Economic Impact of Adherence to Pain Treatment Guidelines in Chronic Pain Patients.

OBJECTIVES: This research compared health care resource use (HCRU) and costs for pharmacotherapy prescribing that was adherent vs nonadherent to published pain management guidelines. Conditions included osteoarthritis (OA) and gout (GT) for nociceptive/inflammatory pain, painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN) and post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) for neuropathic pain, and fibromyalgia (FM) for sensory hypersensitivity pain. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used claims from MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Databases identifying adults newly diagnosed with OA, GT, pDPN, PHN, or FM during July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2013, with 12-month continuous coverage before and after initial (index) diagnosis. Patients were grouped according to their pharmacotherapy pattern as adherent, nonadherent, or "unsure" according to published pain management guidelines using a claims-based algorithm. Adherent and nonadherent populations were compared descriptively and using multivariate statistical analyses for controlling bias. RESULTS: Final cohort sizes were 441,465 OA, 76,361 GT, 10,645 pDPN, 4,010 PHN, and 150,321 FM, with adherence to guidelines found in 51.1% of OA, 25% of GT, 59.5% of pDPN, 54.9% of PHN, and 33.5% of FM. Adherent cohorts had significantly (P < 0.05) fewer emergency department (ED) visits and lower proportions with hospitalizations or ED visits. Mean health care costs increased following diagnosis across all conditions; however, adherent cohorts had significantly lower increases in adjusted costs pre-index to postindex (OA $5,286 vs $9,532; GT $3,631 vs $7,873; pDPN $9,578 vs $16,337; PHN $2,975 vs $5,146; FM $2,911 vs $3,708; all P < 0.001; adherent vs nonadherent, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to pain management guidelines was associated with significantly lower HCRU and costs compared with nonadherence to guidelines.

Trial Versus No Trial of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: Cost Analysis in United Kingdom National Health Service.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current project was to evaluate the spinal cord stimulation (SCS) screening trial success rate threshold to obtain the same cost impact across two identical sets of patients following either a prolonged screening trial prior to implantation strategy or a full implant without a screening trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost impact analysis was carried out from a health care perspective and considered trial to implant rates reported in the literature. Items of resource use were costed using national averages obtained from the National Health Service (NHS) reference cost data base. Cost components were added up to derive total patient level costs for the NHS. Only the costs associated with the screening trial procedures and devices were considered. RESULTS: The most conservative of our estimates suggest that a failure rate of less than 15% is cost saving to the NHS. A failure rate as high as 45% can also be cost saving if the less expensive nonrechargeable SCS devices are used. All the thresholds observed represent a considerably higher screening failure rate than that reported in the latest randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS. A trial to implant ratio of 91.6% could represent savings between £16,715 (upper bound 95% CI of rechargeable implantable pulse generator [IPG] cost) and £246,661 (lower bound 95% CI of nonrechargeable IPG cost) per each 100 patients by adopting an implantation only strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable savings could be obtained by adopting an implantation strategy without a screening trial. It is plausible that accounting for other factors, such as complications that can occur with a screening trial, additional savings could be achieved by choosing a straight to implant treatment strategy. Nevertheless, additional evidence is warranted to support this claim.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of policies restricting access to pregabalin.

BACKGROUND: Formularies often employ restriction policies to reduce pharmacy costs. Pregabalin, an alpha-2-delta ligand, is approved for treatment of fibromyalgia (FM); neuropathic pain (NeP) due to postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), spinal cord injury; and as adjunct therapy for partial onset seizures. Pregabalin is endorsed as first-line therapy for these indications by several US and EU medical professional societies. However, restriction policies such as prior authorization (PA) and step therapy (ST) often favor less costly generic pain medications over pregabalin. METHODS: A structured literature search (PubMed, past 11 years) was conducted to evaluate whether restriction policies against pregabalin support real-world economic and healthcare utilization benefits. RESULTS: Search criteria identified three claims analyses and a modeling study that evaluated patients with NeP and/or FM with and without PA restrictions; three other studies included patients with FM and NeP in plans with ST requirements, and one evaluated a mail order requirement program. All studies evaluated outcomes during follow-up periods of 6 months or longer. Overall, PA, ST, and mail order restriction policies effectively reduced pregabalin usage, but the effects were inconsistent with reducing pharmacy costs and were non-significant for total disease-related medical costs. Two studies (one PA; one ST) reported significantly higher disease-related costs in restricted plans. The modeling study failed to demonstrate cost savings with PA. Opioid usage was higher in PA-restricted plans (two studies). The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several professional NeP guidelines recommend opioid use only in cases when other non-opioid pain therapies have proven ineffective. New US Government taskforce guidelines now seek to reduce opioid exposure. Additionally, in both ST studies, gabapentin utilization (a common ST edit) was significantly increased. Both studies had substantial proportions of FM and pDPN patients and the only pain condition gabapentin is approved to treat in the United States is PHN. CONCLUSION: PA and ST restriction policies significantly decrease utilization of pregabalin, but do not consistently demonstrate cost savings for US health plans. More research is needed to evaluate whether these policies may lead to increased opioid usage as found in some studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

