Healthcare Costs and Medication Adherence Among Patients with Fibromyalgia: Combination Medication vs. Duloxetine, Milnacipran, Venlafaxine, and Pregabalin Initiators.

OBJECTIVE: To examine medication adherence and healthcare costs for combination prescription initiators (duloxetine/milnacipran/venlafaxine with pregabalin) vs. monotherapy initiators (duloxetine, milnacipran, venlafaxine, and pregabalin) among patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). METHODS: Our retrospective cohort study used claims data for the South Carolina Blue Cross Blue Shield State Health Plan (SHP). Patients with FMS ≥ 18 years of age, with prescription initiation from July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2010, and SHP enrollment for 12 months pre- and post-index periods were included (combination: n = 100; pregabalin: n = 665; duloxetine: n = 713; milnacipran: n = 131; venlafaxine: n = 272). Medication adherence measures included high adherence (medication possession ratio ≥ 80%) and total supply days. Healthcare costs comprised direct medical expenditures. Propensity score methods of inverse probability of treatment weights were used to control for selection bias due to differing pre-index characteristics. RESULTS: Odds ratios for high adherence were significantly increased (P < 0.05) among the combination cohort vs. the venlafaxine (2.15), duloxetine (1.39), and pregabalin (2.20) cohorts. Rate ratios for total supply days were significantly higher (P < 0.05) for combination vs. venlafaxine (1.23), duloxetine (1.08), and pregabalin (1.32) cohorts. Expenditures for total health care were significantly higher (P < 0.05) for combination vs. duloxetine ($26,291 vs. $17,190), milnacipran ($33,638 vs. $22,886), and venlafaxine ($26,586 vs. $16,857) cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Medication adherence was considerably better for combination prescription initiators; however, expenditures for total health care were higher. Still, our findings suggest important clinical benefits with the use of combination prescription therapy, and prospective studies of medication adherence are warranted to examine causal relationships with outcomes not captured by healthcare claims databases.

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.

Cost-Utility of Group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Fibromyalgia Versus Recommended Drugs: An Economic Analysis Alongside a 6-Month Randomized Controlled Trial Conducted in Spain (EFFIGACT Study).

The aim of this study was to analyze the cost utility of a group-based form of acceptance and commitment therapy (GACT) in patients with fibromyalgia (FM) compared with patients receiving recommended pharmacological treatment (RPT) or on a waiting list (WL). The data were derived from a previously published study, a randomized controlled trial that focused on clinical outcomes. Health economic outcomes included health-related quality of life and health care use at baseline and at 6-month follow-up using the EuroQoL and the Client Service Receipt Inventory, respectively. Analyses included quality-adjusted life years, direct and indirect cost differences, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios. A total of 156 FM patients were randomized (51 GACT, 52 RPT, 53 WL). GACT was related to significantly less direct costs over the 6-month study period compared with both control arms (GACT €824.2 ± 1,062.7 vs RPT €1,730.7 ± 1,656.8 vs WL €2,462.7 ± 2,822.0). Lower direct costs for GACT compared with RPT were due to lower costs from primary care visits and FM-related medications. The incremental cost effectiveness ratios were dominant in the completers' analysis and remained robust in the sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, acceptance and commitment therapy appears to be a cost-effective treatment compared with RPT in patients with FM. PERSPECTIVE: Decision-makers have to prioritize their budget on the treatment option that is the most cost effective for the management of a specific patient group. From government as well as health care perspectives, this study shows that a GACT is more cost effective than pharmacological treatment in management of FM.

