Budget impact and pharmacy costs with targeted use of oliceridine for postsurgical pain in patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Oliceridine, a new class of µ-opioid receptor agonist, may be associated with fewer opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs) due to its unique mechanism of action. Thus, it may provide a cost-effective alternative to conventional opioids such as morphine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a decision tree with a 24-hour time horizon, we calculated costs for medication and management of the three most common AEs (oxygen saturation <90%, vomiting, somnolence) following postoperative oliceridine or morphine in high-risk patients. Costs were enumerated as differences in cost of analgesics and resource utilization in the first 24 hours post-surgery. An economic model compared expected AEs and costs in a blended cohort where elderly/obese patients at higher risk for ORAEs received oliceridine while those presumed to be at lower risk received morphine with a cohort that received morphine alone. RESULTS: In high-risk patients, use of oliceridine resulted in overall savings of $363,944 (in 1,000 patients). Implementing a targeted approach of oliceridine utilization in patients with high risk for ORAEs can save a typical hospital system $122,296 in total cost of care. CONCLUSION: Use of oliceridine in postoperative care among patients at high risk provides a favorable health economic benefit compared to the use of morphine.

Oliceridine, a new class of opioid analgesics, administered directly into a vein, is a unique medication in that it provides pain relief equivalent to morphine and may have less costly side effects. It is given in a hospital/clinic or surgery center for the treatment of postoperative pain and can reduce costs compared to other opioid analgesics, possibly due to less side effects. An economic model was developed that compares morphine to oliceridine in patients more likely to experience sides effects due to traditional pain medications, comparing common side effects and pain relief following surgery. Although oliceridine costs more than morphine, in our economic model, the use of oliceridine resulted in cost savings ($363,944 US 2020 Dollars in 1,000 patients), and a positive return of investment of over 7 times, when compared to morphine.

Intracellular uptake of agents that block the hERG channel can confound the assessment of QT interval prolongation and arrhythmic risk.

BACKGROUND: Oliceridine is a biased ligand at the µ-opioid receptor recently approved for the treatment of acute pain. In a thorough QT study, corrected QT (QTc) prolongation displayed peaks at 2.5 and 60 minutes after a supratherapeutic dose. The mean plasma concentration peaked at 5 minutes, declining rapidly thereafter. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the basis for the delayed effect of oliceridine to prolong the QTc interval. METHODS: Repolarization parameters and tissue accumulation of oliceridine were evaluated in rabbit left ventricular wedge preparations over a period of 5 hours. The effects of oliceridine on ion channel currents were evaluated in human embryonic kidney and Chinese hamster ovary cells. Quinidine was used as a control. RESULTS: Oliceridine and quinidine produced a progressive prolongation of the QTc interval and action potential duration over a period of 5 hours, paralleling slow progressive tissue uptake of the drugs. Oliceridine caused modest prolongation of these parameters, whereas quinidine produced a prominent prolongation of action potential duration and QTc interval as well as development of early afterdepolarization (after 2 hours), resulting in a high torsades de pointes score. The 50% inhibitory concentration values for the oliceridine inhibition of the rapidly activating delayed rectifier current (human ether a-go-go current) and late sodium channel current were 2.2 and 3.45 µM when assessed after traditional acute exposure but much lower after 3 hours of drug exposure. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that a gradual increase of intracellular access of drugs to the hERG channels as a result of their intracellular uptake and accumulation can significantly delay effects on repolarization, thus confounding the assessment of QT interval prolongation and arrhythmic risk when studied acutely. The multi-ion channel effects of oliceridine, late sodium channel current inhibition in particular, point to a low risk of devloping torsades de pointes.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of oliceridine in the treatment of acute pain.

Aim: Oliceridine, a new class of µ-opioid receptor agonist, is selective for G-protein signaling (analgesia) with limited recruitment of ß-arrestin (associated with adverse outcomes) and may provide a cost-effective alternative versus conventional opioid morphine for postoperative pain. Patients & methods: Using a decision tree with a 24-h time horizon, we calculated costs for medication and management of three most common adverse events (AEs; oxygen saturation <90%, vomiting and somnolence) following postoperative oliceridine or morphine use. Results: Using oliceridine, the cost for managing AEs was US$528,424 versus $852,429 for morphine, with a net cost savings of $324,005. Conclusion: Oliceridine has a favorable overall impact on the total cost of postoperative care compared with the use of the conventional opioid morphine.