[Spinal cord stimulation for the management of chronic pain]. / Traitement des douleurs chroniques par la stimulation médullaire.

Neuromodulation techniques modify the activity of the central or peripheral nervous system. Spinal cord stimulation is a reversible and minimally invasive treatment whose efficacy and cost effectiveness are recognized for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain or ischemic pain. Spinal cord stimulation is not the option of last resort and should be considered among other options before prescribing long-term opioids or considering reoperation. The selection and regular follow-up of patients are crucial to the success of the therapy.

A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic studies for pregabalin.

BACKGROUND: With anticonvulsant, anxiolytic, and analgesic properties, pregabalin has been evaluated for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (FM). These chronic conditions diminish patients' quality of life and increase healthcare utilization and costs. OBJECTIVE: To assess the current understanding of economic outcomes associated with pregabalin in neuropathic pain and FM. METHODS: Using keywords related to economic outcomes and pregabalin, we systematically searched MEDLINE- and EMBASE-indexed literature and nonindexed "grey" literature on neuropathic pain and FM published from March 2001 to October 2012. Included studies reported economic findings associated with pregabalin. RESULTS: In the past 11 years, 55 publications assessed the direct costs, resource use, or cost-effectiveness of pregabalin for neuropathic pain and FM. Studies generally lacked comparability due to heterogeneous patient populations, assumptions, time periods, and geographies. In the US, following treatment initiation, pregabalin resulted in similar or higher levels of healthcare use for FM compared with duloxetine. In contrast, medical costs for neuropathic pain did not significantly differ after initiation of pregabalin vs. duloxetine or other standard therapies in the US, but in Spain and Sweden, retrospective database studies suggested that pregabalin was cost-saving vs. gabapentin. Few economic analyses estimated indirect costs. CONCLUSIONS: Neuropathic pain and FM are associated with high healthcare resource use and costs. Economic studies of pregabalin in neuropathic pain and FM indicate some results favorable to other forms of care, but heterogeneity among study designs and populations hinder comparisons. Future economic analyses should aim to address data gaps regarding effects of pregabalin on productivity and resource use.

Health care resource utilization and medical costs of spinal cord injury with neuropathic pain in a commercially insured population in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate health care resource use, costs, and cost drivers among patients with neuropathic pain (NeP) after spinal cord injury (SCI) in a commercially insured population. DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study comparing SCI patients with and without NeP. SETTING: Truven Health MarketScan commercial claims database from 2005 through 2012. PARTICIPANTS: Commercially insured SCI patients with NeP (n=3524) propensity score matched to SCI patients without NeP (n=3524). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Health care resource utilization and expenditures for the 12 months after NeP onset (index event; identified through International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis 338.0x or use of NeP-specific antiepileptic drugs or NeP-specific antidepressants) in patients with SCI compared with matched patients without NeP. RESULTS: Utilization over 12 months postindex among patients with SCI-associated NeP was higher than among SCI-only patients for inpatient admissions (27.4% vs 22.1%), emergency department visits (36.7% vs 26.4%), and office visits per patient (mean ± SD: 13.0±9.5 vs 9.5±8.3); all P values were <.001. All-cause expenditures showed adjusted incremental costs of $22,545 (95% confidence interval, $19,010-$26,168) per patient with SCI-associated NeP during the 12-month postindex period. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with evidence of NeP secondary to SCI have significantly higher health care utilization and total costs compared with SCI patients without evidence of NeP. Factors contributing to NeP in patients with SCI need to be clinically assessed to determine the optimal approach for treating these individuals.

