Incidence and costs of herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in German adults aged ≥50 years: A prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Herpes zoster (HZ) mainly affects elderly people and immunocompromised individuals. HZ is usually characterized by a unilateral painful skin rash. Its most common complication, postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), may cause chronic debilitating pain. This study aimed to estimate the HZ incidence in individuals aged ≥50 years in Germany, the proportion of PHN and the economic burden. METHODS: From 2010 to 2014, HZ patients were recruited when consulting physicians in physician networks covering about 157,000 persons aged ≥50 years. PHN was defined as "worst pain" rated ≥3 on the zoster brief pain inventory persisting or appearing over 90 days after rash onset. Costs were calculated based on medical resource utilization and lost working time. RESULTS: HZ incidence was estimated as 6.7/1000 person-years, increasing with age to 9.4/1000 in ≥80 year-olds. Among 513 HZ patients enrolled, the proportion of PHN was 11.9%, rising with age to 14.3% in HZ patients ≥80 years. Estimated total cost per HZ patient was €156 from the healthcare system perspective and €311 from the societal perspective. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirmed previous findings that HZ causes a substantial clinical and economic burden in older German adults. It also confirmed the age-related increasing risk of HZ and PHN.

An approximation of herd effect due to vaccinating children against seasonal influenza - a potential solution to the incorporation of indirect effects into static models.

BACKGROUND: Indirect herd effect from vaccination of children offers potential for improving the effectiveness of influenza prevention in the remaining unvaccinated population. Static models used in cost-effectiveness analyses cannot dynamically capture herd effects. The objective of this study was to develop a methodology to allow herd effect associated with vaccinating children against seasonal influenza to be incorporated into static models evaluating the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination. METHODS: Two previously published linear equations for approximation of herd effects in general were compared with the results of a structured literature review undertaken using PubMed searches to identify data on herd effects specific to influenza vaccination. A linear function was fitted to point estimates from the literature using the sum of squared residuals. RESULTS: The literature review identified 21 publications on 20 studies for inclusion. Six studies provided data on a mathematical relationship between effective vaccine coverage in subgroups and reduction of influenza infection in a larger unvaccinated population. These supported a linear relationship when effective vaccine coverage in a subgroup population was between 20% and 80%. Three studies evaluating herd effect at a community level, specifically induced by vaccinating children, provided point estimates for fitting linear equations. The fitted linear equation for herd protection in the target population for vaccination (children) was slightly less conservative than a previously published equation for herd effects in general. The fitted linear equation for herd protection in the non-target population was considerably less conservative than the previously published equation. CONCLUSIONS: This method of approximating herd effect requires simple adjustments to the annual baseline risk of influenza in static models: (1) for the age group targeted by the childhood vaccination strategy (i.e. children); and (2) for other age groups not targeted (e.g. adults and/or elderly). Two approximations provide a linear relationship between effective coverage and reduction in the risk of infection. The first is a conservative approximation, recommended as a base-case for cost-effectiveness evaluations. The second, fitted to data extracted from a structured literature review, provides a less conservative estimate of herd effect, recommended for sensitivity analyses.

Estimation of the clinical and economic consequences of non-compliance with antimicrobial treatment of canine skin infections.

The goal of this study was to estimate the health and economic consequences of non-compliance with oral antimicrobial treatment in dogs with superficial pyoderma, wounds or abscesses in the US. A mathematical model (Markov model) which simulated treatment with long-term injectable cefovecin versus oral amoxicillin/clavulanic acid was developed and accounted for the effect of non-compliance on clinical outcomes and mean total treatment costs per patient. Efficacy parameters considered in the model were derived from clinical studies. Treatment failure due to oral antimicrobial treatment non-compliance was approximated from published data at 13.6%. US cost data for 2009 were derived from public sources. When non-compliance was considered as a cause of treatment failure with oral medication, the long-term injectable antibiotic was more effective than oral comparator (162 versus 158 days without clinical signs). Mean total treatment costs were lower with cefovecin (USD 376.74) versus amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (USD 382.34) in dogs of 25 kg; and cefovecin remained cost-saving up to a body weight of 31 kg. In large dogs, cefovecin was more costly; however, total therapy costs were less than 6% greater than with amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. Accordingly the higher drug and administration costs of the long-term injectable antibiotic were totally or substantially offset when non-compliance was considered as reason for treatment failure with oral medication. The model also allowed for the estimation of the impact of various non-compliance scenarios.

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.

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.

Changes in the prescribed daily doses of transdermal fentanyl and transdermal buprenorphine during treatment of patients with cancer and noncancer pain in Germany: results of a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: During long-term therapy with strong opioids (step III opioids according to the World Health Organization [WHO] analgesic ladder), dose increases are often necessary because of deterioration of the primary disease or development of tolerance. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare changes in dosages of transdermal (TD) fentanyl and TD buprenorphine in patients with cancer and non-cancer pain. METHODS: In a retrospective study, patients with cancer and noncancer pain being treated with TD fentanyl or TD buprenorphine for at least 3 months between January 2001 and December 2003 were identified from the IMS Disease Analyzer-mediplus database, which contains all patient-related data documented from 400 medical practices in Germany. The indications for treatment were defined according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, and included neoplasm (cancer groups), and osteoarthritis, low back pain, and osteoporosis (noncancer groups). The cohort patients were considered to have comparable pain intensity because they had received similar analgesic premedication classified according to steps I to III of the WHO analgesic ladder (cohort groups). The mean prescribed daily doses on first and last prescription were documented, and the mean percentile increases were calculated over the whole treatment duration and per day. Additionally, the mean percentile intraindividual increases (on a per-patient basis) were estimated. RESULTS: The cohort groups consisted of 448 patients with noncancer pain and 446 patients with cancer pain (552 women and 342 men; mean age, 74 years; range, 25-101 years). The mean percentile increases in dosages over the whole treatment duration and adjusted per day were significantly higher in patients taking TD fentanyl (P < 0.05). Differences were even greater for the mean percentile intraindividual increases per day, which totaled 0.42%and 0.17% for cancer patients taking TD fentanyl and TD buprenorphine, respectively; corresponding values were 0.25% and 0.09%in noncancer patients (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis showed a significantly higher increase in the mean daily doses of TD fentanyl as compared with TD buprenorphine. The results must be verified in prospective, randomized clinical studies.

