The frequency of neuropathic pain in Turkish patients with low back pain: a cross-sectional study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of neuropathic pain (NP) in patients with low back pain (LBP) and the relationship of NP with demographic characteristics and pain duration. Four hundred and forty patients were evaluated with respect to NP. Demographic data were collected and Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire was used to identify NP. Any difference in demographic characteristics or duration of pain was investigated between the patients with and without NP. Sociodemographic factors which are independently associated with NP were analyzed. According to DN4, 43.9% of the patients had NP. Mean age of the patients was 44.8 years (± 13.7). 343 (77.9%) of the patients had chronic LBP (more than 3 months). The patients with NP were older (p < 0.001), had higher BMI (p = 0.005) and longer LBP duration (p < 0.001) and had lower educational level (p 0.018). NP was significantly more common in unemployed patients and less common in high-activity employees (p 0.001). Logistic regression analyses identified that high-active workers' risk of having NP was 1.76 times lesser than other groups (office workers, housewives and retired patients). Nearly half of the patients with LBP were accompanied by NP. It was remarkably more common in sedentary patients and patients with low socioeconomic status. High physical activity at work was found to decrease the risk of having NP. Clinicians should emphasize on exercise training as a therapeutic intervention while LBP is being treated.

Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in Hong Kong. METHODS: A within trial cost-utility analysis with the primary endpoint for the economic evaluation being the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and associated Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) over 14 weeks of treatment. A secondary cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken with the endpoint being change in pain as measured on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were randomised to acupuncture or usual care. Acupuncture resulted in significant improvements in pain intensity (8- and 14-week mean changes compared to usual care of -1.8 and -1.8, respectively), pain interference (8- and 14-week mean changes compared to usual care of -1.5 and -0.9, respectively) and indicators of quality of life and neurotoxicity-related symptoms. However, in the economic evaluation there was little difference in QALYs between the two arms (mean change 0.209 and 0.200 in the acupuncture and usual care arms, respectively). Also, costs yielded deterministic ICERs of HK$616,965.62, HK$824,083.44 and HK$540,727.56 per QALY gained from the health care provider perspective, the societal perspective and the patient perspective, respectively. These costs are significantly higher than the cost-effectiveness threshold of HK$180,450 that was used for the base case analysis. CONCLUSION: While acupuncture can improve symptoms and quality of life indicators related to CIPN, it is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for CIPN-related pain in health care systems with limited resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02553863 (ClinicalTrials.gov) post-results.

Diabetic polyneuropathy with/out neuropathic pain in Mali: A cross-sectional study in two reference diabetes treatment centers in Bamako (Mali), Western Africa.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) with or without neuropathic pain is a frequent complication of diabetes. This work aimed to determine the prevalence of diabetic polyneuropathy, to describe its epidemiological aspects, and to analyze the therapeutic itinerary of patients with DPN. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study performed synchronously over six months at two major follow-up sites for patients with diabetes in Mali. DPN was diagnosed based on the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument (MNSI). The neuropathic nature of the pain and the quality of life of patients were evaluated by the DN4 and the ED-5D scale, respectively. We used three (3) different questionnaires to collect data from patients (one at inclusion and another during the follow-up consultation) and from the caregivers of patients with DPN. RESULTS: We included 252 patients with diabetes, and DPN was found to have a healthcare facility-based prevalence of 69.8% (176/252). The sex ratio was approximately three females for every male patient. The patients were mostly 31 to 60 years of age, 83% had type 2 diabetes, and 86.9% had neuropathic pain Approximately half of the patients (48.3%) had autonomic neuropathy and they reported moderate to intense pain, which was mainly described as a burning sensation. The patients exhibited impaired exteroceptive and proprioceptive sensations in 51.7% of cases. The patients smoked tobacco in 3.4% of cases, while 36.6% of the patients were obese and had dyslipidemia. The caregivers clearly indicated that appropriate medications were not readily accessible or available for their patients with DPN. CONCLUSION: The healthcare facility-based prevalence of DPN with or without neuropathic pain was high in our cohort. These inexpensive and easy-to-use tools (MNSI, DN4) can be used to adequately diagnose DPN in the African context. In Mali, screening and early treatment of patients at risk of DPN should allow for a reduction of the burden of the disease, while caregivers need to be adequately trained to manage DPN.