The costs and consequences of adequately managed chronic non-cancer pain and chronic neuropathic pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is distressing for patients and a burden on healthcare systems and society. Recent research demonstrates different aspects of the negative impact of chronic pain and the positive impact of successful treatment, making an overview of the costs and consequences of chronic pain appropriate. OBJECTIVE: To examine recent literature on chronic noncancer and neuropathic pain prevalence, impact on quality and quantity of life, societal and healthcare costs, and impact of successful therapy. METHODS: Systematic reviews (1999 to February 2012) following PRISMA guidelines were conducted to identify studies reporting appropriate outcomes. RESULTS: Chronic pain has a weighted average prevalence in adults of 20%; 7% have neuropathic pain, and 7% have severe pain. Chronic pain impeded activities of daily living, work and work efficiency, and reduced quality and quantity of life. Effective pain therapy (pain intensity reduction of at least 50%) resulted in consistent improvements in fatigue, sleep, depression, quality of life, and work. CONCLUSION: Strenuous efforts should be put into obtaining good levels of pain relief for people in chronic pain, including the opportunity for multiple drug switching, using reliable, validated, and relatively easily applied patient-centered outcomes. Detailed, thoughtful and informed decision analytic policy modeling would help understand the key elements in organizational change or service reengineering to plan the optimum pain management strategy to maximize pain relief and its stream of benefits against budgetary and other constraints. This paper contains the information on which such models can be based.

Clinical and resource utilization patterns in patients with refractory neuropathic pain prescribed pregabalin for the first time in routine medical practice in primary care settings in Spain.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical and resource utilization patterns in patients with refractory neuropathic pain (NeP) who were prescribed pregabalin for the first time in routine medical practice in primary care settings. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of a 12-week prospective observational study including pregabalin naïve adult patients with refractory chronic NeP of at least 6-months duration. Self-reported pain intensity, disability, sleep disturbances, symptoms of anxiety and depression, disability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), health care resource utilization, and corresponding costs were assessed in this post-hoc analysis. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred fifty-four patients were enrolled in the study, and three treatment groups were identified: (1) 598 patients replaced prior pain treatments with pregabalin as monotherapy; (2) 589 added pregabalin to their existing pain treatments; and (3) 167 other pain treatments were prescribed according with physician routine medical practice. Statistically significant differences were reported at baseline for intensity of pain, patient disability, severity of depressive symptoms, and HRQoL (P < 0.01 in all cases). No statistically significant differences were reported among the three treatment groups for anxiety severity or sleep disturbances. Subjects who received add-on pregabalin had greater use of direct and indirect resources vs the other groups, resulting in significantly higher quarterly overall costs per patient: €2,397 (2,308), €2,470 (1,857), and €3,110 (2,496), respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that primary care physicians chose pregabalin as an option for treating refractory patients who tended to have much more severe NeP profiles, costing society more than when they chose other therapeutic strategies not including pregabalin.

