Cost-effectiveness of an 8% Capsaicin Patch in the Treatment of Brachioradial Pruritus and Notalgia Paraesthetica, Two Forms of Neuropathic Pruritus.

In brachioradial pruritus and notalgia paraesthetica, the 8% capsaicin patch is a novel and effective, but cost-intense, therapy. Routine data for 44 patients were collected 6 months retrospectively and prospectively to first patch application. The cost to health insurance and the patient, and patient-reported outcomes were analysed (visual analogue scale, numerical rating scale, verbal rating scale for pruritus symptoms, Dermatological Life Quality Index, and Patient Benefit Index). Mean inpatient treatment costs were reduced by €212.31, and mean outpatient treatment and medication costs by €100.74 per patient (p.p.). However, these reductions did not offset the high cost of the patch itself (€767.02 p.p.); thus the total cost to health insurance increased by €453.97 p.p. (p ≤ 0.01). The additional costs of therapy to the patient decreased by €441.06, thus the overall cost p.p. remained approximately the same (€3,306.03 vs. €3,318.94). Capsaicin patch therapy resulted in reduced pruritus, improved quality of life and greater patient benefit, thus long-term cost-efficiency analyses are necessary.

Cost-Effectiveness of Capsaicin 8% Patch Compared with Pregabalin for the Treatment of Patients with Peripheral Neuropathic Pain in Scotland.

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of capsaicin 8% patch (QUTENZA™) versus pregabalin in patients with PNP from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal and Social Services in Scotland, UK. A decision-tree cost-effectiveness model was developed for non-diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) who were pregabalin-naïve and had not achieved adequate pain relief or tolerated conventional first- or second-line treatments. Patients entering the model received either a single application of capsaicin 8% patch or titrated daily dosing with pregabalin; after 8 weeks patients were classified as responders, non-responders, or were assumed to discontinue treatment due to intolerable adverse events. Responders continued to receive baseline treatment at intervals observed in clinical practice. Non-responders and those who discontinued treatment were assumed to receive last-line therapy (duloxetine). The base-case time horizon was 2 years. Model inputs for effectiveness, discontinuations and health-state utilities were taken from a head-to-head non-inferiority study (ELEVATE, NCT01713426). Other inputs were obtained from published sources or clinical expert opinion. Costs were expressed in GBP 2013/14. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), i.e. cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Model assumptions were tested with scenario analyses. Parameter uncertainty was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Compared with dose-optimized pregabalin, capsaicin 8% patch was the dominant treatment strategy (total cost difference, -£11; total QALY gain, 0.049). Capsaicin 8% patch was also the dominant treatment strategy versus pregabalin in 6 out of 7 scenario analyses. The model was most sensitive to variation in time to capsaicin 8% patch retreatment (maximum ICER, £7,951/QALY at lower-bound 95% confidence interval). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, the probability of capsaicin 8% patch being cost-effective versus pregabalin was 97%. Capsaicin 8% patch is a cost-effective treatment option compared with dose-optimized pregabalin in patients with PNP who have failed one or more previous systemic treatments.

[Capsaicin Cutaneous Patch: a Cost-consequences Study in a French University Hospital]. / Étude coût-conséquences sur la capsaïcine en patch cutané dans un CHU français.

INTRODUCTION: The capsaïcine 8% cutaneous patch (Qutenza®) was recently approved for the management of patients with peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP). Considering its limited clinical efficacy data, its improvement of medical benefit was determined to be 5 which was insufficient to support its reimbursement in addition to diagnosis related groups'tarifs. Nevertheless its commercialization was associated with a marked interest considering the unmet therapeutic needs for patients with PNP. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to assess the effectiveness, the safety, and the economic impact of Qutenza® in real-life conditions. METHODS: An observational cost-consequences study was launched under the aegis of the Drug Committee of our hospital. Medical charts and prescriptions of all patients who received at least one patch application were analyzed. Effectiveness and safety were assessed after 12-week and 24-week of follow-up. The economic impact was measured within the Hospital and Health Insurance perspective and with limitation to direct costs. RESULTS: From March 2012 to October 2013, 91 patients (54.3 ± 14.1 years; 52.7% of male) received at least one application. The average follow- up duration was 188.3 ± 86.4 days. The PNP etiologies were mainly post-surgery (42.9%) and post-traumatology (20.8%). A therapeutic response (decrease of ENS score of least 30%) after 12 weeks and 24 weeks was observed in 27.9% and 37.1% of patients respectively. The SF-36 mental score was significantly improved. The safety profile was good. The application of the patch resulted in incremental costs of 154 euros per hospital stay without impact on outpatient-prescription drug expenditures. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the interest of Qutenza® for heavily pretreated, refractory patients with PNP. The clinical profile of responders has to be further investigated in large observational studies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new 8% capsaicin patch compared to existing therapies for postherpetic neuralgia.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of a new 8% capsaicin patch, compared to the current treatments for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), including tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), topical lidocaine patches, duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregabalin. METHODS: A 1-year Markov model was constructed for PHN with monthly cycles, including dose titration and management of adverse events. The perspective of the analysis was from a payer perspective, managed-care organization. Clinical trials were used to determine the proportion of patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in PHN pain, the efficacy parameter. The outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); second-order probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The effectiveness results indicated that 8% capsaicin patch and topical lidocaine patch were significantly more effective than the oral PHN products. TCAs were least costly and significantly less costly than duloxetine, pregabalin, topical lidocaine patch, 8% capsaicin patch, but not gabapentin. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the 8% capsaicin patch overlapped with the topical lidocaine patch and was within the accepted threshold of cost per QALY gained compared to TCAs, duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregablin. The frequency of the 8% capsaicin patch retreatment assumption significantly impacts its cost-effectiveness results. There are several limitations to this analysis. Since no head-to-head studies were identified, this model used inputs from multiple clinical trials. Also, a last observation carried forward process was assumed to have continued for the duration of the model. Additionally, the trials with duloxetine may have over-predicted its efficacy in PHN. Although a 30% improvement in pain is often an endpoint in clinical trials, some patients may require greater or less improvement in pain to be considered a clinical success. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness results demonstrated that 8% capsaicin and topical lidocaine patches had significantly higher effectiveness rates than the oral agents used to treat PHN. In addition, this cost-effectiveness analysis found that the 8% capsaicin patch was similar to topical lidocaine patch and within an accepted cost per QALY gained threshold compared to the oral products.

Treatment options in knee osteoarthritis: the patient's perspective.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to (1) examine patient treatment preferences for knee osteoarthritis, (2) determine the influence of specific medication characteristics on patients' choices, and (3) examine whether patient preferences are consistent with current practice. METHODS: A total of 100 consecutive patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis completed an interactive computer questionnaire administered during a face-to-face interview. We measured the relative impact of specific medication characteristics (including administration, risks, benefits, and cost) on patients' choice, and the percentage of patients preferring nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulfate, opioid derivatives, and capsaicin across varying risks, benefits, and costs. RESULTS: Of the characteristics studied, variation in the risk of common adverse effects and gastrointestinal ulcer had the greatest impact on patients' choice. Assuming patients are responsible for the full cost of their medications, over 40% prefer capsaicin. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors become patients' preferred choice only if they are described as being 3 times as effective as capsaicin and are covered by insurance. Nonselective NSAIDs are among the least preferred options across all simulations. CONCLUSIONS: When evaluating multiple alternatives, many older patients with knee osteoarthritis are willing to forgo treatment effectiveness for a lower risk of adverse effects. The patient treatment preferences derived in this study conflict with the current widespread use of nonselective NSAIDs in older patients with arthritis.