A comprehensive systematic literature review of the burden of illness of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome on patients, caregivers, and society.

Fully elucidating the burden that Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) places on individuals with the disease and their caregivers is critical to improving outcomes and quality of life (QoL). This systematic literature review evaluated the global burden of illness of LGS, including clinical symptom burden, care requirements, QoL, comorbidities, caregiver burden, economic burden, and treatment burden (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022317413). MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles that met predetermined criteria. After screening 1442 deduplicated articles and supplementary manual searches, 113 articles were included for review. A high clinical symptom burden of LGS was identified, with high seizure frequency and nonseizure symptoms (including developmental delay and intellectual disability) leading to low QoL and substantial care requirements for individuals with LGS, with the latter including daily function assistance for mobility, eating, and toileting. Multiple comorbidities were identified, with intellectual disorders having the highest prevalence. Although based on few studies, a high caregiver burden was also identified, which was associated with physical problems (including fatigue and sleep disturbances), social isolation, poor mental health, and financial difficulties. Most economic analyses focused on the high direct costs of LGS, which arose predominantly from medically treated seizure events, inpatient costs, and medication requirements. Pharmacoresistance was common, and many individuals required polytherapy and treatment changes over time. Few studies focused on the humanistic burden. Quality concerns were noted for sample representativeness, disease and outcome measures, and reporting clarity. In summary, a high burden of LGS on individuals, caregivers, and health care systems was identified, which may be alleviated by reducing the clinical symptom burden. These findings highlight the need for a greater understanding of and better definitions for the broad spectrum of LGS symptoms and development of treatments to alleviate nonseizure symptoms.

A systematic literature review on the global epidemiology of Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome: Prevalence, incidence, diagnosis, and mortality.

Dravet syndrome (DS) and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) are rare developmental and epileptic encephalopathies associated with seizure and nonseizure symptoms. A comprehensive understanding of how many individuals are affected globally, the diagnostic journey they face, and the extent of mortality associated with these conditions is lacking. Here, we summarize and evaluate published data on the epidemiology of DS and LGS in terms of prevalence, incidence, diagnosis, genetic mutations, and mortality and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) rates. The full study protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022316930). After screening 2172 deduplicated records, 91 unique records were included; 67 provided data on DS only, 17 provided data on LGS only, and seven provided data on both. Case definitions varied considerably across studies, particularly for LGS. Incidence and prevalence estimates per 100 000 individuals were generally higher for LGS than for DS (LGS: incidence proportion = 14.5-28, prevalence = 5.8-60.8; DS: incidence proportion = 2.2-6.5, prevalence = 1.2-6.5). Diagnostic delay was frequently reported for LGS, with a wider age range at diagnosis reported than for DS (DS, 1.6-9.2 years; LGS, 2-15 years). Genetic screening data were reported by 63 studies; all screened for SCN1A variants, and only one study specifically focused on individuals with LGS. Individuals with DS had a higher mortality estimate per 1000 person-years than individuals with LGS (DS, 15.84; LGS, 6.12) and a lower median age at death. SUDEP was the most frequently reported cause of death for individuals with DS. Only four studies reported mortality information for LGS, none of which included SUDEP. This systematic review highlights the paucity of epidemiological data available for DS and especially LGS, demonstrating the need for further research and adoption of standardized diagnostic criteria.

Expectations and clinical meaningfulness of randomized controlled trials.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials are designed and powered to detect the impact of a therapeutic intervention, and there has been considerable discussion on what constitutes a clinically meaningful change in those receiving treatment versus placebo. The pathology of AD is complex, beginning many years before clinical symptoms are detectable, with multiple potential opportunities for therapeutic engagement. Introducing treatment strategies early in the disease and assessing meaningful change over the course of an 18-month clinical trial are critical to understanding the value to an effective intervention. With new clinical trial data expected soon on emerging therapeutics from several AD studies, the Alzheimer's Association convened a work group of experts to discuss key considerations for interpreting data from cognitive and functional measures and what is considered a clinically meaningful benefit or meaningful slowing of this fatal disease. Our expectations of outcomes from therapeutic interventions in AD may need to be modified.