Equipotent doses of transdermal fentanyl and transdermal buprenorphine in patients with cancer and noncancer pain: results of a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The equipotency ratio of transdermal (TD) fentanyl to oral morphine has been established as 1:100; for buprenorphine TD, a ratio of 1:75 has been proposed, although this ratio has not been confirmed in clinical studies. Growing evidence from clinical practice, in which much lower doses of buprenorphine are used, suggests that this conversion ratio may be too high. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare calculated equipotent oral morphine doses of fentanyl TD with equipotent oral morphine doses of buprenorphine TD prescribed in clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective study identified patients with cancer and noncancer pain who had received > or =1 prescription for fentanyl TD or buprenorphine TD (the all-patients groups) from the German IMS Disease Analyzer-mediplus database, which contains all relevant data concerning drug prescriptions from 400 practices in Germany. Also identified were subgroups of the all-patients groups who had received long-term treatment with fentanyl TD or buprenorphine TD and were considered to have similar pain intensity, as they had previously received similar analgesic medication (the identical-cohort groups). Mean prescribed daily doses for the all-patients and identical-cohort groups were calculated based on the distribution of prescribed patch strengths. Because patients could have applied >1 patch, mean prescribed daily doses were also calculated based on an assumption of double application when appropriate. Equipotent oral morphine doses were estimated using equipotency ratios of 1:100 for fentanyl TD and 1:75 for buprenorphine TD. RESULTS: The all-patients groups consisted of 2198 patients with noncancer pain and 2544 patients with cancer pain; the identical-cohort groups consisted of 380 patients with noncancer pain and 496 patients with cancer pain (529 women, 347 men; mean age, 74 years [range, 25-101 years]). Equipotent doses of oral morphine were significantly lower in patients receiving buprenorphine TD compared with those receiving fentanyl TD (P < 0.001). In cancer patients, the equipotent oral morphine doses of fentanyl TD and buprenorphine TD were 130.9 to 138.9 mg and 85.2 to 88.8 mg, respectively; in noncancer patients, the corresponding values were 117.0 to 118.3 mg and 80.2 to 80.9 mg. Based on these results, an equipotency ratio of 1:110 to 1:115 for buprenorphine TD would appear to be more appropriate than the proposed ratio of 1:75. CONCLUSIONS: The fact that this retrospective analysis conducted in identical cohorts showed lower calculated equipotent oral morphine doses in the buprenorphine TD groups compared with the fentanyl TD groups calls into question the proposed 1:75 ratio for conversion of buprenorphine TD to equipotent oral morphine doses. Based on the findings of the present study, an equipotency ratio of 1:110 to 1:115 may be more appropriate. However, confirmative data from prospective randomized clinical trials are needed.

Economic evaluation of tramadol/paracetamol combination tablets for osteoarthritis pain in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of treating osteoarthritis (OA) pain using combination tramadol/paracetamol tablets, NSAIDs alone, NSAIDs plus proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), or NSAIDs plus histamine H(2)-receptor antagonists (H(2)RAs) from the perspective of the Dutch healthcare system. DESIGN AND METHODS: A decision-analytical model was constructed to model the cost outcomes of the four treatment strategies over 6 months. A cost-minimisation approach was used, which considered data related to resource utilisation, medication costs and costs for the treatment of adverse events. Data, derived mainly from the clinical literature, were supplemented by inputs from a Delphi panel as well as official price and tariff lists. The base-case analysis considered direct medical costs, including those for treating all adverse events with tramadol/paracetamol and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events with NSAIDs. Separate scenario analyses explored costs of NSAID-based regimens: (i) according to 21 levels of risk for GI adverse events, and (ii) when renal events attributable to NSAIDs were considered. Robustness of the model was tested using univariate sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, costs for 6 months' treatment of OA pain using tramadol/paracetamol were euro244.45, compared with euro317.32 for NSAIDs + PPIs, euro200.67 for NSAIDs + H(2)RAs, and euro125.86 for NSAIDs alone. This provided a cost saving of euro72.87 per patient over 6 months for tramadol/paracetamol compared with NSAIDs + PPIs. Tramadol/paracetamol became cost saving compared with NSAIDs alone and NSAIDs + H(2)RAs for GI risk levels >13 and >10, respectively. When renal adverse events of NSAIDs were con- sidered, tramadol/paracetamol was cost saving compared with all NSAID-based regimens (saving euro228.40 vs NSAIDs, euro418.42 vs NSAIDs + PPIs, and euro302.69 vs NSAIDs + H(2)RAs [year of costing 2005]). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the model was robust to wide-ranging changes in the value of input parameters. CONCLUSION: Tramadol/paracetamol is cost saving compared with NSAIDs + PPIs for the treatment of OA pain over a period of 6 months regardless of the risk of GI or renal complications. Tramadol/paracetamol is also cost saving compared with treatment with NSAIDs alone and NSAIDs + H(2)RAs for patients at medium and high risk of GI adverse events and in all cases if considering renal adverse events. Despite not being quantified in monetary terms, the lower incidence of adverse events with tramadol/paracetamol is a clinical benefit.