Impact of opioid-induced constipation on healthcare resource utilization and costs for cancer pain patients receiving continuous opioid therapy.

PURPOSE: Opioid therapy is often associated with adverse effects, including opioid-induced constipation (OIC), in patients receiving opioids for cancer pain. This retrospective observational cohort study evaluated healthcare utilization and costs during the first year after initiating opioid therapy among cancer patients with (cohort 1) and without (cohort 2) constipation. METHODS: This study used administrative claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2014. Eligible patients included adults ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of cancer who initiated continuous opioid therapy (≥ 30 days). Propensity scores were used to match patients with constipation in a 1:1 ratio to those without constipation. Generalized linear models were used to evaluate healthcare utilization and costs during the 12 months after initiating opioid therapy. RESULTS: After matching, 1369 patients were included in each cohort. Patients with constipation were more than twice as likely as those without constipation to have an all-cause inpatient hospitalization (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)], 2.47 [2.11-2.90]), or pain-related hospitalization (2.15 [1.82-2.54]) during the 12 months after initiating therapy. Mean unadjusted overall healthcare costs during the first 12 months post-index were $21,629 (95% CI, $14,850-$29,018) higher for patients with constipation than for those without constipation. For patients with constipation, total mean (SD) constipation-related costs were $9196 ($26,896). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that OIC is associated with significantly increased healthcare and economic burden in cancer pain patients and that early and ongoing recognition and management of OIC are unmet needs in this population.

What if Acupuncture Were Covered by Insurance for Pain Management? A Cross-Sectional Study of Cancer Patients at One Academic Center and 11 Community Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: In response to the national opioid crisis, governmental and medical organizations have called for broader insurance coverage of acupuncture to improve access to nonpharmacologic pain therapies, especially in cancer populations, where undertreatment of pain is prevalent. We evaluated whether cancer patients would be willing to use insurance-covered acupuncture for pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of cancer patients with pain at one academic center and 11 community hospitals. METHODS: We used logistic regression models to examine factors associated with willingness to use insurance-covered acupuncture for pain. RESULTS: Among 634 cancer patients, 304 (47.9%) reported willingness to use insurance-covered acupuncture for pain. In univariate analyses, patients were more likely to report willingness if they had severe pain (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-2.45) but were less likely if they were nonwhite (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.39-0.90) or had only received high school education or less (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.32-0.65). After adjusting for attitudes and beliefs in multivariable analyses, willingness was no longer significantly associated with education (adjusted OR [aOR] = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.50-1.21) and was more negatively associated with nonwhite race (aOR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.29-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in two cancer patients was willing to use insurance-covered acupuncture for pain. Willingness was influenced by patients' attitudes and beliefs, which are potentially modifiable through counseling and education. Further research on racial disparities is needed to close the gap in utilization as acupuncture is integrated into insurance plans in response to the opioid crisis.

The relationship between household income and patient-reported symptom distress and quality of life in children with advanced cancer: A report from the PediQUEST study.

BACKGROUND: Children with advanced cancer experience high symptom distress, which negatively impacts their health-related quality of life (HRQOL). To the authors' knowledge, the relationship between income and symptom distress and HRQOL is not well described. METHODS: The Pediatric Quality of Life and Symptoms Technology (PediQUEST) multisite clinical trial evaluated an electronic patient-reported outcome system to describe symptom distress and HRQOL in children with advanced cancer via repeated surveys. The authors performed a secondary analysis of PediQUEST data for those children with available parent-reported household income (dichotomized at 200% of the Federal Poverty Level and categorized as low income [<$50,000/year] or high income [≥$50,000/year]). The prevalence of the 5 most commonly reported physical and psychological symptoms was compared between groups. Multivariable generalized estimating equation models were used to test the association between household income and symptom distress and HRQOL. RESULTS: A total of 78 children were included in the analyses: 56 (72%) in the high-income group and 22 (28%) in the low-income group. Low-income children were more likely to report pain than high-income children (64% vs 42%; P=.02). In multivariable models, children from low-income families demonstrated a uniform trend toward higher total (ßlow-high =3.1; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -0.08 to 6.2 [P=.06]), physical (ß=3.8; 95% CI, -0.4 to 8.0 [P=.09]), and psychological (ß=3.46; 95% CI, -1.91 to 8.84 [P=.21]) symptom distress compared with children from high-income families. Low income was associated with a uniform trend toward lower total (ß=-7.9; 95% CI, -14.8, to -1.1 [P=.03]), physical (ß=-11.2; 95% CI, -21.2 to -1.2 [P=.04]), emotional (ß=-5.8; 95% CI, -13.6 to 2.0 [P=.15]), social (ß=-2.52; 95% CI, -9.27 to 4.24 [P=.47]), and school (ß=-9.8; 95% CI, -17.8 to -1.8 [P=.03]) HRQOL. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of children with advanced cancer, children from low-income families were found to experience higher symptom burden and worse QOL.