Burden of spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain in the United States: retrospective chart review and cross-sectional survey.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, observational study. OBJECTIVES: Characterize demographic and clinical characteristics, health status, pain, function, productivity and economic burden in spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain (SCI-NeP) subjects, by pain severity. SETTING: United States. One hundred and three subjects diagnosed with SCI-NeP recruited during routine primary care or specialty physician office visits completed a questionnaire to assess patient-reported outcomes. Physicians completed a case report form on inclusion/exclusion criteria, subject clinical characteristics and health-care resource use (HRU) based on 6-month retrospective chart review. RESULTS: Subjects' mean age was 48.7, 69.9% were male and 48.5% were unable to walk. The most frequently reported comorbidities were sleep disturbance/insomnia (28.2%), depressive symptoms (25.2%) and anxiety (23.3%). Subjects' mean pain severity score was 5.3 (0-10 scale), and 77.7% reported moderate or severe pain. On a 0-10 scale, subjects' reported moderate pain interference with function: mean 5.4. Subjects' health status, as measured by the EuroQol 5-dimensions health-state utility, was 0.49 (-0.11 to 1.00 scale). Pain interference with function and health status were significantly worse among subjects with more severe pain (P<0.0005). Among employed subjects (13.6%), overall work impairment was 38.0%. The proportion of subjects who were prescribed ≥1 medication was 94.2%, and the mean number of physician office visits in past 6 months due to SCI-NeP was 2.2. Total annualized cost per subject was $26 270 (direct: $8636, indirect: $17 634). CONCLUSION: SCI-NeP subjects exhibited high pain levels, despite active management. Pain levels were associated with poor function, low health status and lost productivity. HRU was prevalent, and costs, particularly indirect, were substantial, highlighting unmet need. SPONSORSHIP: This study was supported by Pfizer, Inc.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the effect of pregabalin versus usual care in the treatment of refractory neuropathic pain in routine medical practice in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin vs usual care (UC) in outpatients with refractory neuropathic pain (NeP), treated according to routine medical practice in primary care settings in Spain. METHODS: Patients were extracted from a 12-week noninterventional prospective study conducted to ascertain the costs of NeP. Pairs of pregabalin-naïve patients receiving UC or pregabalin, matched by age, gender, pain intensity, and refractory to previous treatment, were selected in a 1:1 ratio. Refractory was considered a patient with actual pain (scoring >40 in a 100 mm in a pain visual analog scale) after receiving a course of a standard analgesic, at its recommended doses. Perspectives of the Spanish National Healthcare System and society were included in the analysis. Effectiveness was expressed as quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain. Results of the cost-effectiveness analysis were expressed as an incremental cost per QALY (ICER) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using bootstrapping techniques was also carried out. RESULTS: A total of 160 pairs were extracted. Compared with UC, pregabalin was associated with significantly higher QALY gain; 0.0374 ± 0.0367 vs 0.0224 ± 0.0313 (P < 0.001). Despite drug acquisition costs being higher for pregabalin (€251 ± 125 vs €104 ± 121; P < 0.001), total and health care costs incurred for pregabalin were similar in both groups; €1,335 ± 1,302 vs €1,387 ± 1,489 (P = 0.587) and €529 ± 438 vs €560 ± 672 (P = 0.628), respectively, yielding a dominant ICER for both total and health care costs in the base case scenario; 95% confidence intervals, respectively, dominant to €17,268, and dominant to €6,508. Sensitivity analysis confirmed results of the basecase scenario. CONCLUSION: This study showed that pregabalin may be cost-effective in the treatment of refractory NeP patients when compared with UC in routine medical practice in Spain.

Epidemiology of neuropathic pain and its impact on quality of life.

Epidemiology is an important clinical tool in designing and evaluating management and prevention strategies, and is particularly relevant to neuropathic pain. However, there is a relative lack of accurate information available. In one sense, neuropathic pain describes a symptom or a mechanism, rather than a specific disease; on the other hand, there are sufficient similarities in the effects and response to treatment between different causes to make it worthwhile to consider neuropathic pain as a distinct condition. However, there are important specific disease-based factors that need to be considered separately. Estimates of prevalence that are based on specific causes of neuropathic pain tend to be lower (1-2%) than those that are based on reports of the classic symptoms (6-8%), and further methodological research is needed. All neuropathic pain is associated with poor general health, comparable with other severe chronic diseases. The importance of newly proposed risk factors, including genetic factors, still needs to be assessed at a population level.

Costs and health resources utilization following switching to pregabalin in individuals with gabapentin-refractory neuropathic pain: a post hoc analysis.

PURPOSE: To analyze the changes in pain severity and associated costs resulting from resource utilization and reduced productivity in patients with gabapentin-refractory peripheral neuropathic pain who switched to pregabalin therapy in primary care settings in Spain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a 12-week, multicentre, noninterventional cost-of-illness study. Patients were included in the study if they were over 18 years of age and had a diagnosis of chronic, treatment-refractory peripheral neuropathic pain. The analysis included all pregabalin-naïve patients who had previously shown an inadequate response to gabapentin and switched to pregabalin. Severity of pain before and after treatment with pregabalin, alone or as an add-on therapy, was assessed using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and its related visual analogue scale (VA). Healthcare resource utilization, productivity (including lost-workday equivalents [LWDE]), and related costs were assessed at baseline and after pregabalin treatment. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients switched to pregabalin had significant and clinically relevant reductions in pain severity (mean [SD] change on SF-MPQ VA scale, -31.9 [22.1]; P < 0.05 vs. baseline; effect size, 1.87). Reduction in pain was similar with both pregabalin monotherapy and add-on therapy. Significant reductions in healthcare resource utilization (concomitant drug use [in pregabalin add-on group], ancillary tests, and unscheduled medical visits) were observed at the end of trial. Additionally, there were substantial improvements in productivity, including a reduction in the number of LWDE following pregabalin treatment (-18.9 [26.0]; P < 0.0001). These changes correlated with substantial reductions in both direct (-652.9 ± 1622.4 €; P < 0.0001) and indirect healthcare costs (-851.6 [1259.6] €; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The cost of care in patients with gabapentin-refractory peripheral neuropathic pain appeared to be significantly reduced after switching to pregabalin treatment, alone or in combination with other analgesic drugs, in a real-life setting.

