Long-term cost-effectiveness of initiating treatment for painful diabetic neuropathy with pregabalin, duloxetine, gabapentin, or desipramine.

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) affects nearly half of patients with diabetes. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of starting patients with PDN on pregabalin (PRE), duloxetine (DUL), gabapentin (GABA), or desipramine (DES) over a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of third-party payers in the United States. A Markov model was used to compare the costs (2013 $US) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of first-line PDN treatments in 10,000 patients using microsimulation. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Probabilities and utilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were average wholesale price for drugs and national estimates for office visits and hospitalizations. One-way and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were used to examine parameter uncertainty. Starting with PRE was dominated by DUL as DUL cost less and was more effective. Starting with GABA was extendedly dominated by a combination of DES and DUL. DES and DUL cost $23,468 and $25,979, while yielding 3.05 and 3.16 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DUL compared with DES was $22,867/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model was most sensitive to the adherence threshold and utility for mild pain. PSA showed that, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $50,000/QALY, DUL was the most cost-effective option in 56.3% of the simulations, DES in 29.2%, GABA in 14.4%, and PRE in 0.1%. Starting with DUL is the most cost-effective option for PDN when WTP is greater than $22,867/QALY. Decision makers may consider starting with DUL for PDN patients.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmacologic treatment of fibromyalgia in Mexico.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, from the Mexican Public Health System perspective, which would be the most cost-effective treatment for patients with Fibromyalgia (FM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model including three health states, divided by pain intensity (absence or presence of mild, moderate or severe pain) and considering three-month cycles; costs and effectiveness were estimated for amitriptyline (50mg/day), fluoxetine (80 mg/day), duloxetine (120 mg/day), gabapentin (900 mg/day), pregabalin (450 mg/day), tramadol/acetaminophen (150 mg/1300 mg/día) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine (50mg/80 mg/día) for the treatment of FM. The clinical outcome considered was the annual rate of pain control. Probabilities assigned to the model were collected from published literature. Direct medical costs for FM treatment were retrieved from the 2006 data of the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) databases and were expressed in 2010 Mexican Pesos. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The best pain control rate was obtained with pregabalin (44.8%), followed by gabapentin (38.1%) and duloxetine (34.2%). The lowest treatment costs was for amitriptyline ($ 9047.01), followed by fluoxetine ($ 10,183.89) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine ($ 10,866.01). By comparing pregabalin vs amitriptyline, additional annual cost per patient for pain control would be around $ 50.000 and $ 75.000 and would result cost-effective in 70% and 80% of all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Among all treatment options for FM, pregabalin achieved the highest pain control and was cost-effective in 80% of patients of the Mexican Public Health System.

Treatment choice, duration, and cost in patients with interstitial cystitis and painful bladder syndrome.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: In order to better understand provider treatment patterns for interstitial cystitis (IC)/painful bladder syndrome, we sought to document the therapies utilized and their associated expenditures using a national dataset. METHODS: A cohort was created by applying the ICD-9 diagnosis of IC (595.1) to INGENIX claims for the year 1999. Subjects were followed for 5 years, and patterns of care and related expenditures were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 553,910 adults insured in 1999, 89 subjects had a diagnosis of IC with 5-year follow-up data. All subjects were treated with oral medication(s), 26% received intravesical treatments, and 22% underwent hydrodistension. Total expenditures per subject were $2,808. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of IC expenditures were attributable to oral medical therapy. Hydrodistension and intravesical instillations were utilized in less than 25% of patients. Hydrodistension was used more frequently among subjects with a new diagnosis; this may reflect its utilization as part of a diagnostic algorithm.

Cost effectiveness of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia from a UK perspective.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia is a chronic condition associated with widespread pain, sleep disturbance and disability. Disease related costs are high and effective treatment options few. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed comparing pregabalin 300 mg or 450 mg against placebo, duloxetine 60 mg or 120 mg, gabapentin, tramadol and amitriptyline. After a 12 week treatment phase patients who responded to treatment entered an ongoing treatment phase using a Markov model in which patients maintained response, lost response or dropped out. The base case considered patients with severe fibromyalgia defined as a Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire score of >or=59 and a pain score of >or=6.5 at baseline. Response rates for pregabalin and placebo were taken from three randomised trials, and a 1 year open-label extension study was used for long-term parameters. Response was defined as a >or=30% improvement over baseline in pain score and a patient global impression of change rating of much improved or very much improved. Relative rates of response for other comparators over placebo were extracted from a systematic review of published randomised controlled studies. The primary effectiveness endpoint was Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Utilities gained over baseline were estimated by applying the SF-6D utility algorithm to SF-36 data collected in the pregabalin trials. Resource use associated with fibromyalgia management was estimated from published studies and costs were estimated from the UK NHS perspective at 2008 prices. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3.5%. Non-parametric bootstrapping analysis was used to generate confidence intervals. RESULTS: In the base case, pregabalin 300 mg and 450 mg increased cost per patient by pound601 (95% CI: 532, 669) and pound653 (587, 727) and improved QALYs per patient by 0.03 (-0.03, 0.06) and 0.03 (-0.04, 0.08) respectively compared to placebo. The cost per QALY gained (CQG) was pound23,166 and pound22,533. In the base case population CQG for pregabalin 450 mg against duloxetine 60 mg and 120 mg was pound19,224 and pound14,096, against gabapentin pound35,737, against tramadol pound98,072, and was dominated by amitriptyline. Sensitivity analysis found the cost effectiveness of pregabalin to be most sensitive to drug price and response rates. Limitations of the analysis include different definitions of response used and lack of subgroup data reported in the published studies synthesised, and limited data on long-term effect of therapies in fibromyalgia. Although the analysis was based on the best available evidence, the comparisons against amitriptyline and tramadol rely on old studies that were not designed to meet current quality criteria. CONCLUSION: This model found pregabalin 300 mg and 450 mg to be cost effective compared with placebo and, within the limits of available evidence, against duloxetine using standard UK criteria in patients with fibromyalgia experiencing severe pain.