NCCN Frameworks for Resource Stratification of NCCN Guidelines: Adult Cancer Pain and Palliative Care.

The NCCN Framework aims to provide adapted guidelines for low- and middle-resource countries to improve the experience of patients with cancer. In particular, the NCCN Frameworks for Adult Cancer Pain and Palliative Care and were designed to help expand access to pain management and palliative care for patients in low-resource countries. The NCCN Framework is one of several tools that can improve cancer care in the developing world. The NCCN Harmonized Guidelines for Sub-Saharan Africa, a collaborative effort between NCCN, American Cancer Society, Clinton Health Access Initiative, and African Cancer Coalition, was developed to harmonize NCCN recommendations with local guidelines across Africa and to make best use of available services and resources.

Protocol for a phase III pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening and guidelines with, versus without, implementation strategies for improving pain in adults with cancer attending outpatient oncology and palliative care services: the Stop Cancer PAIN trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common and distressing symptom in people with cancer, but is under-recognised and under-treated. Australian guidelines for 'Cancer Pain Management in Adults' are available on the Cancer Council Australia Cancer Guideline Wiki. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a suite of guideline implementation strategies for improving pain outcomes in adults with cancer in oncology and palliative care outpatient settings. METHODS: The study will use a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled design, with oncology and palliative care outpatient services as the clusters. Patients will be eligible if they are adults with cancer and pain presenting to participating services during the study period. During an initial control arm, services will routinely screen patients for average and worst pain over the past 24 h using a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) and have unfettered access to online guidelines. During the intervention arm, staff at each service will be encouraged to use: 1) a patient education booklet and self-management resource; 2) an online spaced learning cancer pain education module for clinicians from different disciplines; and 3) audit and feedback of service performance on key indices of cancer pain screening, assessment and management. Service-based clinical change champions will lead implementation of these strategies. The trial's primary outcome will be the probability that patients initially screened as having moderate-severe (≥5/10 NRS) worst pain experience a clinically important improvement one week later, defined as ≥ 30% reduction. Secondary outcomes will include patient empowerment and quality of life, carer experience, and cost-effectiveness. For the main analysis, linear mixed models will be used, accounting for clustering and the longitudinal design. Eighty-two patients per service at six services (N = 492) will provide > 90% power. A qualitative sub-study and analyses of structural and process factors will explore opportunities for further refinement and tailoring of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic trial will inform implementation of guidelines across a range of oncology and palliative care outpatient service contexts. If found effective, the implementation strategies will be made freely available on the Wiki alongside the guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered 23/01/2015 on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12615000064505 ).

An Economic Analysis of SC24 in Canada: A Randomized Study of SBRT Compared With Conventional Palliative RT for Spinal Metastases.

PURPOSE: The Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) Symptom Control 24 protocol (SC.24) was a multicenter randomized controlled phase 2/3 trial conducted in Canada and Australia. Patients with painful spinal metastases were randomized to either 24 Gy/2 stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or 20 Gy/5 conventional external beam radiation therapy (CRT). The study met its primary endpoint and demonstrated superior complete pain response rates at 3 months following SBRT (35%) versus CRT (14%). SBRT planning and delivery is resource intensive. Given its benefits in SC.24, we performed an economic analysis to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of SBRT compared with CRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The trial recruited 229 patients. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a Markov model taking into account observed survival, treatments costs, retreatment, and quality of life over the lifetime of the patient. The EORTC-QLU-C10D was used to determine quality of life values. Transition probabilities for outcomes were from available patient data. Health system costs were from the Canadian health care perspective and were based on 2021 Canadian dollars (CAD). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as the ratio of incremental cost to quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The impact of parameter uncertainty was investigated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The base case for SBRT compared with CRT had an ICER of $9,040CAD per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the utility assigned to "No local failure" ($5,457CAD to $241,051CAD per QALY), adopting low and high estimates of utility and the cost of the SBRT (ICERs ranging from $7345-$123,361CAD per QALY). It was more robust to variations in assumptions around survival and response rate. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT is associated with higher upfront costs than CRT. The ICER shows that, within the Canadian health care system, SBRT with 2 fractions is likely to be more cost-effective than CRT.

Impact of Pain on Employment and Financial Outcomes Among Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Although pain is a frequently reported symptom among individuals with cancer, there is limited information on the impact of pain on employment or financial outcomes. This study used nationally representative data to examine the role of pain levels on employment and financial outcomes. METHODS: We used data from the 2016-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement to identify 1,213 adults diagnosed with cancer. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to examine association of pain levels and self-reported employment and financial outcomes. RESULTS: Approximately 43% of adults with a cancer history reported no pain, 29% mild pain, 18% moderate pain, and 10% severe pain over the past 7 days. Compared with those reporting no pain, individuals reporting any pain had significantly increased likelihood of adverse employment outcomes including early retirement, feeling less productive, and staying at a job because of concerns about losing insurance. Individuals with any pain (compared with no pain) also had significantly increased likelihood of adverse financial outcomes including borrowing money or going into debt, inability to cover medical costs, and worrying about paying medical bills. For both employment and financial outcomes, there were dose-response relationships, with worse outcomes generally associated with greater pain levels. CONCLUSION: Pain is frequently associated with adverse employment and financial outcomes among cancer survivors, and greater pain is associated with worse outcomes. Better assessment of pain severity among survivors and implementation of strategies to assist with employment and financial objectives may be important steps to enhance patient-centered care.

