Household characteristics as predictors of access to paediatric malaria treatment in Homa-Bay County, Kenya.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of socioeconomic household characteristics on access to paediatric malaria treatment in Homa Bay County, Kenya. RESULTS: From univariate analysis, treatment with analgesics only in a community health center or a faith-based organization, self-employment, urban residence and residing in a sub-county other than Suba or Mbita showed significant association with access to paediatric antimalarial treatment. However, on multivariate analysis, urban residence, education, income of 10,000 to 30,000 and information from peers were the most statistically significant predictors of access to treatment. Urban households were 0.37 times more likely to access treatment than rural ones. Having primary, secondary or post-secondary education conferred 0.25, 0.14 and 0.28 higher chance of access to paediatric malaria treatment respectively compared to those with no formal education. Those with monthly income levels of 10,000 to 30,000 shillings had 0.32 higher chance of accessing treatment compared to those with less than 5000 shillings.

Changes in medication cost observed in chronic cluster headache patients treated with sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) stimulation: Analysis based on 1-year data from the Pathway R-1 Registry.

Background On-demand stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) by means of an implantable neurostimulation system has been shown to be a safe and effective therapy for treatment-refractory cluster headache patients. Our objective was to estimate changes in cluster headache medication cost observed in SPG-treated chronic patients. Methods Detailed patient-level data of 71 chronic patients treated with the Pulsante® SPG Microstimulator System were available from the Pathway R-1 Registry through 12 months' follow-up. We used utilization data of preventive and acute medications reported at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months to estimate annualized drug costs for SPG-treated patients and compared it to baseline. Cost estimates for all drug/dosage combinations were developed based on German medication prices for 2016. Results In the base case analysis, mean annual acute and preventive medication costs decreased from €14,178 to €6924 (-€7254; -51%), and €559 to €328 (-€231; -41%), respectively, leading to total estimated annual drug cost savings of €7484, 97% of which were attributable to acute medications. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that SPG stimulation for the treatment of chronic cluster headache is associated with pronounced reductions in cluster headache medication usage that might lead to sizable annual savings in medication costs.

Prescription Patterns and the Cost of Migraine Treatments in German General and Neurological Practices.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze prescription patterns and the cost of migraine treatments in general practices (GPs) and neurological practices (NPs) in Germany. METHODS: This study included 43,149 patients treated in GPs and 13,674 patients treated in NPs who were diagnosed with migraine in 2015. Ten different families of migraine therapy were included in the analysis: triptans, analgesics, anti-emetics, beta-blockers, antivertigo products, gastroprokinetics, anti-epileptics, calcium channel blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, and other medications (all other classes used in the treatment of migraine including homeopathic medications). The share of migraine therapies and their costs were estimated for GPs and NPs. RESULTS: The mean age was 44.4 years in GPs and 44.1 years in NPs. Triptans and analgesics were the 2 most commonly prescribed families of drugs in all patients and in the 9 specific subgroups. Interestingly, triptans were more commonly prescribed in NPs than in GPs (30.9% to 55.0% vs. 30.0% to 44.7%), whereas analgesics were less frequently given in NPs than in GPs (11.5% to 17.2% vs. 35.3% to 42.4%). Finally, the share of patients who received no therapy was higher in NPs than in GPs (33.9% to 58.4% vs. 27.5% to 37.9%). The annual cost per patient was €66.04 in GPs and €94.71 in NPs. Finally, the annual cost per patient increased with age and was higher in women and in individuals with private health insurance coverage than in men and individuals with public health insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: Triptans and analgesics were the 2 most commonly prescribed drugs for the treatment of migraine. Furthermore, approximately 30% to 40% of patients did not receive any therapy. Finally, the annual cost per patient was higher in NPs than in GPs.

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.

[How to convince the head of department and managing director of the importance of specialised headache clinics]. / Como convencer al jefe de servicio y al gerente de la importancia de las unidades/consultas especializadas de cefaleas.

