronic medical record included the route of acetaminophen administered, cost, and pain scores. FINDINGS: Implementation of this quality improvement project resulted in no difference in the pain scores between the preintervention and postintervention groups (P = .637). In addition, the hospital cost for acetaminophen decreased 95.25% and patients saved $6,683 during the 3-month implementation period. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of oral acetaminophen provided equivalent postoperative analgesia compared with IV acetaminophen and reduced costs for both the hospital and patients.

Liposomal bupivacaine mixture has similar pain relief and significantly fewer complications at less cost compared with indwelling interscalene catheter in total elbow arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain control, short-term and long-term narcotic consumption, complication rates, and costs of indwelling interscalene catheter (ISC) were compared with a liposomal bupivacaine (LBC) mixture in patients undergoing primary total elbow arthroplasty. METHODS: Forty-four consecutive patients were identified, the first 28 with an ISC and the later 16 with intraoperative LBC injection that also included ketorolac and 0.5% bupivacaine. Medical records were reviewed for visual analog scale scores for pain, oral morphine equivalent (OME) use, complications, and facility charges. RESULTS: Average visual analog scale scores at 24 hours, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks were not significantly different. Mean OME use was significantly greater in the LBC group at 24 hours but less at 12 weeks, although this difference was not statistically significant. Twelve anesthetic-related complications occurred in the ISC group (1 major and 11 minor); 10 patients (36%) had at least 1 complication. The major complication was respiratory failure requiring emergent tracheostomy. Minor complications included leaking pump/catheters, catheters inadvertently pulled out early, global hand paresthesias, forearm paresthesias, and pain at the catheter site. There were no anesthetic-related complications in the LBC group. The average charge for the LBC mixture was $327.10; charges for ISC, including equipment and anesthesia fees, were $1472.42. CONCLUSIONS: An LBC mixture provides similar pain relief with fewer complications at a lower cost than indwelling ISC after total elbow arthroplasty. Although the OME use in the LBC group was almost double that of the ISC group at 24 hours, there was no difference at later time points.

Reduced length of stay and hospitalization costs among inpatient hysterectomy patients with postoperative pain management including IV versus oral acetaminophen.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of hysterectomy patients who received standard pain management including IV acetaminophen (IV APAP) versus oral APAP. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the Premier Database (January 2012 to September 2015) comparing hysterectomy patients who received postoperative pain management including IV APAP to those who received oral APAP starting on the day of surgery and continuing up to the third post-operative day, with no exclusions based on additional pain management. We compared the groups on length of stay (LOS), hospitalization costs, and average daily morphine equivalent dose (MED). The quarterly rate of IV APAP use for all hospitalizations by hospital was used as an instrumental variable in two-stage least squares regressions also adjusting for patient demographics, clinical risk factors, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 22,828 hysterectomy patients including 14,811 (65%) who had received IV APAP. Study subjects averaged 50 and 52 years of age, respectively in the IV APAP and oral APAP cohorts and were predominantly non-Hispanic Caucasians (≥60% in both cohorts). Instrumental variable models found IV APAP associated with 0.8 days shorter hospitalization (95% CI: -0.92 to -0.68, p<0.0001) and $2,449 lower hospitalization costs (95% CI: -$2,902 to -$1,996, p<0.0001). Average daily MED trended lower without statistical significance (-1.41 mg, 95% CI: -3.43 mg to 0.61 mg, p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to oral APAP, managing post-hysterectomy pain with IV APAP is associated with shorter LOS and lower total hospitalization costs.

Intravenous Acetaminophen Does Not Reduce Inpatient Opioid Prescription or Opioid-Related Adverse Events Among Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Having entered the US market relatively recently, the perioperative role of intravenous acetaminophen (ivAPAP) remains to be established for several surgeries. Using national data, we therefore assessed current utilization and whether it reduces inpatient opioid prescription and opioid-related side effects in a procedure with relatively high opioid utilization. METHODS: Patients undergoing a lumbar/lumbosacral spinal fusion (n = 117,269; 2011-2014) were retrospectively identified in a nationwide database and categorized by the amount and timing of ivAPAP administration (1 or >1 dose on postoperative day [POD] 0, 1, or 1+). Multivariable models measured associations between ivAPAP utilization categories and opioid prescription and perioperative complications; odds ratios (or % change) and 95% confidence intervals are reported. RESULTS: Overall, ivAPAP was used in 18.9% (n = 22,208) of cases of which 1 dose on POD 0 was the most common (73.6%; n = 16,335). After covariate adjustment, use of ivAPAP on POD 0 and 1 was associated with minimal changes in opioid prescription, length and cost of hospitalization particularly favoring >1 ivAPAP dose with a modestly (-5.2%, confidence interval, -7.2% to -3.1%; P < .0001) decreased length of stay. Use of ivAPAP did not coincide with a consistent pattern of significantly reduced odds for complications. In comparison, the most commonly used nonopioid analgesic, pregabalin/gabapentin, did demonstrate reduced opioid prescription combined with lower complication risk. CONCLUSIONS: We could not show that perioperative ivAPAP reduces inpatient opioid prescription with subsequent reduced odds for adverse outcomes. It remains to be determined if and under what circumstances ivAPAP has a meaningful clinical role in everyday practice.