Oxycodone versus morphine for cancer pain titration: A systematic review and pharmacoeconomic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of Oxycodone Hydrochloride Controlled-release Tablets (CR oxycodone) and Morphine Sulfate Sustained-release Tablets (SR morphine) for moderate to severe cancer pain titration. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria were searched through Medline, Cochrane Library, Pubmed, EMbase, CNKI,VIP and WanFang database from the data of their establishment to June 2019. The efficacy and safety data were extracted from the included literature. The pain control rate was calculated to eatimate efficacy. Meta-analysis was conducted by Revman5.1.4. A decision tree model was built to simulate cancer pain titration process. The initial dose of CR oxycodone and SR morphine group were 20mg and 30mg respectively. Oral immediate-release morphine was administered to treat break-out pain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was performed with TreeAge Pro 2019. RESULTS: 19 studies (1680 patients)were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed that the pain control rate of CR oxycodone and SR morphine were 86% and 82.98% respectively. The costs of CR oxycodone and SR morphine were $23.27 and $13.31. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per unit was approximate $329.76. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $8836, CR oxycodone was cost-effective, while the corresponding probability of being cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $300 was 31.6%. One-way sensitivity analysis confirmed robustness of results. CONCLUSIONS: CR oxycodone could be a cost-effective option compared with SR morphine for moderate to severe cancer pain titration in China, according to the threshold defined by the WHO.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of oral fentanyl formulations for breakthrough cancer pain treatment.

Breakthrough cancer Pain (BTcP) has a high prevalence in cancer population. Patients with BTcP reported relevant health care costs and poor quality of life. The study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the available Oral Fentanyl Formulations (OFFs) for BTcP in Italy. A decision-analytical model was developed to estimate costs and benefits associated with treatments, from the Italian NHS perspective. Expected reductions in pain intensity per BTcP episodes were translated into, percentage of BTcP reduction, resource use and Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALYs). Relative efficacy, resources used and unit costs data were derived from the literature and validated by clinical experts. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. At base-case analysis, Sublingual Fentanyl Citrate (FCSL) compared to other oral formulations reported a lower patient's cost (€1,960.8) and a higher efficacy (18.7% of BTcP avoided and 0.0507 QALYs gained). The sensitivity analyses confirmed the main results in all tested scenarios, with the highest impact reported by BTcP duration and health care resources consumption parameters. Between OFFs, FCSL is the cost-effective option due to faster reduction of pain intensity. However, new research is needed to better understand the economic and epidemiologic impact of BTcP, and to collect more robust data on economic and quality of life impact of the different fentanyl formulations. Different fentanyl formulations are available to manage BTcP in cancer population. The study is the first that assesses the different impact in terms of cost and effectiveness of OFFs, providing new information to better allocate the resources available to treat BTcP and highlighting the need of better data.

Effectiveness of Percutaneous Celiac Plexus Ablation in the Treatment of Severe Cancer Pain in Upper Abdomen and Evaluation of Health Economics.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, adverse effects, and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous neurolytic celiac plexus block (NCPB) versus traditional medication strategies for the treatment of patients with advanced cancer having severe upper abdominal cancer pain. METHODS: This retrospective study included 81 patients with advanced upper abdominal cancer admitted to The Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University between January 2013 and July 2014. The patients were divided into percutaneous NCPB (treatment) and medication for pain (control) groups. The outcomes were measured in terms of Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score and Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score before treatment and on the 3rd, 7th, 14th, and 28th days posttreatment. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the therapy were assessed using analysis of the health economics. RESULTS: The improvements in NRS score (1.42 ± 1.09 vs 4.03 ± 0.96, P < .01) and KPS score (65.55 ± 9.09 vs 63.03 ± 8.961, P < .01) in the treatment group were significantly superior compared to the control group on the 7th day of treatment, followed by no significant difference between the 2 groups on the 14th and the 28th day of treatment. Health economics evaluation revealed that the medicine-specific costs and total health care costs were significantly reduced in the treatment group compared to the control group ( P < .05), but no significant differences between the 2 groups ( P > .05) were seen in the costs of hospitalization, examinations, and treatment. CONCLUSION: The percutaneous NCPB method shows promising results and better cost-effectiveness for treating patients with advanced cancer having severe upper abdominal pain.