Evaluation of Treatment Patterns and Direct Costs Associated with the Management of Neuropathic Pain.

Background: Neuropathic pain has a prevalence of 2-17% in the general population. Diagnosis and treatment of neuropathic pain are not fully described in different populations. The aim was to determine the treatment patterns and direct costs of care associated with the management of neuropathic pain from the onset of the first symptom to up to two years after diagnosis. Methods: From a drug-claim database, a cohort of randomly selected outpatients diagnosed with neuropathic pain was obtained from an insurer in Colombia and followed up for two years after diagnosis. The clinical records were reviewed individually to identify the study variables, including the time needed to make the diagnosis, the medical and paraclinical resources used, the pharmacological therapy for pain management, and the direct costs associated with care. Results: We identified 624 patients in 49 cities, with a mean age of 50.3 ± 14.1 years, of which 324 were men (51.9%). An average of 90 days passed from the initial consultation until the diagnosis of neuropathic pain, the most frequent being lumbosacral radiculopathy (57.9%). 34.5% of the cohort had at least one diagnostic imaging procedure, and 16% had an electromyography. On average, they were treated by a general practitioner twice. 91.7% received initial treatment with tramadol, carbamazepine, amitriptyline, imipramine, or pregabalin, and 60.4% received combined therapy. The mean cost of care for two years for each patient was US$246.3. Conclusions: Patients with neuropathic pain in Colombia are being diagnosed late, are using therapeutic agents not recommended as first-line treatment by clinical practice guidelines, and are being treated for short periods of time.

Multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial of 10 khz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic neuropathic low back pain (MODULATE-LBP): a trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic neuropathic low back pain (CNLBP) is a debilitating condition in which established medical treatments seldom alleviate symptoms. Evidence demonstrates that high-frequency 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) reduces pain and improves health-related quality of life in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), but evidence of this effect is limited in individuals with CNLBP who have not had surgery. The aim of this multicentre randomised trial is to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 10 kHz SCS for this population. METHODS: This is a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial with a parallel economic evaluation. A total of 96 patients with CNLBP who have not had spinal surgery will be implanted with an epidural lead and a sham lead outside the epidural space without a screening trial. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to 10 kHz SCS plus usual care (intervention group) or to sham 10 kHz SCS plus usual care (control group) after receiving the full implant. The SCS devices will be programmed identically using a cathodal cascade. Participants will use their handheld programmer to alter the intensity of the stimulation as per routine practice. The primary outcome will be a 7-day daily pain diary. Secondary outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index, complications, EQ-5D-5 L, and health and social care costs. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline (pre-randomisation) and at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after device activation. The primary analyses will compare primary and secondary outcomes between groups at 6 months, while adjusting for baseline outcome scores. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) will be calculated at 6 months and over the lifetime of the patient. DISCUSSION: The outcomes of this trial will inform clinical practice and healthcare policy on the role of high-frequency 10 kHz SCS for use in patients with CNLBP who have not had surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03470766. Registered on 20 March 2018. DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The NIHR had no role in the study design, writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit for publication. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: AK, SP, DP, SW, RST, AC, SE, LM, RD and JF all contributed to the trial design and to securing trial funding. AK, JR, SP, DP, and SE are involved in the recruitment, the intervention and the follow-up. SW will perform data collection and analysis. RST will be responsible for the statistical analysis, and RD will be responsible for the health economic analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Economic Impact of Adherence to Pain Treatment Guidelines in Chronic Pain Patients.