The Patient Voice: Exploring Treatment Preferences in Participants with Mild Cognitive Concerns to Inform Regulatory Decision Making.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the feasibility of developing a discrete-choice experiment survey to elicit preferences for a treatment to delay cognitive decline among people with a clinical syndrome consistent with early Alzheimer's disease, including the development of self-reported screening criteria to recruit the sample. METHODS: Using input from qualitative interviews, we developed a discrete-choice experiment survey containing a multifaceted beneficial treatment attribute related to slowing cognitive decline for respondents with self-reported cognitive concerns. In two rounds of in-person pretest interviews, we tested and revised the survey text and discrete-choice experiment questions, including examples, language, and levels associated with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, along with a set of de novo self-reported questions for identifying respondents who had neither too mild nor too advanced cognitive decline. Self-reported memory and thinking problems were compared with symptoms from studies of patients with early Alzheimer's disease (e.g., mild cognitive impairment, mild Alzheimer's disease) to determine whether those studies' recruited patients were similar to our anticipated target population. Round 1 pretest interviews resulted in significant simplifications in the survey instrument, revisions to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and revisions to the screening process. In round 2 of the pretest interviews, the ability of participants to provide consistent responses to the self-reported screening questions was further assessed. In addition, to evaluate participants' ability to understand and independently complete the discrete-choice experiment survey, two interviewers independently evaluated each participant's ability to make trade-offs in the discrete-choice experiment questions and to understand the content of the survey. RESULTS: Round 1 (15 pretest interviews) identified challenges with the survey instrument related to the complexity of the choice questions. The screening process did not screen out seven respondents with more advanced cognitive decline, as determined qualitatively by the interviewers and by these participants' inability to complete the survey. The survey instrument and screening criteria were revised, and an initial online screener was added to the screening process before round 2 pretests. In round 2 pretests, 12 participants reported cognitive problems similar to the target population for the survey but were judged able to understand and independently complete the discrete-choice experiment survey. CONCLUSIONS: We developed self-reported screening criteria that identified a sample of individuals with memory and thinking concerns who were similar to individuals with clinical symptoms of early Alzheimer's disease and who were able to independently complete a simplified discrete-choice experiment survey. Quantitative patient preference studies provide important information on patients' willingness to trade off treatment benefits/risks. Adapting the technique for patients with cognitive decline requires careful testing and adjustments to survey instruments. This work suggests it is the severity of cognitive impairment, rather than its presence, that determines the ability to complete a simplified discrete-choice experiment survey.

Impact of Galcanezumab on Total Pain Burden: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study in Patients with Episodic Cluster Headache.

PURPOSE: In a phase 3 study, galcanezumab significantly reduced the frequency of episodic cluster headache attacks across weeks 1-3 (primary endpoint) compared with placebo. However, multiple pain dimensions may contribute to the total burden of episodic cluster headache pain. This post hoc analysis assessed the impact of galcanezumab on the total pain burden of episodic cluster headache using a composite measure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with episodic cluster headache were randomized 1:1 to galcanezumab 300 mg or placebo once monthly for 8 weeks. Mean weekly total pain burden was calculated (daily cluster headache attack frequency × average duration × average pain severity summed over 7 days) using data collected in an electronic patient-reported outcomes diary. Change from baseline in weekly total pain burden across weeks 1-3 was compared between galcanezumab and placebo. To explore construct validity, mean weekly total pain burden scores were stratified by Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) responses at the week 4 clinic visit. RESULTS: The reduction from baseline in mean weekly total pain burden was significantly greater with galcanezumab (N=49) than with placebo (N=57): the least squares mean difference was -11.18 severity-weighted hours (p=0.035). Median weekly total pain burden decreased as PGI-I ratings improved, from 33.6 to 5.0 severity-weighted hours for patients who felt "very much worse" and "very much better," respectively. CONCLUSION: Galcanezumab significantly reduced mean weekly total pain burden compared with placebo in patients with episodic cluster headache. The composite pain measure demonstrated construct validity. Total pain burden may provide a holistic measure of the pain of episodic cluster headache. CLINICAL TRIALS: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02397473.