Impact of a Novel Cost-Saving Pharmacy Program on Pregabalin Use and Health Care Costs.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy cost-saving programs often aim to reduce costs for members and payers by encouraging use of lower-tier or generic medications and lower-cost sales channels. In 2010, a national U.S. health plan began a novel pharmacy program directed at reducing pharmacy expenditures for targeted medications, including pregabalin. The program provided multiple options to avoid higher cost sharing: use mail order pharmacy or switch to a lower-cost alternative medication via mail order or retail. Members who did not choose any option eventually paid the full retail cost of pregabalin. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the pharmacy program on pregabalin and alternative medication use, health care costs, and health care utilization. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of claims data included adult commercial health plan members with a retail claim for pregabalin in the first 13 months of the pharmacy program (identification [ID] period: February 1, 2010-February 28, 2011). Members whose benefit plan included the pharmacy program were assigned to the program cohort; all others were assigned to the nonprogram cohort. The program cohort index date was the first retail pregabalin claim during the ID period and after the program start; the nonprogram cohort index date was the first retail pregabalin claim during the ID period. All members were continuously enrolled for 12 months pre- and post-index and had at least 1 inpatient claim or ≥ 2 ambulatory visit claims for a pregabalin-indicated condition. Cohorts were propensity score matched (PSM) 1:1 with logistic regression on demographic and pre-index characteristics, including mail order and pregabalin use, comorbidity, health care costs, and health care utilization. Pregabalin, gabapentin and other alternative medication use, health care costs, and health care utilization were measured. The program cohort was also divided into 2 groups: members who changed to gabapentin post-index and those who did not. A difference-in-differences (DiD) analysis was used to compare the between-cohort change in pregabalin and alternative medication use patterns, health care costs, and health care resource utilization from pre- to post-index. The within-cohort change from pre- to post-index was analyzed by McNemar's test (categorical variables) or paired t-test (continuous variables). The Rao-Scott chi-square test (categorical) and general estimating equations (continuous) were used to analyze between-cohort differences at each time point. Differences in program member characteristics of those who changed versus those who did not change to gabapentin post-index were assessed by traditional chi-square test (categorical) or two-sample t-test (continuous variables). RESULTS: A total of 1,218 members in each cohort were PSM. Mean age was 51 years, 76.7% were women, and the most common pregabalin-indicated condition was fibromyalgia (77.6%). After the program start, the mean number of pregabalin claims from mail order and retail combined decreased in the program cohort from 4.7 pre-index to 3.8 post-index, and increased in the nonprogram cohort from 4.7 pre-index to 6.2 post-index (DiD, P < 0.001). Pregabalin mail order use increased from 3.1% to 48.1% of program members versus 2.8% to 9.4% of nonprogram members (DiD, P < 0.001). Program members were also more likely to change to the anticonvulsant gabapentin post-index than were nonprogram members (31.0% vs. 15.9%, P < 0.001). Mean total health care costs were similar between cohorts, and the pre- to post-index change did not differ between cohorts (DiD, P = 0.474). However, mean total pharmacy costs rose from pre-index to post-index by $820 and $790 in the program and nonprogram cohorts, respectively (both P < 0.001); the increase was similar between cohorts (DiD, P = 0.888). Program members who changed to gabapentin had a higher mean comorbidity score (P = 0.001) and greater post-index use of opioids, alternative medications, and health care resources (P < 0.050) than program members who did not change to gabapentin. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacy program increased mail order use of pregabalin but reduced pregabalin claims from any venue. Program members were more likely to change to gabapentin than were nonprogram members, and those who changed had higher comorbidity, use of alternative medication, and health care resources. Despite increased mail order use for pregabalin and greater change to gabapentin by program members, the pharmacy program was not cost saving with respect to mean pharmacy or total health care costs.

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.

Prior authorization in the treatment of patients with pDPN and FM.

PURPOSE: To determine prior authorization (PA) impact on healthcare utilization, costs, and pharmacologic treatment patterns for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN) and fibromyalgia (FM). METHODS: This retrospective, observational, longitudinal cohort study used medical and pharmacy claims data. Newly diagnosed patients treated for FM or pDPN between 7/1/2007 and 12/31/2011 were included. PA and no PA groups were matched by propensity score 4:1. Medical resource utilization, direct medical and pharmacy costs, and treatment pattern differences were compared. Pre and postindex differences between PA and no PA cohorts were determined by difference in difference analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of 2,315 FM patients (1,852 PA; 463 no PA) demonstrated greater increases in postindex all-cause costs ($197; P = 0.6673) and disease-related costs ($72; P = 0.4186) in the PA cohort. Analysis of 1,300 pDPN patients (1,040 PA; 260 no PA) demonstrated postindex all-cause cost increases of $1,155 more in the no PA cohort (P = 0.6248); disease-related costs decreased $2,809 more in the no PA cohort (P = 0.4312). Treatment patterns were similar between cohorts; opioid usage was higher in the FM PA cohort (P = 0.0082). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of statistically significant differences between PA and no PA cohorts in either FM or pDPN populations for total all-cause or disease-related costs.

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.