In spite that headache is, by far, the most frequent reason for neurological consultation and that the diagnosis and treatment of some patients with headache is difficult, the number of headache clinics is scarce in our country. In this paper the main arguments which should allow us, as neurologists, to defend the necessity of implementing headache clinics are reviewed. To get this aim we should first overcome our internal reluctances, which still make headache as scarcely appreciated within our specialty. The facts that more than a quarter of consultations to our Neurology Services are due to headache, that there are more than 200 different headaches, some of them actually invalidating, and the new therapeutic options for chronic patients, such as OnabotulinumtoxinA or neuromodulation techniques, oblige us to introduce specialised headache attendance in our current neurological offer. Even though there are no definite data, available results indicate that headache clinics are efficient in patients with chronic headaches, not only in terms of health benefit but also from an economical point of view.

TITLE: Como convencer al jefe de servicio y al gerente de la importancia de las unidades/consultas especializadas de cefaleas.A pesar de que la cefalea es, con diferencia, el principal motivo neurologico de consulta, y de la complejidad diagnostica y terapeutica de algunos pacientes, el numero de consultas monograficas de cefalea (CC) y de unidades de cefalea (UC) es muy reducido en nuestro pais. En este articulo pasaremos revista a los principales argumentos que nos permitan, como neurologos, defender la necesidad de la implementacion de una CC/UC, dependiendo de la poblacion que se debe atender, en todos nuestros servicios de neurologia. Para ello deberemos, en primer lugar, vencer las reticencias internas, que hacen que la cefalea sea aun poco apreciada y atractiva dentro de nuestra especialidad. El hecho de que la cefalea justifique mas de un cuarto de las consultas a un servicio de neurologia estandar de nuestro pais y de que existan mas de 200 cefaleas diferentes, algunas de ellas realmente invalidantes, y las nuevas opciones de tratamiento para pacientes cronicos, como la OnabotulinumtoxinA para la migraña cronica o las tecnicas de neuromodulacion, obligan a introducir dentro de nuestras carteras de servicios la asistencia especializada en cefaleas. Aunque no disponemos de datos incontrovertibles, existen ya datos suficientes en la literatura que indican que esta atencion es eficiente en pacientes con cefaleas cronicas no solo en terminos de salud, sino tambien desde el punto de vista economico.

Opposite drug prescription and cost trajectories following integrative and conventional care for pain--a case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: Pharmacotherapy may have a limited role in long-term pain management. Comparative trajectories of drug prescriptions and costs, two quality-of-care indicators for pain conditions, are largely unknown subsequent to conventional or integrative care (IC) management. The objectives of this study were to compare prescribed defined daily doses (DDD) and cost of first line drugs for pain patients referred to conventional or anthroposophic IC in Stockholm County, Sweden. METHODS: In this retrospective high quality registry case-control study, IC and conventional care patients were identified through inpatient care registries and matched on pain diagnosis (ICD-10: M79), age, gender and socio-demographics. National drug registry data was used to investigate changes in DDD and costs from 90/180 days before, to 90/180 days after, index visits to IC and conventional care. The primary selected drug category was analgesics, complemented by musculo-skeletal system drugs (e.g. anti-inflammatories, muscle relaxants) and psycholeptics (e.g. hypnotics, sedatives). RESULTS: After index care visits, conventional care pain patients (n = 1050) compared to IC patients (n = 213), were prescribed significantly more analgesics. The average (95% CI) group difference was 15.2 (6.0 to 24.3), p = 0.001, DDD/patient after 90 days; and 21.5 (7.4 to 35.6), p = 0.003, DDD/patient after 180 days. The cost of the prescribed and sold analgesics was significantly higher for conventional care after 90 days: euro/patient 10.7 (1.3 to 20.0), p = 0.025. Changes in drug prescription and costs for the other drug categories were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Drug prescriptions and costs of analgesics increased following conventional care and decreased following IC, indicating potentially fewer adverse drug events and beneficial societal cost savings with IC.