A cost-consequences analysis of the effect of pregabalin in the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain in routine medical practice in primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain (NeP) is a common symptom of a group of a variety of conditions, including diabetic neuropathy, trigeminal neuralgia, or postherpetic neuralgia. Prevalence of NeP has been estimated to range between 5-7.5%, and produces up to 25% of pain clinics consultations. Due to its severity, chronic evolution, and associated co-morbidities, NeP has an important individual and social impact. The objective was to analyze the effect of pregabalin (PGB) on pain alleviation and longitudinal health and non-health resources utilization and derived costs in peripheral refractory NeP in routine medical practice in primary care settings (PCS) in Spain. METHODS: Subjects from PCS were older than 18 years, with peripheral NeP (diabetic neuropathy, post-herpetic neuralgia or trigeminal neuralgia), refractory to at least one previous analgesic, and included in a prospective, real world, and 12-week two-visit cost-of-illness study. Measurement of resources utilization included both direct healthcare and indirect expenditures. Pain severity was measured by the Short Form-McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ). RESULTS: One-thousand-three-hundred-fifty-four PGB-naive patients [58.8% women, 59.5 (12.7) years old] were found eligible for this secondary analysis: 598 (44%) switched from previous therapy to PGB given in monotherapy (PGBm), 589 (44%) received PGB as add-on therapy (PGB add-on), and 167 (12%) patients changed previous treatments to others different than PGB (non-PGB). Reductions of pain severity were higher in both PGBm and PGB add-on groups (54% and 51%, respectively) than in non-PGB group (34%), p < 0.001. Incremental drug costs, particularly in PGB subgroups [€ 34.6 (80.3), € 160.7 (123.9) and € 154.5 (133.0), for non-PGB, PGBm and PGBadd-on, respectively (p < 0.001)], were off-set by higher significant reductions in all other components of health costs yielding to a greater total cost reductions: -€ 1,045.3 (1,989.6),-€ 1,312.9 (1,543.0), and -€ 1,565.5 (2,004.1), for the three groups respectively (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: In Spanish primary care settings, PGB given either add-on or in monotherapy in routine medical practice was associated with pain alleviation leading to significant longitudinal reductions in resource use and total costs during the 12-week period of the study compared with non-PGB-therapy of patients with chronic NeP of peripheral origin. The use of non-appropriate analgesic therapies for neuropathic pain in a portion of subjects in non-PGB group could explain partially such findings.

Opioid utilization and health-care costs among patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain treated with duloxetine vs. other therapies.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective cohort study assessed subsequent opioid utilization and health-care costs among patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) who initiated duloxetine vs. other standard of care (SOC) treatments. METHODS: Medical and pharmacy claims were analyzed for commercially-insured individuals aged 18-64. Two study cohorts were constructed from DPNP patients who initiated duloxetine or SOC medications (tricyclic antidepressants, venlafaxine, gabapentin, pregabalin) between March 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005. Initiation was defined as a prior 90-day period without access of the medication. The dispense date of the first initiation was denoted as the index date. Patients with opioids dispensed in the prior 90 days were excluded. Opioid utilization including total days, number of prescriptions filled, and morphine equivalent dosage was assessed for overall, long-acting, and short-acting opioids. Health-care costs and opioid use in the 12-month post-index period were examined via multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety-nine DPNP patients (272 duloxetine, 227 SOC) were identified. SOC patients had higher prevalence of comorbidities and pre-index health-care costs than duloxetine patients. Controlling for cross-cohort differences, duloxetine patients were significantly less likely to use any opioids than SOC patients. Also, duloxetine patients had 20 fewer adjusted opioid supply days (largely due to the use of short-acting opioids, P < 0.05) and significantly lower adjusted total costs ($8,088, P < 0.05) and diabetes-related costs ($3,092, P < 0.05) in the 12-month post-index period, with most of the cost differences from lower outpatient costs. CONCLUSIONS: DPNP patients who initiated duloxetine therapy were less likely to have subsequent opioid use and had lower health-care costs than SOC patients.