Lay abstract Oliceridine, a new class of opioid pain medication, given in a vein, is a unique medication in that it provides pain relief comparable to morphine and may have less costly side effects. It is given in a hospital or surgery center for the treatment of postoperative pain and can save money compared with other opioid pain medicines due to fewer side effects. An economic model was developed to compare morphine to oliceridine for common side effects and pain relief following surgery. Oliceridine use resulted in a cost saving (US$324,005; 2020 US dollars) when compared with morphine.

The assessment of resistance to antidepressant treatment: Rationale for the Antidepressant Treatment History Form: Short Form (ATHF-SF).

There is considerable diversity in how treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is defined. However, every definition incorporates the concept that patients with TRD have not benefited sufficiently from one or more adequate trials of antidepressant treatment. This review examines the issues fundamental to the systematic evaluation of antidepressant treatment adequacy and resistance. These issues include the domains of interventions deemed effective in treatment of major depressive episodes (e.g., pharmacotherapy, brain stimulation, and psychotherapy), the subgroups of patients for whom distinct adequacy criteria are needed (e.g., bipolar vs. unipolar depression, psychotic vs. nonpsychotic depression), whether trials should be rated dichotomously as adequate or inadequate or on a potency continuum, whether combination and augmentation strategies require specific consideration, and the criteria used to evaluate the adequacy of treatment delivery (e.g., dose, duration), trial adherence, and clinical outcome. This review also presents the Antidepressant Treatment History Form: Short-Form (ATHF-SF), a completely revised version of an earlier instrument, and details how these fundamental issues were addressed in the ATHF-SF.

Durability of clinical benefit with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the treatment of pharmacoresistant major depression: assessment of relapse during a 6-month, multisite, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Although transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can be an effective acute antidepressant treatment, few studies systematically examine persistence of benefit. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the durability of antidepressant effect after acute response to TMS in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) using protocol-specified maintenance antidepressant monotherapy. METHODS: Three hundred one patients were randomly assigned to active or sham TMS in a 6-week, controlled trial. Nonresponders could enroll in a second, 6-week, open-label study. Patients who met criteria for partial response (i.e., >25% decrease from the baseline HAMD 17) during either the sham-controlled or open-label study (n = 142) were tapered off TMS over 3 weeks, while simultaneously starting maintenance antidepressant monotherapy. Patients were then followed for 24 weeks in a naturalistic follow-up study examining the long-term durability of TMS. During this durability study, TMS was readministered if patients met prespecified criteria for symptom worsening (i.e., a change of at least one point on the CGI-S scale for 2 consecutive weeks). Relapse was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: Ten of 99 (10%; Kaplan-Meier survival estimate = 12.9%) patients relapsed. Thirty-eight (38.4%) patients met criteria for symptom worsening and 32/38 (84.2%) reachieved symptomatic benefit with adjunctive TMS. Safety and tolerability were similar to acute TMS monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: These initial data suggest that the therapeutic effects of TMS are durable and that TMS may be successfully used as an intermittent rescue strategy to preclude impending relapse.

Cost-effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of major depression: a health economics analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a novel antidepressant therapy shown to be effective and safe in pharmacotherapy-resistant major depression. The incremental cost-effectiveness and the direct cost burden compared with sham treatment were estimated, and compared with the current standard of care. METHODS: Healthcare resource utilization data were collected during a multicenter study (n=301) and a decision analysis was used to stratify the 9-week treatment outcomes. A Markov model with an acute-outcome severity-based risk of relapse was used to estimate the illness course over a full year of treatment follow-up. These model estimates were also compared to best estimates of outcomes and costs of pharmacotherapy treatment, using the published STAR(*)D outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of TMS was described using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and on a direct cost per patient basis across a varying range of assumptions. The model's sensitivities to costs due to losses in work productivity and to caregiver time were also examined. RESULTS: Compared with sham treatment and at a cost of US$300 per treatment session, TMS provides an ICER of US$34,999 per QALY, which is less than the "willingness-to-pay' standard of US$50,000 per QALY for a new treatment for major depression. When productivity gains due to clinical recovery were included, the ICER was reduced to US$6667 per QALY. In open-label conditions, TMS provided a net cost saving of US$1123 per QALY when compared with the current standard of care. In the openlabel condition, cost savings increased further when the costs for productivity losses were included in the model (net savings of US$7621). The overall cost benefits of treating MD using TMS were greater in those patients at the earliest levels of treatment resistance in the overall sample. CONCLUSION: TMS is a cost-effective treatment for patients who have failed to receive sufficient benefit from initial antidepressant pharmacotherapy. When used at earlier levels of treatment resistance, significant cost savings may be expected relative to the current standard of care.