Real-world treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia with gabapentin or pregabalin.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are limited data examining the real-world use of gabapentin and pregabalin for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). This study examines dosing patterns, therapy outcomes, healthcare utilization and costs of patients with PHN who initiate treatment with gabapentin or pregabalin. METHODS: This was a retrospective administrative claims data analysis from July 2005 to February 2010. Patients with PHN initiating gabapentin or pregabalin (index therapy) from January 2006 to February 2009 were identified and were observed for 12 months after index therapy initiation. Outcomes were mean daily dosages of the index therapy, attainment of minimally effective dosages of gabapentin (≥ 1,800 mg/day) or pregabalin (≥ 150 and ≥ 300 mg/day) persistence, discontinuation, index therapy switching, addition of neuropathic pain medications to index therapy, and healthcare resource use and costs. RESULTS: 1,645 patients were identified. The mean daily dosage was 826 mg for gabapentin and 187 mg for pregabalin. Only 52.6 % of patients initiating gabapentin and 56.9 % initiating pregabalin obtained a refill during the post-index period. Approximately 14 % of patients treated with gabapentin reached the target dosage (1,800 mg/day). For pregabalin, 87 % reached ≥ 150 mg/day and 27 % reached ≥ 300 mg/day. On average, patients took 10 weeks to reach 1,800 mg/day gabapentin, and 5.0 and 9.2 weeks to reach ≥ 150 mg/day and ≥ 300 mg/day pregabalin, respectively. Approximately one-third of patients in both index therapy cohorts added a pain medication; more than half added opioids. The percentage of patients switching from either drug (57 %) or adding a therapy (34 %) were similar between index therapy cohorts; opioids were the most common therapy patients switched to or added. CONCLUSION: It appears that gabapentin and pregabalin are not used effectively to treat PHN. Suboptimal dosing and discontinuation may be associated with supplementary use of other analgesics, especially opioids.

Use of health care services and pharmaceutical agents in coeliac disease: a prospective nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 1% of the population suffer from coeliac disease. However, the disease is heavily underdiagnosed. Unexplained symptoms may lead to incremented medical consultations and productivity losses. The aim here was to estimate the possible concealed burden of untreated coeliac disease and the effects of a gluten-free diet. METHODS: A nationwide cohort of 700 newly detected adult coeliac patients were prospectively evaluated. Health care service use and sickness absence from work during the year before diagnosis were compared with those in the general population; the data obtained from an earlier study. Additionally, the effect of one year on dietary treatment on the aforementioned parameters and on consumption of pharmaceutical agents was assessed. RESULTS: Untreated coeliac patients used primary health care services more frequently than the general population. On a gluten-free diet, visits to primary care decreased significantly from a mean 3.6 to 2.3. The consumption of medicines for dyspepsia (from 3.7 to 2.4 pills/month) and painkillers (6.8-5.5 pills/month) and the number of antibiotic courses (0.6-0.5 prescriptions/year) was reduced. There were no changes in hospitalizations, outpatient visits to secondary and tertiary care, use of other medical services, or sickness absence, but the consumption of nutritional supplements increased on treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Coeliac disease was associated with excessive health care service use and consumption of drugs before diagnosis. Dietary treatment resulted in a diminished burden to the health care system and lower use of on-demand medicines and antibiotic treatment. The results support an augmented diagnostic approach to reduce underdiagnosis of coeliac disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01145287.

An economic evaluation of pregabalin versus usual care in the management of community-treated patients with refractory painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in primary care settings.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin versus usual care (UC) in the management of community-treated patients with refractory painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN) in primary care settings (PCS) in Spain. METHODS: Data was extracted from a 12-week registry study assessing costs of neuropathic pain in Spain. Pregabalin-naïve outpatients treated with UC or newly prescribed pregabalin were selected for inclusion in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Effectiveness was expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gain. Perspectives of the Spanish National Health System (NHS) and society (2006) were applied for cost calculations. Results were expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Bootstrapping techniques (10,000 re-samples) were used to obtain the probabilistic ICER and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were included in the economic analysis. Compared with UC, pregabalin was associated with higher QALY gain in a period of 12-weeks; 0.0406±0.0343 versus 0.0285±0.0350 (p=0.167). Overall total costs (€1368±1229 vs. €1258±1474; p=0.587) and healthcare costs (€628±590 vs. €469±420; p=0.134) were similar for both pregabalin and UC, respectively. ICERs for pregabalin varied from €5302 (95% CI: dominant; €144,105) for total costs to €14,381 (dominant; €115,648) for healthcare costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that 79-84% of ICERs were below the threshold of €30,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that pregabalin may be cost-effective in the management of community-treated refractory outpatients, with pDPN when compared with usual care in the primary care setting in Spain. These findings may help policy makers when making health decision in the management of diabetes in the community.