Treatment Outcomes in Patients Treated With Galcanezumab vs Placebo: Post Hoc Analyses From a Phase 3 Randomized Study in Patients With Episodic Cluster Headache.

BACKGROUND: Cluster headache (CH) is a highly disabling primary headache disorder. To date, characterization of outcomes in the preventive treatment of episodic CH, including precise definitions of clinically meaningful attack frequency reduction and impact on acute treatment management, is lacking. METHODS: This was a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients (men or women aged 18-65 years) diagnosed with episodic CH as defined by the International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 beta criteria. In this post hoc analysis, we evaluated the median time-to-first occurrence of ≥50, ≥75, or 100% reduction from baseline in CH attack frequency, and impact on acute medication use. An anchor-based assessment of clinically relevant attack frequency reduction using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scores at Week 4 was also assessed. RESULTS: The median time-to-first occurrence of ≥50, ≥75, or 100% reduction from baseline in CH attacks was consistently shorter (9-10 days sooner) with galcanezumab vs placebo (median [95% confidence interval, 95% CI]: ≥50%, 5 days [4.0 to 7.0] vs 14 days [6.0 to 19.0]; ≥75%, 11 days [7.0 to 16.0] vs 21 days [13.0 to 26.0]; 100%, 22 days [16.0 to 37.0] vs 32 days [23.0 to 34.0]). Mean reduction from baseline in the overall frequency of weekly pooled acute medication use across Weeks 1-3 was significantly greater with galcanezumab vs placebo (11.0 vs 5.5; odds ratio, OR [95% CI]: 5.52 [1.02, 10.01]; P value = .017). Patients reporting "much better" on the PGI-I experienced a median weekly CH attack reduction of approximately 43% from baseline across Weeks 1-3. The overall odds of achieving an attack reduction threshold of 43% across Weeks 1-3 was significantly higher with galcanezumab vs placebo (Weeks 1-3: OR [95% CI], 2.60 [1.3 to 5.3]). CONCLUSIONS: Faster median time-to-first occurrence of response rates, lower frequency of pooled acute medications use, and a greater proportion of patients achieving a response anchored by patient-reported improvement were observed for galcanezumab vs placebo.

Impact of galcanezumab on total pain burden: findings from phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in patients with episodic or chronic migraine (EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and REGAIN trials).

BACKGROUND: Focus on the frequency of migraine pain may undervalue the total burden of migraine as pain duration and severity may present unique, additive burden. A composite measure of total pain burden (TPB; frequency, severity, and duration) may provide a more comprehensive characterization of pain burden and treatment response in patients with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). The impact of galcanezumab versus placebo on TPB among patients with EM or CM was analyzed. METHODS: Patients from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled episodic (two 6-month studies pooled) and chronic migraine (3-month) studies received once-monthly subcutaneous injection of galcanezumab 120 mg or placebo. A post hoc analysis of TPB for a given month was calculated as severity-weighted duration by multiplying duration (hours) and maximum pain severity (0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe) of migraine for each day and summing these over the days in a month. Least square mean change from baseline in monthly TPB across Months 1-6 (EM, N = 444 galcanezumab, N = 894 placebo) and Months 1-3 (CM, N = 278 galcanezumab, N = 558 placebo) were compared using a mixed-model repeated measures model. Correlation of the Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) and Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) to TPB at baseline was assessed. RESULTS: At baseline, the duration of migraine on a given migraine headache day accounted for the greatest unique proportion of variability (EM, 57.4% and CM, 61.1%) to TPB after adjusting for frequency of migraine headache days and maximum pain severity. The decrease from baseline in monthly TPB was greater with galcanezumab than placebo for patients with EM (68.6 versus 36.2) and CM (102.6 versus 44.4). The average percent reduction of TPB from baseline was significantly greater with galcanezumab compared with placebo in patients with EM (50.8% versus 17.2%) and CM (29.7% versus 11.0%). In patients with EM and CM, TPB correlated with MSQ total score (r = - 0.35 and r = - 0.37) and MIDAS (r = 0.34 and r = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Greater reduction in TPB was seen in patients with EM and CM treated with galcanezumab 120 mg once-monthly injection relative to placebo. Discussing TPB supports patient-centric conversations regarding treatment expectations when clinicians are evaluating options for migraine prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : # NCT02614183 (I5Q-MC-CGAG; EVOLVE-1), # NCT02614196 (I5Q-MC-CGAH; EVOLVE-2), and # NCT02614261 (I5Q-MC-CGAI; REGAIN) - all 3 trials were registered on 23 November 2015.