Controlling postoperative use of i.v. acetaminophen at an academic medical center.

PURPOSE: Results of an interprofessional formulary initiative to decrease postoperative prescribing of i.v. acetaminophen are reported. SUMMARY: After a medical center added i.v. acetaminophen to its formulary, increased prescribing of the i.v. formulation and a 3-fold price increase resulted in monthly spending of more than $40,000, prompting an organizationwide effort to curtail that cost while maintaining effective pain management. The surgery, anesthesia, and pharmacy departments applied the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Model for Improvement to implement (1) pharmacist-led enforcement of prescribing restrictions, (2) retrospective evaluation of i.v. acetaminophen's impact on rates of opioid-related adverse effects, (3) restriction of prescribing of the drug to 1 postoperative dose on select patient care services, and (4) guideline-driven pain management according to an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. Monitored metrics included the monthly i.v. acetaminophen prescribing rate, the proportion of i.v. acetaminophen orders requiring pharmacist intervention to enforce prescribing restrictions, and prescribing rates for select adjunctive analgesics. Within a year of project implementation, the mean monthly i.v. acetaminophen prescribing rate decreased by 83% from baseline to about 6 doses per 100 patient-days, with a decline in the monthly drug cost to about $4,000. Documented pharmacist interventions increased 2.7-fold, and use of oral acetaminophen, ketorolac, and gabapentin in ERAS areas increased by 18% overall. CONCLUSION: An interprofessional initiative at a large medical center reduced postoperative use of i.v. acetaminophen by more than 80% and yielded over $400,000 in annual cost savings.

Cost-effectiveness of intravenous acetaminophen and ketorolac in adolescents undergoing idiopathic scoliosis surgery.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols increasingly use multimodal analgesia after major surgeries with intravenous acetaminophen and ketorolac, despite no documented cost-effectiveness of these strategies. AIMS: The goal of this prospective cohort study was to model cost-effectiveness of adding acetaminophen or acetaminophen + ketorolac to opioids for postoperative outcomes in children having scoliosis surgery. METHODS: Of 106 postsurgical children, 36 received only opioids, 26 received intravenous acetaminophen, and 44 received acetaminophen + ketorolac as analgesia adjuncts. Costs were calculated in 2015 US $. Decision analytic model was constructed with Decision Maker® software. Base-case and sensitivity analyses were performed with effectiveness defined as avoidance of opioid adverse effects. RESULTS: The groups were comparable demographically. Compared with opioids-only strategy, subjects in the intravenous acetaminophen + ketorolac strategy consumed less opioids (P = .002; difference in mean morphine consumption on postoperative days 1 and 2 was -0.44 mg/kg (95% CI -0.72 to -0.16); tolerated meals earlier (P < .001; RR 0.250 (0.112-0.556)) and had less constipation (P < .001; RR 0.226 (0.094-0.546)). Base-case analysis showed that of the 3 strategies, use of opioids alone is both most costly and least effective, opioids + intravenous acetaminophen is intermediate in both cost and effectiveness; and opioids + intravenous acetaminophen and ketorolac is the least expensive and most effective strategy. The addition of intravenous acetaminophen with or without ketorolac to an opioid-only strategy saves $510-$947 per patient undergoing spine surgery and decreases opioid side effects. CONCLUSION: Intravenous acetaminophen with or without ketorolac reduced opioid consumption, opioid-related adverse effects, length of stay, and thereby cost of care following idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents compared with opioids-alone postoperative analgesia strategy.