Use and costs of prescription medications and alternative treatments in patients with osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain in community-based settings.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use and direct medical costs of pharmacologic and alternative treatments for patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: The LifeLink™ Health Plan Claims Database was used to identify patients ≥18 years old, diagnosed with OA (N = 112,951) or CLBP (N = 101,294). Of these patients, 64,085 with OA and 47,386 with CLBP received pain-related treatments during CY2008 and were selected for inclusion. For patients in both cohorts, pharmacologic and alternative treatments, and direct medical costs were examined during CY2008. RESULTS: Opioids were the most frequently prescribed medication (>70%) in both groups, followed by nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (>50%). Over 30% received antidepressants, >20% received benzodiazepines, and 15% in each group received sedative hypnotics. Use of alternative treatments was as follows: chiropractor, OA 11%, CLBP 34%; physical therapy, 20% in both groups; transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulations (TENS), OA 14%, CLBP 22%; acupuncture, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, and biofeedback, <3% in both groups. Mean (SD) total healthcare costs among these patients were, OA: $15,638 ($22,595); CLBP: $11,829 ($20,035). Pharmacologic therapies accounted for approximately 20% of these costs, whereas alternative treatments accounted for only 3% to 4% of the total costs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with OA and CLBP used a variety of pain-related and adjunctive medications. Although, alternative treatments are widely recommended, we found limited use of several of these in clinical practice, potentially due to the source of our data (commercial claims). Further research is needed to ascertain the extent to which such therapies contribute to the total costs of OA and CLBP management.

Clinical comorbidities, treatment patterns, and healthcare costs among patients with fibromyalgia newly prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine in usual care.

OBJECTIVE: To assess comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use among patients with fibromyalgia (FM) newly prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine (index event) in usual care settings. METHODS: Using the LifeLink™ Health Plan Claims Database, patients with FM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 729.1X) were identified. Patients initiated on duloxetine were propensity score-matched with patients initiated on pregabalin (n = 826; mean age [standard deviation] of 48.3 [9.3] years for both groups). Prevalence of comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use/costs were examined during the 12-month pre-index and follow-up periods. RESULTS: Both patient groups had multiple comorbidities and a substantial pain-related and adjuvant medication burden. In the pregabalin group, use of other anticonvulsants decreased significantly (31.6% vs 24.9%), whereas use of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs; 16.5% vs 22.5%) and topical agents (10.1% vs 13.2%) increased in the follow-up period (p < 0.01). In the duloxetine group, there were significant decreases in the use of other SNRIs (13.0% vs 5.7%), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (41.3% vs 21.7%), and tricyclic antidepressants (18.8% vs 13.2%), and an increase in the use of anticonvulsants (28.6% vs 40.1%; p < 0.0001). There were significant increases (p < 0.0001) in pharmacy and total healthcare costs in both cohorts, and a significant increase in outpatient costs (p = 0.0084) in the duloxetine cohort from pre-index to follow-up. There were no significant differences in median total healthcare costs between the pregabalin and duloxetine groups in both the pre-index ($10,159 vs $9,556) and follow-up ($11,390 vs $11,746) periods. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study are typical of those associated with retrospective database analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with FM prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine were characterized by a significant comorbidity and pain/adjuvant medication burden. Although healthcare costs increased in both groups, there were no statistically significant differences in direct healthcare costs between the two groups.