OBJECTIVES: This research compared health care resource use (HCRU) and costs for pharmacotherapy prescribing that was adherent vs nonadherent to published pain management guidelines. Conditions included osteoarthritis (OA) and gout (GT) for nociceptive/inflammatory pain, painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN) and post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) for neuropathic pain, and fibromyalgia (FM) for sensory hypersensitivity pain. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used claims from MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Databases identifying adults newly diagnosed with OA, GT, pDPN, PHN, or FM during July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2013, with 12-month continuous coverage before and after initial (index) diagnosis. Patients were grouped according to their pharmacotherapy pattern as adherent, nonadherent, or "unsure" according to published pain management guidelines using a claims-based algorithm. Adherent and nonadherent populations were compared descriptively and using multivariate statistical analyses for controlling bias. RESULTS: Final cohort sizes were 441,465 OA, 76,361 GT, 10,645 pDPN, 4,010 PHN, and 150,321 FM, with adherence to guidelines found in 51.1% of OA, 25% of GT, 59.5% of pDPN, 54.9% of PHN, and 33.5% of FM. Adherent cohorts had significantly (P < 0.05) fewer emergency department (ED) visits and lower proportions with hospitalizations or ED visits. Mean health care costs increased following diagnosis across all conditions; however, adherent cohorts had significantly lower increases in adjusted costs pre-index to postindex (OA $5,286 vs $9,532; GT $3,631 vs $7,873; pDPN $9,578 vs $16,337; PHN $2,975 vs $5,146; FM $2,911 vs $3,708; all P < 0.001; adherent vs nonadherent, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to pain management guidelines was associated with significantly lower HCRU and costs compared with nonadherence to guidelines.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Options for Neuropathic Pain: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain significantly reduces an individual's quality of life and places a significant economic burden on society. As such, many cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have been published for treatments available for neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this systematic review was to provide a detailed summary of the estimates of cost-effectiveness from published CEAs comparing available treatments for neuropathic pain. The secondary objectives were to identify the key drivers of cost-effectiveness and to assess the quality of published CEAs in neuropathic pain. METHODS: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and seven other databases to identify CEAs reporting the costs, health benefits (e.g., quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years) and summary statistics, such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, of treatments for neuropathic pain. We excluded studies reporting diseases other than neuropathic pain, those for which the full text was not available (e.g., conference abstracts), studies not written in English or not published in peer-reviewed journals, and narrative reviews, editorials and opinion papers. Titles and abstract reviews, full-text reviews, and data extraction were all performed by two independent reviewers, with disagreement resolved by a third reviewer. Mean costs, health benefits, and summary statistics were reported and qualitatively compared across studies, stratified by time horizon. Drivers of cost-effectiveness were assessed using reported one-way sensitivity analyses. The quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Tufts CEA Registry Quality Score and study reporting using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were identified and included in this systematic review. Included studies were heterogeneous in the treatments compared, methodology and design, perspectives, and time horizons considered, making cross-study comparisons difficult. No single treatment was consistently the most cost-effective across all studies, but tricyclic antidepressants were the preferred treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $US50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in several studies with a short time horizon and a US payer perspective. Among the 14 studies reporting one-way sensitivity analyses, drivers of cost-effectiveness included utility values for health states and the likelihood of pain relief with treatment. The quality of the identified CEAs was moderate to high, and overall reporting largely met CHEERS recommendations. LIMITATIONS: To assess drivers of cost-effectiveness and quality, we only included studies with the full text available and thus excluded some CEAs that reported cost-effectiveness results. The heterogeneity of the included studies meant that the study results could not be synthesized and comparison across studies was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Though many pulished studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of treatments for neuropathic pain, significant heterogeneity between CEAs prevented synthesis of the results. Standardized methodology and improved reporting would allow for more reliable comparisons across studies.

Consequences on economic outcomes of generic versus brand-name drugs used in routine clinical practice: the case of treating peripheral neuropathic pain or generalized anxiety disorder with pregabalin.