Hospitalization costs and resource allocation in cholecystectomy with use of intravenous versus oral acetaminophen.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (APAP) vs oral APAP use as adjunctive analgesics in cholecystectomy patients by comparing associated hospital length of stay (LOS), hospital costs, opioid use, and rates of nausea/vomiting, respiratory depression, and bowel obstruction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the Premier Database (January 2012 to September 2015) including cholecystectomy patients who received either IV APAP or oral APAP. Differences in LOS, hospitalization costs, mean daily morphine equivalent dose (MED), and potential opioid-related adverse events were estimated. Multivariable logistic regression was performed for the binary outcomes and instrumental variable regressions, using the quarterly rate of IV APAP use for all hospitalizations by hospital as the instrument in two-stage least squares regressions for continuous outcomes. Models were adjusted for patient demographics, clinical risk factors, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Among 61,017 cholecystectomy patients, 31,133 (51%) received IV APAP. Subjects averaged 51 and 57 years of age, respectively, in the IV and oral APAP cohorts. In the adjusted models, IV APAP was associated with 0.42 days shorter LOS (95% CI = -0.58 to -0.27; p < .0001), $1,045 lower hospitalization costs (95% CI = -$1,521 to -$569; p < .0001), 2 mg lower average daily MED (95% CI = -3 mg to -0.9 mg; p = .0005), and lower rates of respiratory depression (odds ratio [OR] = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.82-0.97; p = .006), and nausea and vomiting (OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.86-0.86; p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients having cholecystectomy, the addition of IV APAP to perioperative pain management is associated with shorter LOS, lower costs, reduced opioid use, and less frequent nausea/vomiting and respiratory depression compared to oral APAP. These findings should be confirmed in a prospective study comparing IV and oral APAP.

Comparative Analysis of Inpatient Costs for Obstetrics and Gynecology Surgery Patients Treated With IV Acetaminophen and IV Opioids Versus IV Opioid-only Analgesia for Postoperative Pain.

BACKGROUND: Recovery from obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) surgery, including hysterectomy and cesarean section delivery, aims to restore function while minimizing hospital length of stay (LOS) and medical expenditures. OBJECTIVE: Our analyses compare OB/GYN surgery patients who received combination intravenous (IV) acetaminophen and IV opioid analgesia with those who received IV opioid-only analgesia and estimate differences in LOS, hospitalization costs, and opioid consumption. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the Premier Database between January 2009 and June 2015, comparing OB/GYN surgery patients who received postoperative pain management with combination IV acetaminophen and IV opioids with those who received only IV opioids starting on the day of surgery and continuing up to the second postoperative day. We performed instrumental variable 2-stage least-squares regressions controlling for patient and hospital covariates to compare the LOS, hospitalization costs, and daily opioid doses (morphine equivalent dose) of IV acetaminophen recipients with that of opioid-only analgesia patients. RESULTS: We identified 225 142 OB/GYN surgery patients who were eligible for our study of whom 89 568 (40%) had been managed with IV acetaminophen and opioids. Participants averaged 36 years of age and were predominantly non-Hispanic Caucasians (60%). Multivariable regression models estimated statistically significant differences in hospitalization cost and opioid use with IV acetaminophen associated with $484.4 lower total hospitalization costs (95% CI = -$760.4 to -$208.4; P = 0.0006) and 8.2 mg lower daily opioid use (95% CI = -10.0 to -6.4), whereas the difference in LOS was not significant, at -0.09 days (95% CI = -0.19 to 0.01; P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Compared with IV opioid-only analgesia, managing post-OB/GYN surgery pain with the addition of IV acetaminophen is associated with decreased hospitalization costs and reduced opioid use.

Estimating the impact of adopting the revised United Kingdom acetaminophen treatment nomogram in the U.S. population.

BACKGROUND: Acetaminophen toxicity is common in clinical practice. In recent years, several European countries have lowered the treatment threshold, which has resulted in increased number of patients being treated at a questionable clinical benefit. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to estimate the cost and associated burden to the United States (U.S.) healthcare system, if such a change were adopted in the U.S. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of all patients age 14 years or older who were admitted to one of eight different hospitals located throughout the U.S. with acetaminophen exposures during a five and a half year span, encompassing from 1 January 2008 to 30 June 2013. Those patients who would be treated with the revised nomogram, but not the current nomogram were included. The cost of such treatment was extrapolated to a national level. RESULTS: 139 subjects were identified who would be treated with the revised nomogram, but not the current nomogram. Extrapolating these numbers nationally, an additional 4507 (95%CI 3641-8751) Americans would be treated annually for acetaminophen toxicity. The cost of lowering the treatment threshold is estimated to be $45 million (95%CI 36,400,000-87,500,000) annually. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting the revised treatment threshold in the U.S. would result in a significant cost, yet provide an unclear clinical benefit.