The frequency of neuropathic pain in Turkish patients with low back pain: a cross-sectional study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of neuropathic pain (NP) in patients with low back pain (LBP) and the relationship of NP with demographic characteristics and pain duration. Four hundred and forty patients were evaluated with respect to NP. Demographic data were collected and Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire was used to identify NP. Any difference in demographic characteristics or duration of pain was investigated between the patients with and without NP. Sociodemographic factors which are independently associated with NP were analyzed. According to DN4, 43.9% of the patients had NP. Mean age of the patients was 44.8 years (± 13.7). 343 (77.9%) of the patients had chronic LBP (more than 3 months). The patients with NP were older (p < 0.001), had higher BMI (p = 0.005) and longer LBP duration (p < 0.001) and had lower educational level (p 0.018). NP was significantly more common in unemployed patients and less common in high-activity employees (p 0.001). Logistic regression analyses identified that high-active workers' risk of having NP was 1.76 times lesser than other groups (office workers, housewives and retired patients). Nearly half of the patients with LBP were accompanied by NP. It was remarkably more common in sedentary patients and patients with low socioeconomic status. High physical activity at work was found to decrease the risk of having NP. Clinicians should emphasize on exercise training as a therapeutic intervention while LBP is being treated.

Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in Hong Kong. METHODS: A within trial cost-utility analysis with the primary endpoint for the economic evaluation being the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and associated Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) over 14 weeks of treatment. A secondary cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken with the endpoint being change in pain as measured on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were randomised to acupuncture or usual care. Acupuncture resulted in significant improvements in pain intensity (8- and 14-week mean changes compared to usual care of -1.8 and -1.8, respectively), pain interference (8- and 14-week mean changes compared to usual care of -1.5 and -0.9, respectively) and indicators of quality of life and neurotoxicity-related symptoms. However, in the economic evaluation there was little difference in QALYs between the two arms (mean change 0.209 and 0.200 in the acupuncture and usual care arms, respectively). Also, costs yielded deterministic ICERs of HK$616,965.62, HK$824,083.44 and HK$540,727.56 per QALY gained from the health care provider perspective, the societal perspective and the patient perspective, respectively. These costs are significantly higher than the cost-effectiveness threshold of HK$180,450 that was used for the base case analysis. CONCLUSION: While acupuncture can improve symptoms and quality of life indicators related to CIPN, it is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for CIPN-related pain in health care systems with limited resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02553863 (ClinicalTrials.gov) post-results.

Types and epidemiology of cancer-related neuropathic pain: the intersection of cancer pain and neuropathic pain.

Neuropathic pain--pain resulting from a lesion, damage, or dysfunction of the somatosensory nervous system--can arise through several distinct etiologies ranging from toxicity, surgery, radiation, and trauma to congenital disorders. Neuropathic pain is widely recognized as a common consequence of cancer and results from administration of several common oncology drugs. It not only impacts quality of life, but it also impacts patient outcomes because of resulting treatment delays, dose reductions, and discontinuations. We estimate that the cost of the problem in the U.S. alone is approximately $2.3 billion. Despite its widely recognized importance, there is a paucity of reliable information available regarding the incidence, prevalence of patient-and physician-reported severity, and time course of cancer-related neuropathic pain. To address this severe knowledge gap, we need new, high-quality, population-based studies of individual cancer pain syndromes and conditions. However, in order to gather this information, we also need substantial improvements in the specific classification of cancer-related neuropathic syndromes and better validated diagnostic tools that can help to elucidate the incidence, prevalence, severity, and potential economic impact of cancer-associated neuropathies.