Disease severity at the time of initial cognitive assessment is related to prior health-care resource use burden.

INTRODUCTION: Research has shown increased health-care resource use (HRU) among patients with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders (ADRD) well before diagnosis, but the degree to which HRU is correlated with disease severity at the time of initial assessment is not well documented. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of linked medical records and claims data for three cohorts: mild ADRD (first [index] Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] ≥20), moderate/severe ADRD (index MMSE < 20), controls without cognitive impairment. HRU during the pre-index year was compared using multivariate regressions. RESULTS: ADRD cohorts had significantly (P < .01) higher HRU than controls. Compared to mild ADRD patients, moderate/severe ADRD patients had higher rates of hospitalizations (relative risk [RR]: 1.57), emergency department visits (RR: 1.36), potentially avoidable hospitalizations (RR: 1.72), and accidental falls (RR: 1.58). DISCUSSION: HRU before initial assessment increases with disease severity at the time of assessment, highlighting the need for timely evaluation and improved management in the earliest stages of ADRD.

Disease severity and minimal clinically important differences in clinical outcome assessments for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: This study estimated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for Mini Mental State Examination, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes, and Functional Activities Questionnaire across the Alzheimer's disease (AD) spectrum. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set (9/2005-9/2016) and MCID for clinical outcomes were estimated using anchor-based (clinician's assessment of meaningful decline) and distribution-based (1/2 baseline standard deviation) approaches, stratified by severity of cognitive impairment. RESULTS: On average, a 1-3 point decrease in Mini Mental State Examination, 1-2 point increase in Clinical Dementia Scale sum of boxes, and 3-5 point increase in Functional Activities Questionnaire were indicative of a meaningful decline. The MCID values generally increased by disease severity; the effect size and standardized response mean for those with meaningful decline were consistently in the acceptable ranges for MCID. DISCUSSION: These findings can inform design and interpretation of future clinical trials.

Trends in health service use and potentially avoidable hospitalizations before Alzheimer's disease diagnosis: A matched, retrospective study of US Medicare beneficiaries.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates rates of all-cause emergency department visits, all-cause hospitalizations, potentially avoidable hospitalizations, and falls in 3 years preceding Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis. METHODS: Patients with AD and controls with no cognitive impairment were identified from the Medicare claims data. Patients were required to be aged ≥ 65 years and have continuous Medicare enrollment for ≥4 years before the index date (AD cohort: first AD diagnosis in 2012-2014; controls: randomly selected medical claim). Outcomes for each preindex year were compared among propensity score-matched cohorts. RESULTS: Each year, before index, patients with AD were more likely to have all-cause emergency department visits, all-cause hospitalizations, potentially avoidable hospitalizations, and falls (P < .05 for all comparisons) than matched controls (N = 19,679 pairs). Increasing absolute and relative risks over time were observed for all outcomes. DISCUSSION: The study findings highlight the growing burden of illness before AD diagnosis and emphasize the need for timely recognition and management of patients with AD.