BACKGROUND: Discrepancies are seen between arguments in favor of and against prescribing generic versus brand-name drugs. OBJECTIVE: To provide real-world evidence on treatment persistence, economic and clinical outcomes of pregabalin, generic versus brand-name (Lyrica®, Pfizer), routinely used to treat neuropathic pain (NP) or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: Electronic medical records from subjects' first starting treatment with pregabalin between January-2015 and June-2016 were analyzed. Persistence, resources utilization, and costs were assessed, along with remitter and responder rates. RESULTS: A total of 4860 records were analyzed. Discontinuation was lower with brand-name than with generic in NP (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.58-0.85], p < 0.001) and GAD patients (HR: 0.63 [0.45-0.84], p < 0.001). Adjusted mean total costs were lower with brand-name: €1500 [1428-1573] vs. €2003 [1864-2143] in NP and €1528 [1322-1734] vs. €2150 [1845-2454] in GAD (both p < 0.001). More patients were remitters/ responders with brand-name in NP (55.0% vs. 46.7% and 59.2% vs. 48.4%, respectively; p < 0.001) and GAD (58.6% vs. 48.7% and 64.6% vs. 47.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As a consequence of higher persistence in routine practice, patients who first started therapy with pregabalin brand-name versus generic showed better pain or anxiety outcomes at a lower cost to payers in Spain.

Trial Versus No Trial of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: Cost Analysis in United Kingdom National Health Service.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current project was to evaluate the spinal cord stimulation (SCS) screening trial success rate threshold to obtain the same cost impact across two identical sets of patients following either a prolonged screening trial prior to implantation strategy or a full implant without a screening trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost impact analysis was carried out from a health care perspective and considered trial to implant rates reported in the literature. Items of resource use were costed using national averages obtained from the National Health Service (NHS) reference cost data base. Cost components were added up to derive total patient level costs for the NHS. Only the costs associated with the screening trial procedures and devices were considered. RESULTS: The most conservative of our estimates suggest that a failure rate of less than 15% is cost saving to the NHS. A failure rate as high as 45% can also be cost saving if the less expensive nonrechargeable SCS devices are used. All the thresholds observed represent a considerably higher screening failure rate than that reported in the latest randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS. A trial to implant ratio of 91.6% could represent savings between £16,715 (upper bound 95% CI of rechargeable implantable pulse generator [IPG] cost) and £246,661 (lower bound 95% CI of nonrechargeable IPG cost) per each 100 patients by adopting an implantation only strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable savings could be obtained by adopting an implantation strategy without a screening trial. It is plausible that accounting for other factors, such as complications that can occur with a screening trial, additional savings could be achieved by choosing a straight to implant treatment strategy. Nevertheless, additional evidence is warranted to support this claim.

Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin have Clinical Utility and Cost-Effectiveness? (TRIAL-STIM Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The TRIAL-STIM Study aims to assess the diagnostic performance, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a screening trial prior to full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device. METHODS/DESIGN: The TRIAL-STIM Study is a superiority, parallel-group, three-centre, randomised controlled trial in patients with chronic neuropathic pain with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation. The study will take place in three UK centres: South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (The James Cook University Hospital); Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. A total of 100 adults undergoing SCS implantation for the treatment of neuropathy will be included. Subjects will be recruited from the outpatient clinics of the three participating sites and randomised to undergo a screening trial prior to SCS implant or an implantation-only strategy in a 1:1 ratio. Allocation will be stratified by centre and minimised on patient age (≥ 65 or < 65 years), gender, presence of failed back surgery syndrome (or not) and use of high frequency (HF10™) (or not). The primary outcome measure is the numerical rating scale (NRS) at 6 months compared between the screening trial and implantation strategy and the implantation-only strategy. Secondary outcome measures will include diagnostic accuracy, the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months as measured on the NRS, health-related quality-of-life (EQ-5D), function (Oswestry Disability Index), patient satisfaction (Patients' Global Impression of Change) and complication rates. A nested qualitative study will be carried out in parallel for a total of 30 of the patients recruited in each centre (10 at each centre) to explore their views of the screening trial, implantation and overall use of the SCS device. The economic evaluation will take the form of a cost-utility analysis. DISCUSSION: The TRIAL-STIM Study is a randomised controlled trial with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation aiming to determine the clinical utility of screening trials of SCS as well as their cost-effectiveness. The nested qualitative study will seek to explore the patient's view of the screening trials, implantation and overall use of SCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN60778781 . Registered on 15 August 2017.