Costs of pregabalin or gabapentin for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize and compare healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN) newly prescribed pregabalin or gabapentin in a real-world clinical setting. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis using the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental Databases (2007-2009). METHODS: Patients with new prescriptions for pregabalin or gabapentin (index event) in 2008 and ≥1 healthcare encounter with an ICD-9 code for pDPN (250.6 or 357.2) within 30 days prior to the first prescription were identified and propensity score matched; continuous enrollment 12 months pre- and post-index was required. Pre- to post-index changes in 12-month all-cause and pDPN-attributable resource utilization and costs were compared between pregabalin and gabapentin using a difference-in-difference (DID) approach. RESULTS: A total of 910 pregabalin patients (48.6% female; mean age 63.3 ± 12.1 years) were matched with 910 gabapentin patients (48.8% female; mean age 63.3 ± 12.1 years). The DID showed no significant differences between cohorts for pre- to post-index changes in any of the all-cause resource utilization categories. While prescription costs increased significantly more with pregabalin (DID -$563; p < 0.0001), the DID of $1603 for total healthcare costs per patient indicated that the pre- to post-index increases of $3081 for pregabalin and $4684 for gabapentin patients were comparable (p = 0.8474). Total pDPN-attributable healthcare costs were significantly higher with pregabalin (DID -$385; p < 0.0001), resulting from higher prescription costs (DID -$432; p < 0.0001). Limitations of this study include the inability to specifically link pDPN with medication prescribing; differences between groups despite propensity score matching; use of proxy measures for adherence parameters; and inability to capture efficacy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients initiating pregabalin or gabapentin, there were no significant differences between the drugs in the pre- to post-index changes in all-cause total healthcare costs, despite the increase in prescription costs for pregabalin.

Economic evaluation of pharmacotherapy of migraine pain: a review of the literature.

This paper reviews the economic evaluation literature on pharmacotherapy for migraine and identifies important trends and gaps in the literature. Given the tremendous economic burden of migraine and the availability of various therapies for migraine treatment, economic evaluation of alternative therapies plays a critical role in identifying the most cost-effective therapy to optimize health care resource allocation and clinical decisions. Particularly, physicians and clinical administrators are expected to take an active role in resource allocation decisions at the clinical level. Thus, it is important for them to be familiar with the economic evaluation in migraine pain management, and most importantly, methodologies of economic analyses and the associated shortcomings of published estimates. In this paper, the methodological characteristics of these studies are examined and their results are compared and interpreted. Alternative treatment and health outcome measures are defined and data sources described while methods for assessing the direct and indirect costs are explored. Directions for future research are identified and discussed.

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.

Quality of life, resource consumption and costs of spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management in neuropathic pain patients with failed back surgery syndrome (PROCESS trial).

BACKGROUND: Chronic back and leg pain conditions result in patients' loss of function, reduced quality of life and increased costs to the society. AIMS: To assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost implications of spinal cord stimulation plus non-surgical conventional medical management (SCS group) versus non-surgical conventional medical management alone (CMM group) in the management of neuropathic pain in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. METHODS: A total of 100 patients were randomised to either the SCS or CMM group. Healthcare resource consumption data relating to screening, the use of the implantable generator in SCS patients, hospital stay, and drug and non-drug pain-related treatment were collected prospectively. Resource consumption was costed using UK and Canadian 2005-2006 national figures. HRQoL was assessed using the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Costs and outcomes were assessed for each patient over their first 6-months of the trial. RESULTS: The 6-month mean total healthcare cost in the SCS group (CAN$19,486; 12,653 euros) was significantly higher than in the CMM group (CAN$3994; 2594 euros), with a mean adjusted difference of CAN$15,395 (9997 euros) (p<0.001). However, the gain in HRQoL with SCS over the same period of time was markedly greater in the SCS group, with a mean EQ-5D score difference of 0.25 [p<0.001] and 0.21 [p<0.001], respectively at 3- and 6-months after adjusting for baseline variables. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of SCS to CMM in patients with neuropathic leg and back pain results in higher costs to health systems but also generates important improvements in patients' EQ-5D over the same period.

Actual versus projected cost avoidance for clinical pharmacy specialist-initiated medication conversions in a primary care setting in an integrated health system.