One-Year Effect of the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit on Detection of Cognitive Impairment: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit (AWV) on the detection of cognitive impairment and on follow-up cognitive care for older adults. DESIGN: Retrospective matched-cohort study. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: A 5% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries continuously enrolled for 12 months before and after an index ambulatory visit occurring from 2011 to 2013 with no claims evidence of cognitive impairment before index. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes include 12-month post-index visit claims-based measurements of cognitive impairment, including new Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) diagnoses; medications for ADRD; and cognitive care-related diagnostic examination such as neurobehavioral testing, brain imaging, and blood tests for thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), serum B12, folate, and syphilis. We also measured changes in burden of anticholinergic medication. RESULTS: There were no clinically relevant differences between the AWV and control groups in the rates of incident ADRD diagnoses (6.16% vs 6.86%, p<.001) and initiation of ADRD medications (1.00% vs 1.08%, p=.15), although there were differences favoring the AWV group in rates of TSH (39.80% vs 28.36%, p<.001), B12 (9.41% vs 6.97%, p<.001), folate (4.76% vs 3.72%, p<.001), and neurobehavioral (0.75% vs 0.55%, p<.001) testing. CONCLUSIONS: Although the AWV is correlated with an increase in some measures of cognitive care, such as laboratory testing for reversible causes of cognitive impairment, it does not appear to substantially increase recognition of undetected ADRD.

Functional limitations and health care resource utilization for individuals with cognitive impairment without dementia: Findings from a United States population-based survey.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about functional limitations and health care resource utilization of people with cognitive impairment with no dementia (CIND). METHODS: Respondents with stable or progressive cognitive impairment (CI) after the first (index) indication of CIND in 2000-2010 were identified from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). Respondents never exhibiting CI were identified as potential controls. Propensity score-based optimal matching was used to adjust for differences in demographics and history of stroke. Differences between cohorts were assessed accounting for HRS survey design. RESULTS: After matching, CIND respondents had more functional limitations (difficulty with ≥1 activities of daily living: 24% vs. 15%; ≥1 instrumental activities of daily living: 20% vs. 11%) and hospital stays (37% vs. 27%) than respondents with no CI (all P < .001). Seventy five percent of CIND respondents developed dementia in the observable follow-up (median time: ∼6 years). DISCUSSION: Even before dementia onset, CI is associated with increased likelihood of functional limitations and greater health care resource use.

Assessing the economic burden of Alzheimer's disease patients first diagnosed by specialists.

BACKGROUND: It is not known if there is a differential impact on Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis and outcomes if/when patients are diagnosed with cognitive decline by specialists versus non-specialists. This study examined the cost trajectories of Medicare beneficiaries initially diagnosed by specialists compared to similar patients who received their diagnosis in primary care settings. METHODS: Patients with ≥2 claims for AD were selected from de-identified administrative claims data for US Medicare beneficiaries (5 % random sample). The earliest observed diagnosis of cognitive decline served as the index date. Patients were required to have continuous Medicare coverage for ≥12 months pre-index (baseline) and ≥12 months following the first AD diagnosis, allowing for up to 3 years from index to AD diagnosis. Time from index date to AD diagnosis was compared between those diagnosed by specialists (i.e., neurologist, psychiatrist, or geriatrician) versus non-specialists using Kaplan-Meier analyses with log-rank tests. Patient demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) during baseline, and annual all-cause medical costs (reimbursed by Medicare) in baseline and follow-up periods were compared across propensity-score matched cohorts. RESULTS: Patients first diagnosed with cognitive decline by specialists (n = 2593) were younger (78.8 versus 80.8 years old), more likely to be male (40 % versus 34 %), and had higher CCI scores and higher medical costs at baseline than those diagnosed by non-specialists (n = 13,961). However, patients diagnosed by specialists had a significantly shorter time to AD diagnosis, both before and after matching (mean [after matching]: 3.5 versus 4.6 months, p < 0.0001). In addition, patients diagnosed by specialists had significantly lower average total all-cause medical costs in the first 12 months after their index date, a finding that persisted after matching ($19,824 versus $25,863, p < 0.0001). Total per-patient annual medical costs were similar for the two groups starting in the second year post-index. CONCLUSIONS: Before and after matching, patients diagnosed by a specialist had a shorter time to AD diagnosis and incurred lower costs in the year following the initial cognitive decline diagnosis. Differences in costs converged during subsequent years. This suggests that seeking care from specialists may yield more timely diagnosis, appropriate care and reduced costs among those with cognitive decline.

