Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmacologic treatment of fibromyalgia in Mexico.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, from the Mexican Public Health System perspective, which would be the most cost-effective treatment for patients with Fibromyalgia (FM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model including three health states, divided by pain intensity (absence or presence of mild, moderate or severe pain) and considering three-month cycles; costs and effectiveness were estimated for amitriptyline (50mg/day), fluoxetine (80 mg/day), duloxetine (120 mg/day), gabapentin (900 mg/day), pregabalin (450 mg/day), tramadol/acetaminophen (150 mg/1300 mg/día) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine (50mg/80 mg/día) for the treatment of FM. The clinical outcome considered was the annual rate of pain control. Probabilities assigned to the model were collected from published literature. Direct medical costs for FM treatment were retrieved from the 2006 data of the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) databases and were expressed in 2010 Mexican Pesos. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The best pain control rate was obtained with pregabalin (44.8%), followed by gabapentin (38.1%) and duloxetine (34.2%). The lowest treatment costs was for amitriptyline ($ 9047.01), followed by fluoxetine ($ 10,183.89) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine ($ 10,866.01). By comparing pregabalin vs amitriptyline, additional annual cost per patient for pain control would be around $ 50.000 and $ 75.000 and would result cost-effective in 70% and 80% of all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Among all treatment options for FM, pregabalin achieved the highest pain control and was cost-effective in 80% of patients of the Mexican Public Health System.

Economic evaluation of duloxetine as a first-line treatment for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Mexico.

OBJECTIVE: To perform an economic evaluation of duloxetine, pregabalin, and both branded and generic gabapentin for managing pain in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) in Mexico. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The analysis was conducted using a 3-month decision model, which compares duloxetine 60 mg once daily (DUL), pregabalin 150 mg twice daily (PGB), and gabapentin 600 mg three-times daily (GBP) for PDPN patients with moderate-to-severe pain. A systematic review was performed and placebo-adjusted risk ratios for achieving good pain relief (GPR), adverse events (AE), and withdrawal owing to intolerable AE were calculated. Direct medical costs included drug acquisition and additional visits due to lack of efficacy (poor pain relief) or intolerable AE. Unit costs were taken from local sources. Adherence rates were used to estimate the expected drug costs. All costs are expressed in 2010 Mexican Pesos (MXN). Utility values drawn from published literature were applied to health states. The proportion of patients with GPR and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were assessed. RESULTS: Branded-GBP was dominated by all the other options. PGB was more costly and less effective than DUL. Compared with branded-GBP and PGB, DUL led to savings of 1.01 and 1.74 million MXN (per 1000 patients). The incremental cost per QALY gained with DUL used instead of generic-GBP was $102 433 MXN. This amount is slightly lower than the estimated gross domestic product per capita in Mexico for 2010. During a second-order Monte Carlo simulation, DUL had the highest probability of being cost-effective (61%), followed by generic-GBP (25%) and PGB (14%). LIMITATIONS: Study limitations include a short timeframe and using data from different dosage schemes for GBP and PGB. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that DUL provides overall savings and better health outcomes compared with branded-GBP and PGB. Administering DUL rather than generic-GBP is a cost-effective intervention to manage PDPN in Mexico.

Economic evaluation of oral treatments for neuropathic pain.

UNLABELLED: The effectiveness of amitriptyline, carbamazepine, gabapentin, and tramadol for the treatment of neuropathic pain has been demonstrated, but it is unknown which one is the most cost-effective. We designed a cost-utility analysis of a hypothetical cohort with neuropathic pain of postherpetic or diabetic origin. The perspective of the economic evaluation was that of a third-party payor. For effectiveness and safety estimates, we performed a systematic review of the literature. For direct cost estimates, we used average wholesale prices, and the American Medicare and Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedules. For utilities of health states, we used the Health Utilities Index. We modeled 1 month of therapy. For comparisons among treatments, we estimated incremental cost per utility gained. To allow for uncertainty from variations in drug effectiveness, safety, and amount of medication needed, we conducted a probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation. Amitriptyline was the cheapest strategy, followed by carbamazepine, and both were equally beneficial. Gabapentin was the most expensive as well as the least beneficial. A multivariable probabilistic simulation produced similar results to the base-case scenario. In summary, amitriptyline and carbamazepine are more cost-effective than tramadol and gabapentin and should be considered as first-line treatment for neuropathic pain in patients free of renal or cardiovascular disease. PERSPECTIVE: Prescription practices should be based on the best available evidence, which includes the evaluation of the medication's cost-effectiveness. This does not mean that the cheapest or the most expensive, but rather the most cost-effective medication should be chosen-the one whose benefits are worth the harms and costs. We report a cost-effectiveness evaluation of treatments for neuropathic pain.