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

OBJECTIVE: To characterize comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use among patients with fibromyalgia (FM) newly prescribed pregabalin or gabapentin in clinical practice. METHODS AND DESIGN: Using the PharMetrics Database, FM patients (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 729.1X) newly prescribed pregabalin (n = 1,606; mean age 49.9 +/- 9.6 years; 87.9% female) and gabapentin (n = 930; mean age 49.5 +/- 9.6 years; 86.6% female) on/after July 1, 2007 were identified. Prevalence of comorbidities, pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use/costs (pharmacy, outpatient, inpatient, total) were examined during the 6 months preceding (preindex) and following (postindex) the date of their first pregabalin or gabapentin (index) prescription. RESULTS: Patients in both cohorts had a variety of comorbidities and used multiple medications. There were significant decreases (P values < 0.05) in the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (32.1% vs. 29.5%), anticonvulsants (27.0% vs. 22.0%), and combination therapies in the pregabalin cohort in the postindex period. There were significant increases (all P values < 0.05) in use of short-acting opioids (58.8% vs. 63.7%), any opioids (61.5% vs. 65.6%), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (22.5% vs. 24.5%), anticonvulsants (16.3% vs. 26.2%), benzodiazepines (33.2% vs. 36.6%), topical agents (6.6% vs. 9.0%), and combination therapies in the gabapentin cohort. Although there were no changes in units of healthcare resources used, there were increases in the postindex period in hospitalization, medications, and total costs for pregabalin, and office visits and medication costs for gabapentin (all P values < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest a high comorbidity and medication use burden in FM patients in this study. Further evaluation is warranted to clarify differences in resource utilization/costs observed with these two anticonvulsants.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a lidocaine 5% medicated plaster compared with gabapentin and pregabalin for treating postherpetic neuralgia: a german perspective.

OBJECTIVE: This study set out to assess the cost effectiveness of using a 5% lidocaine (lignocaine) medicated plaster for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) compared with gabapentin, pregabalin 300 mg/day or 600 mg/day in German primary care. The analysis took the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance scheme (GKV). METHODS: A Markov model was used to calculate the costs (2007) and benefits of the lidocaine plaster, gabapentin 1800 mg/day and pregabalin 300 or 600 mg/day over a 6-month time horizon in elderly patients with PHN who experienced insufficient pain relief with standard analgesics and could not tolerate or had contraindications to tricyclic antidepressants. The model calculated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and the cost per additional month without symptoms or intolerable adverse effects. The majority of transition probabilities were obtained from randomized controlled trials identified from a systematic literature review. Further model inputs, including resource use, concomitant medication and long-term efficacy/adherence data, were obtained from a Delphi panel. Utility values were taken from a previous study and age adjusted. Cost data were obtained from official price tariffs. Mortality, indirect costs and costs associated with inpatient treatment were not considered in the present analysis due to the perspective and time horizon employed. RESULTS: Over the 6-month period modelled, the mean total therapy cost per patient treated with the lidocaine plaster was euro911, compared with euro728 for gabapentin, euro875 for pregabalin 300 mg/day and euro977 for pregabalin 600 mg/day. Treatment with the lidocaine plaster was related to greater numbers of QALYs and more months without symptoms or intolerable adverse effects (mean 0.300 QALYs and 4.06 months per patient) than with gabapentin (mean 0.247 QALYs and 2.72 months), pregabalin 300 mg/day (mean 0.253 QALYs and 3.02 months) or pregabalin 600 mg/day (mean 0.256 QALYs and 3.22 months). The lidocaine plaster cost euro3453/QALY gained and euro137 per additional month without adverse effects or symptoms relative to gabapentin and euro766/QALY and euro35 per month without adverse effects or symptoms relative to pregabalin 300 mg/day. The lidocaine plaster dominated pregabalin 600 mg/day, being less costly and more effective. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that there is a 99.36% chance that the lidocaine plaster is the most clinically effective treatment considered in the analysis and a 99.09% chance that the lidocaine plaster is the most cost-effective treatment of the four therapies considered in the analysis if the GKV is willing to pay at least euro20 000/QALY gained. Extensive deterministic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the findings are robust. CONCLUSIONS: The 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster is a cost-effective treatment option for the management of PHN in Germany compared with gabapentin and both 300 and 600 mg/day of pregabalin.