Cost-utility analysis of duloxetine in osteoarthritis: a US private payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Duloxetine has recently been approved in the USA for chronic musculoskeletal pain, including osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain. The cost effectiveness of duloxetine in osteoarthritis has not previously been assessed. Duloxetine is targeted as post first-line (after acetaminophen) treatment of moderate to severe pain. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of osteoarthritis from a US private payer perspective compared with other post first-line oral treatments, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and both strong and weak opioids. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed using a discrete-state, time-dependent semi-Markov model based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis guidelines. The model was extended for opioids by adding titration, discontinuation and additional adverse events (AEs). A life-long time horizon was adopted to capture the full consequences of NSAID-induced AEs. Fourteen health states comprised the structure of the model: treatment without persistent AE, six during-AE states, six post-AE states and death. Treatment-specific utilities were calculated using the transfer-to-utility method and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores from a meta-analysis of osteoarthritis clinical trials of 12 weeks and longer. Costs for 2011 were estimated using Red Book, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature and, sparingly, expert opinion. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken, as well as subgroup analyses of patients over 65 years old and a population at greater risk of NSAID-related AEs. RESULTS: In the base case the model estimated naproxen to be the lowest total-cost treatment, tapentadol the highest cost, and duloxetine the most effective after considering AEs. Duloxetine accumulated 0.027 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) more than naproxen and 0.013 more than oxycodone. Celecoxib was dominated by naproxen, tramadol was subject to extended dominance, and strong opioids were dominated by duloxetine. The model estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$47,678 per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the probabilities of NSAID-related cardiovascular AEs as the inputs to which the ICER was most sensitive when duloxetine was compared with an NSAID. When compared with a strong opioid, duloxetine dominated the opioid under nearly all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When compared with tramadol, the ICER was most sensitive to the costs of duloxetine and tramadol. In subgroup analysis, the cost per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen fell to US$24,125 for patients over 65 years and to US$18,472 for a population at high risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal AEs. CONCLUSION: The model estimated that duloxetine was potentially cost effective in the base-case population and more cost effective for subgroups over 65 years or at high risk of NSAID-related AEs. In sensitivity analysis, duloxetine dominated all strong opioids in nearly all scenarios.

The cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain: a US private payer perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) from a US private payer perspective. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was undertaken for duloxetine and seven oral post-first-line comparators, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), weak and strong opioids, and an anticonvulsant. We created a Markov model on the basis of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis clinical guidelines. Health states included treatment, death, and 12 states associated with serious adverse events (AEs). We estimated treatment-specific utilities by carrying out a meta-analysis of pain scores from CLBP clinical trials and developing a transfer-to-utility equation using duloxetine CLBP patient-level data. Probabilities of AEs were taken from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model or estimated from osteoarthritis clinical trials by using a novel maximum-likelihood simulation technique. Costs were gathered from Red Book, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature, and, for a limited number of inputs, expert opinion. The model performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost acceptability curves. RESULTS: The model estimated an ICER of $59,473 for duloxetine over naproxen. ICERs under $30,000 were estimated for duloxetine over non-NSAIDs, with duloxetine dominating all strong opioids. In subpopulations at a higher risk of NSAID-related AEs, the ICER over naproxen was $33,105 or lower. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine appears to be a cost-effective post-first-line treatment for CLBP compared with all but generic NSAIDs. In subpopulations at risk of NSAID-related AEs, it is particularly cost-effective.