Diabetic polyneuropathy with/out neuropathic pain in Mali: A cross-sectional study in two reference diabetes treatment centers in Bamako (Mali), Western Africa.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) with or without neuropathic pain is a frequent complication of diabetes. This work aimed to determine the prevalence of diabetic polyneuropathy, to describe its epidemiological aspects, and to analyze the therapeutic itinerary of patients with DPN. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study performed synchronously over six months at two major follow-up sites for patients with diabetes in Mali. DPN was diagnosed based on the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument (MNSI). The neuropathic nature of the pain and the quality of life of patients were evaluated by the DN4 and the ED-5D scale, respectively. We used three (3) different questionnaires to collect data from patients (one at inclusion and another during the follow-up consultation) and from the caregivers of patients with DPN. RESULTS: We included 252 patients with diabetes, and DPN was found to have a healthcare facility-based prevalence of 69.8% (176/252). The sex ratio was approximately three females for every male patient. The patients were mostly 31 to 60 years of age, 83% had type 2 diabetes, and 86.9% had neuropathic pain Approximately half of the patients (48.3%) had autonomic neuropathy and they reported moderate to intense pain, which was mainly described as a burning sensation. The patients exhibited impaired exteroceptive and proprioceptive sensations in 51.7% of cases. The patients smoked tobacco in 3.4% of cases, while 36.6% of the patients were obese and had dyslipidemia. The caregivers clearly indicated that appropriate medications were not readily accessible or available for their patients with DPN. CONCLUSION: The healthcare facility-based prevalence of DPN with or without neuropathic pain was high in our cohort. These inexpensive and easy-to-use tools (MNSI, DN4) can be used to adequately diagnose DPN in the African context. In Mali, screening and early treatment of patients at risk of DPN should allow for a reduction of the burden of the disease, while caregivers need to be adequately trained to manage DPN.

Evaluation of Treatment Patterns and Direct Costs Associated with the Management of Neuropathic Pain.

Background: Neuropathic pain has a prevalence of 2-17% in the general population. Diagnosis and treatment of neuropathic pain are not fully described in different populations. The aim was to determine the treatment patterns and direct costs of care associated with the management of neuropathic pain from the onset of the first symptom to up to two years after diagnosis. Methods: From a drug-claim database, a cohort of randomly selected outpatients diagnosed with neuropathic pain was obtained from an insurer in Colombia and followed up for two years after diagnosis. The clinical records were reviewed individually to identify the study variables, including the time needed to make the diagnosis, the medical and paraclinical resources used, the pharmacological therapy for pain management, and the direct costs associated with care. Results: We identified 624 patients in 49 cities, with a mean age of 50.3 ± 14.1 years, of which 324 were men (51.9%). An average of 90 days passed from the initial consultation until the diagnosis of neuropathic pain, the most frequent being lumbosacral radiculopathy (57.9%). 34.5% of the cohort had at least one diagnostic imaging procedure, and 16% had an electromyography. On average, they were treated by a general practitioner twice. 91.7% received initial treatment with tramadol, carbamazepine, amitriptyline, imipramine, or pregabalin, and 60.4% received combined therapy. The mean cost of care for two years for each patient was US$246.3. Conclusions: Patients with neuropathic pain in Colombia are being diagnosed late, are using therapeutic agents not recommended as first-line treatment by clinical practice guidelines, and are being treated for short periods of time.

Multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial of 10 khz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic neuropathic low back pain (MODULATE-LBP): a trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic neuropathic low back pain (CNLBP) is a debilitating condition in which established medical treatments seldom alleviate symptoms. Evidence demonstrates that high-frequency 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) reduces pain and improves health-related quality of life in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), but evidence of this effect is limited in individuals with CNLBP who have not had surgery. The aim of this multicentre randomised trial is to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 10 kHz SCS for this population. METHODS: This is a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial with a parallel economic evaluation. A total of 96 patients with CNLBP who have not had spinal surgery will be implanted with an epidural lead and a sham lead outside the epidural space without a screening trial. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to 10 kHz SCS plus usual care (intervention group) or to sham 10 kHz SCS plus usual care (control group) after receiving the full implant. The SCS devices will be programmed identically using a cathodal cascade. Participants will use their handheld programmer to alter the intensity of the stimulation as per routine practice. The primary outcome will be a 7-day daily pain diary. Secondary outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index, complications, EQ-5D-5 L, and health and social care costs. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline (pre-randomisation) and at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after device activation. The primary analyses will compare primary and secondary outcomes between groups at 6 months, while adjusting for baseline outcome scores. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) will be calculated at 6 months and over the lifetime of the patient. DISCUSSION: The outcomes of this trial will inform clinical practice and healthcare policy on the role of high-frequency 10 kHz SCS for use in patients with CNLBP who have not had surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03470766. Registered on 20 March 2018. DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The NIHR had no role in the study design, writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit for publication. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: AK, SP, DP, SW, RST, AC, SE, LM, RD and JF all contributed to the trial design and to securing trial funding. AK, JR, SP, DP, and SE are involved in the recruitment, the intervention and the follow-up. SW will perform data collection and analysis. RST will be responsible for the statistical analysis, and RD will be responsible for the health economic analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.