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinical pharmacy specialists (PCCPSs) are positioned to promote effective, safe, and affordable medication use. Documentation of performed interventions is difficult because the diversity of performed interventions in a variety of disease states in some practice settings. Validation of cost-avoidance projections is also difficult because traditional projection methods have several limitations. OBJECTIVE: To (1) compare projected medication cost avoidance (MCA) to actual MCA for medication conversions related to hyperlipidemia, hypertension, depression, and chronic pain initiated by PCCPS, and (2) estimate medication discontinuation that might be attributable to serious adverse drug events (ADEs) possibly associated with medication conversions. METHODS: This was a retrospective, longitudinal study conducted in a not-for-profit, integrated health system comprising approximately 470,000 members. Using a portable documentation tool, PCCPSs recorded projected annual MCA for medication conversions in 4 disease conditions (i.e., hypertension, dyslipidemia, depression, and chronic pain) in the 6-month period from December 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004. Actual annual MCA for these interventions for a 1-year follow-up period was calculated using integrated, electronic data from an administrative pharmacy database. Comparisons were made between projected MCA and actual MCA. Cost was defined as actual drug acquisition cost. In addition, an assessment of serious ADEs potentially related to the conversions was undertaken by reviewing electronic medical records of converted, nonpersistent patients. RESULTS: There were 704 medication conversions for 656 patients, of which 47 (6.7%) were for members who disenrolled in the health plan during the 12 months following the medication conversion date. The total projected MCA was $327,337 in 2004 dollars, or an average of $465 per conversion. For the 657 medication conversions in 609 patients that were evaluable (i.e., the member remained enrolled through 12 months follow-up), 466 (70.9%) persisted at 12 months, 138 (21.0%) discontinued the medication or converted to an alternative therapy, and 53 (8.1%) reverted to the original medication. Drug cost information was not available for some members, leaving approximately half (n = 331, 50.4%) of the 657 evaluable medication conversions with complete cost information available. For these 331 conversions, the overall projected MCA overestimated the actual MCA by 14.1% ($24,888 in aggregate or an average of $75 per conversion, P < 0.001). For persistent medication conversions with complete cost information (n = 278), the projected MCA ($160,225) was not significantly different compared with the actual MCA ($166,546, P = 0.477). For medication conversions that reverted to previous therapy (n = 53), the projected MCA ($41,644) overestimated by 4-fold the actual MCA ($10,435, P < 0.001). There were no emergency department visits or hospital admissions related to nonpersistent medication conversions. Compared with patients who were either nonpersistent or disenrolled at the 12-month follow-up, persistent patients did not significantly differ in chronic disease score but were slightly older (mean = 62.6 years, standard deviation = 13.1 for persistent patients vs. 59.2 [SD = 15.5] for nonpersistent or disenrolled patients). CONCLUSIONS: Projected medication cost avoidance for pharmacistinitiated medication conversions is valid for the 66% of medication conversions that persist but not for nonpersistent conversions or for patients who leave the health care system. The projected medication cost avoidance overestimated the actual cost avoidance by approximately 14%, suggesting that there is opportunity for improvement in the tool used to document medication conversions to more accurately measure cost outcomes from clinical pharmacy interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of a lidocaine 5% medicated plaster relative to gabapentin for postherpetic neuralgia in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50% of elderly patients develop postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) after herpes zoster infection (shingles). A lidocaine 5% medicated plaster marketed in the United Kingdom in January 2007 has been shown to be an effective topical treatment for PHN with minimal risk of systemic adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: This paper assessed the cost-effectiveness of using a lidocaine plaster in place of gabapentin in English primary care practice to treat those PHN patients who had insufficient pain relief with standard analgesics and could not tolerate or had contraindications to tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). The analysis took the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: The costs and benefits of gabapentin and the lidocaine plaster were calculated over a 6-month time horizon using a Markov model. The model structure allowed for differences in costs, utilities, and transition probabilities between the initial 30-day run-in period and maintenance therapy and also accounted for add-in medications and drugs received by patients who discontinued therapy. Most transition probabilities were based on non-head-to-head clinical trials identified through a systematic review. Data on resource utilization, discontinuation rates, and add-in or switch medications were obtained from a Delphi panel; cost data were from official price tariffs. Published utilities were adjusted for age and were supplemented and validated by the Delphi panel. RESULTS: Six months of therapy with the lidocaine plaster cost pound 549 per patient, compared with pound 718 for gabapentin, and generated 0.05 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The lidocaine plaster therefore dominated gabapentin (95% CI, dominant- pound 2163/QALY gained). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was a 90.15% chance that the lidocaine plaster was both less costly and more effective than gabapentin and a 99.99% chance that it cost < pound 20,000/QALY relative to gabapentin. Extensive deterministic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the conclusions. CONCLUSION: This study found that the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster was a cost-effective alternative to gabapentin for PHN patients who were intolerant to TCAs and in whom analgesics were ineffective, from the perspective of the NHS.