Cost of treating peripheral neuropathic pain with pregabalin or gabapentin at therapeutic doses in routine practice.

AIM: To analyze the cost of peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) treatment with pregabalin or gabapentin at therapeutic doses in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Analysis of a retrospective, observational study of electronic medical records of patients treated for PNP with therapeutic doses of pregabalin or gabapentin, with 2 years' follow-up, considering PNP type, comorbidities, concomitant analgesia and resource use. RESULTS: The weighted total average cost/patient was lower for pregabalin than gabapentin (€2464 [2197-2730] vs €3142 [2670-3614]; p = 0.014) due to significantly lower both healthcare and non-healthcare costs. This is explained by a significantly lower use of concomitant analgesia, fewer primary care visits and fewer days of sick leave. CONCLUSION: At therapeutic doses, pregabalin was found to have lower healthcare and non-healthcare costs than gabapentin in routine practice.

Efecto de la edad y el género sobre las consecuencias clínicas y económicas del tratamiento con especialidad farmacéutica de marca o genérica en pacientes con dolor neuropático periférico en práctica clínica habitual / Clinical and economic consequences of treating patients with peripheral neuropathic pain with brand name or generic drugs in routine clinical practice: The effects of age and sex

OBJETIVO: Analizar el efecto de la edad y el género sobre el dolor y los costes en pacientes con dolor neuropático periférico (DNp) crónico que inician tratamiento con gabapentina (marca) frente a gabapentina genérica (EFG). MÉTODOS: Estudio multicéntrico-retrospectivo, realizado con registros médicos electrónicos (RME) de pacientes de ambos géneros, > 18años, que iniciaron nuevo tratamiento con gabapentina de marca o genérico. Durante un año se midió la adherencia (ratio posesión medicación [RPM]) y la persistencia, la utilización de recursos sanitarios, los costes y la reducción del dolor. RESULTADOS: Se analizaron 1.369 RME (61,1% mujeres; edad 64,6 [15,9] años, 52,4% ≥ 65 años); marca: 400, EFG: 969. La persistencia y la adherencia fueron mayores con marca: 7,3 vs. 6,3 meses (p < 0,001) y 86,5 vs. 81,3% de RPM (p < 0,001). Con marca, se observaron costes sanitarios menores, tanto en < 65 como en ≥ 65años (diferencias medias por paciente de 221 Euros [IC95%: 59-382] y de 217 Euros [51-382], respectivamente [p < 0,01]), como en hombres (diferencias medias de 197 Euros [63-328]) o mujeres (diferencias de 239 Euros [96-397]), p = 0,005 y p = 0,004, respectivamente. Comparado con EFG, el tratamiento con marca mostró una reducción mayor del dolor: 13,5% (10,9-16,2) y 10,8% (8,2-13,5) en < 65 y ≥ 65 años, respectivamente (p < 0,001), así como del 10,7% (8,2-13,2) y del 13,8% (11,0-16,5) en mujeres y hombres, respectivamente (p < 0,001). CONCLUSIONES: Con independencia del género o la edad, los pacientes que iniciaron tratamiento del DNp con gabapentina de marca vs. genérico mostraron un mayor grado de adherencia y persistencia al tratamiento, repercutiendo en unos menores costes sanitarios, a la vez que se observaron mayores reducciones del dolor

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to analyse the effects of age and sex on pain and cost for patients with chronic peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) who have started treatment with brand name gabapentin versus generic gabapentin (EFG). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicentre study using electronic medical records (EMR) for patients of both sexes, older than 18, who began treatment with brand name or generic gabapentin. Adherence (medication possession ratio [MPR]), persistence, use of healthcare resources, cost, and pain reduction were measured for one year. RESULTS: We analysed 1369 EMRs [61.1% women; mean age 64.6 (15.9), 52.4% ≥ 65 years]; 400 used brand name drugs while 969 used generic gabapentin. Persistence and adherence were higher in patients using brand name gabapentin (7.3 vs 6.3 months, P < .001; 86.5% vs 81.3% MPR, P < .001). Lower healthcare costs were observed in patients using brand-name gabapentin in both age groups (< 65 and ≥ 65). Mean difference in cost per patient amounted to Euros221 (95%CI: 59-382) and Euros 217 (95%CI: 51-382) in the < 65 and ≥ 65 age groups, respectively (P < .01). Mean difference in cost among men amounted to Euros 197 (63-328), while mean difference in cost among women amounted to Euros 239 (96-397) (P = .005 and P = .004, respectively). Compared with EFG, brand treatment showed greater pain relief: 13.5% (10.9-16.2) and 10.8% (8.2-13.5) in < 65 and ≥ 65year patients, respectively (P < .001), and 10.7% (8.2-13.2) and 13.8% (11.0-16.5) in women and men respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of sex and age, patients who started PNP treatment with brand name medication showed greater persistence and adherence to treatment than those taking generic drugs. Brand name treatment also involved lower healthcare costs, and greater pain relief

Clinical and economic consequences of treating patients with peripheral neuropathic pain with brand name or generic drugs in routine clinical practice: The effects of age and sex. / Efecto de la edad y el género sobre las consecuencias clínicas y económicas del tratamiento con especialidad farmacéutica de marca o genérica en pacientes con dolor neuropático periférico en práctica clínica habitual.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to analyse the effects of age and sex on pain and cost for patients with chronic peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) who have started treatment with brand name gabapentin versus generic gabapentin (EFG). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicentre study using electronic medical records (EMR) for patients of both sexes, older than 18, who began treatment with brand name or generic gabapentin. Adherence (medication possession ratio [MPR]), persistence, use of healthcare resources, cost, and pain reduction were measured for one year. RESULTS: We analysed 1369 EMRs [61.1% women; mean age 64.6 (15.9), 52.4%≥65 years]; 400 used brand name drugs while 969 used generic gabapentin. Persistence and adherence were higher in patients using brand name gabapentin (7.3 vs 6.3 months, P<.001; 86.5% vs 81.3% MPR, P<.001). Lower healthcare costs were observed in patients using brand-name gabapentin in both age groups (<65 and ≥65). Mean difference in cost per patient amounted to €221 (95%CI: 59-382) and €217 (95%CI: 51-382) in the <65 and ≥65 age groups, respectively (P<.01). Mean difference in cost among men amounted to €197 (63-328), while mean difference in cost among women amounted to €239 (96-397) (P=.005 and P=.004, respectively). Compared with EFG, brand treatment showed greater pain relief: 13.5% (10.9-16.2) and 10.8% (8.2-13.5) in <65 and ≥65year patients, respectively (P<.001), and 10.7% (8.2-13.2) and 13.8% (11.0-16.5) in women and men respectively (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of sex and age, patients who started PNP treatment with brand name medication showed greater persistence and adherence to treatment than those taking generic drugs. Brand name treatment also involved lower healthcare costs, and greater pain relief.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of policies restricting access to pregabalin.

BACKGROUND: Formularies often employ restriction policies to reduce pharmacy costs. Pregabalin, an alpha-2-delta ligand, is approved for treatment of fibromyalgia (FM); neuropathic pain (NeP) due to postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), spinal cord injury; and as adjunct therapy for partial onset seizures. Pregabalin is endorsed as first-line therapy for these indications by several US and EU medical professional societies. However, restriction policies such as prior authorization (PA) and step therapy (ST) often favor less costly generic pain medications over pregabalin. METHODS: A structured literature search (PubMed, past 11 years) was conducted to evaluate whether restriction policies against pregabalin support real-world economic and healthcare utilization benefits. RESULTS: Search criteria identified three claims analyses and a modeling study that evaluated patients with NeP and/or FM with and without PA restrictions; three other studies included patients with FM and NeP in plans with ST requirements, and one evaluated a mail order requirement program. All studies evaluated outcomes during follow-up periods of 6 months or longer. Overall, PA, ST, and mail order restriction policies effectively reduced pregabalin usage, but the effects were inconsistent with reducing pharmacy costs and were non-significant for total disease-related medical costs. Two studies (one PA; one ST) reported significantly higher disease-related costs in restricted plans. The modeling study failed to demonstrate cost savings with PA. Opioid usage was higher in PA-restricted plans (two studies). The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several professional NeP guidelines recommend opioid use only in cases when other non-opioid pain therapies have proven ineffective. New US Government taskforce guidelines now seek to reduce opioid exposure. Additionally, in both ST studies, gabapentin utilization (a common ST edit) was significantly increased. Both studies had substantial proportions of FM and pDPN patients and the only pain condition gabapentin is approved to treat in the United States is PHN. CONCLUSION: PA and ST restriction policies significantly decrease utilization of pregabalin, but do not consistently demonstrate cost savings for US health plans. More research is needed to evaluate whether these policies may lead to increased opioid usage as found in some studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Cost of treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain with pregabalin or gabapentin in routine clinical practice: impact of their loss of exclusivity.

To analyze the effect of loss of exclusivity of data on the cost of treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) with pregabalin or gabapentin in routine clinical practice. A retrospective observational study, with electronic medical records for patients enrolled at primary care centers managed by the health care provider Badalona Serveis Assistencials, who initiated treatment of PNP with pregabalin or gabapentin. The analysis used drugs and resources prices for year 2015. The 1163 electronic medical records (pregabalin; N = 764, gabapentin; N = 399) for patients (62.2% women) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 59.2 (14.7) years were analyzed. Treatment duration was slightly shorter with pregabalin than with gabapentin (5.2 vs 5.5 months; P = 0.124), with mean doses of 227.4 (178.6) mg and 900.0 (443.4) mg, respectively. The average study drug cost per patient was higher for pregabalin than for gabapentin; €214.6 (206.3) vs €157.4 (181.9), P < 0.001, although the cost of concomitant analgesic medication was lower; €176.5 (271.8) vs €306.7 (529.2), P < 0.001. The adjusted average total cost per patient was lower in those treated with pregabalin than in those treated with gabapentin; €2,413 (2119-2708) vs €3201 (2806-3.597); P = 0.002, owing to significantly lower health care costs; €1307 (1247-1367) vs €1538 (1458-1618), P < 0.001, and also non-health care costs; €1106 (819-1393) vs €1663 (1279-2048), P = 0.023, that was caused by a significantly lower use of concomitant medication, fewer medical visits to primary care, and fewer days of sick leave. After loss of exclusivity of both drugs, pregabalin continued to show lower health care and non-health care costs than gabapentin in the treatment of PNP in routine clinical practice.

A study on comparative efficacy and cost effectiveness of Pregabalin and Duloxetine used in diabetic neuropathic pain.

AIM: The study was designed for comparing the efficacy and cost effectiveness of Pregabalin and Duloxetine used in Diabetic Neuropathic Pain. METHODS: The prospective interventional 6 month study was conducted in a diabetic clinic of a 500 bedded tertiary care hospital in South India. The subjects having diagnosed with diabetic neuropathy and not treated with Pregabalin and Duloxetine or any other drugs of its class were selected. The data were collected using NPS and Neuro QoL questionnaires. The cost of both drugs used in the study was calculated as the mean of the price of 3 leading common brands of those drugs. The comparative efficacy was calculated by comparing the mean difference produced by both drugs in NPS and QoL scores. The cost effectiveness were calculated by ICER ratio. RESULTS: The results have shown a significant improvement in the mean difference of NPS and Neuro QoL scores of both Pregabalin (p=<0.001) and Duloxetine (p=<0.001) before and after the therapy, the Duloxetine dominates over Pregabalin in both. The mean cost of Pregabalin for 3 months therapy was found to be INR 668.7 and that for Duloxetine was INR 756. Duloxetine showed a better effect but more expensive. ICER ratio was calculated and found that a cost of INR 61.47 per extra QoL gained by Duloxetine. CONCLUSION: The study have revealed that, both drugs are found to be effective.On conducting cost effective analysis, a significant better improvement in QoL of patients was obtained by Duloxetine with comparatively mild increase in the price.

Functional and symptomatic assessment of medico-legal claims after upper limb injuries.

A consecutive group of 250 patients underwent medico-legal assessment at a mean of 24 (±13) months following upper limb injuries. Each had completed questionnaires to assess function (Quick-DASH) and cold intolerance (CIQ36) before clinical assessment following which their whole limb impairment percentage was calculated. The mean(±SD) whole limb impairment, QDASH and CIQ36 scores were 9(±14)%, 43(±24) and 17(±10), respectively. There was a significant correlation between whole limb impairment and QDASH, although some patients reported surprisingly high disability levels despite minimal or no objective functional impairment. Whilst useful qualitative information can be obtained from questionnaires, the correlation between subjective and objective scores is weak albeit statistically significant. Individual patients can show marked discrepancies between objective and subjective functional scores. The results of questionnaires in individual medico-legal patients should be treated with caution.

[Spinal cord stimulation for the management of chronic pain]. / Traitement des douleurs chroniques par la stimulation médullaire.

Neuromodulation techniques modify the activity of the central or peripheral nervous system. Spinal cord stimulation is a reversible and minimally invasive treatment whose efficacy and cost effectiveness are recognized for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain or ischemic pain. Spinal cord stimulation is not the option of last resort and should be considered among other options before prescribing long-term opioids or considering reoperation. The selection and regular follow-up of patients are crucial to the success of the therapy.

Burden of HIV-Related Neuropathic Pain in the United States.

BACKGROUND: HIV-related neuropathic pain (HIV-NeP) is common; however, the burden of HIV-NeP is not well-understood. METHODS: The cross-sectional study aimed to characterize the HIV-NeP burden. A total of 103 patients with HIV-NeP recruited during routine office visits completed a questionnaire to assess patient-reported outcomes, including pain severity, health status, sleep, mood, and lost productivity. Physicians completed a 6-month retrospective chart review. RESULTS: The sample was predominantly male and not employed for pay. A majority (75.7%) of patients experienced moderate or severe pain. Pain interference, general health, physical health, and depression were worse among patients with more severe pain (all Ps < .006). Most (87.4%) patients were prescribed at least 1 medication for NeP. HIV-related neuropathic pain was associated with 36.1% work impairment. Adjusted annualized costs increased with increasing pain severity (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The impact of HIV-NeP on health status, physical function, and depression increases with severity, resulting in substantial clinical and economic burden.

Impact on health-related quality of life and costs of managing chronic neuropathic pain in academic pain centres: Results from a one-year prospective observational Canadian study.

BACKGROUND: The management of chronic pain, including neuropathic pain (NeP), is a major public health issue. However, there is a paucity of data evaluating pain management strategies in real-life settings. OBJECTIVE: To inform policy makers about the economic value of managing chronic NeP in academic centres by conducting a subeconomic assessment of a Canadian multicentre cohort study aimed at determining the long-term outcomes of the management of chronic NeP in academic pain centres. Specific questions regarding the economic value of this type of program were answered by a subset of patients to provide further information to policy makers. METHODS: Baseline demographic information and several pain-related measurements were collected at baseline, three, six and 12 months in the main study. A resource use questionnaire aimed at determining NeP-related costs and the EuroQoL-5 Dimension were collected in the subset study from consenting patients. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare outcomes over time and according to responder status. RESULTS: A total of 298 patients were evaluated in the present economic evaluation. The mean (± SD) age of the participants was 53.7±14.0 years, and 56% were female. At intake, the mean duration of NeP was >5 years. Statistically significant improvements in all pain and health-related quality of life outcomes were observed between the baseline and one-year visits. Use decreased over time for many health care resources (eg, visits to the emergency room decreased by one-half), which resulted in overall cost savings. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that increased access to academic pain centres should be facilitated in Canada.