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.

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.

Gabapentin for the Management of Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women (GaPP1): A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial.

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) affects 2.1-24% of women. Frequently, no underlying pathology is identified, and the pain is difficult to manage. Gabapentin is prescribed for CPP despite no robust evidence of efficacy. We performed a pilot trial in two UK centres to inform the planning of a future multicentre RCT to evaluate gabapentin in CPP management. Our primary objective was to determine levels of participant recruitment and retention. Secondary objectives included estimating potential effectiveness, acceptability to participants of trial methodology, and cost-effectiveness of gabapentin. Women with CPP and no obvious pelvic pathology were assigned to an increasing regimen of gabapentin (300-2700 mg daily) or placebo. We calculated the proportion of eligible women randomised, and of randomised participants who were followed up to six months. The analyses by treatment group were by intention-to-treat. Interviews were conducted to evaluate women's experiences of the trial. A probabilistic decision analytical model was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. Between September 2012-2013, 47 women (34% of those eligible) were randomised (22 to gabapentin, 25 to placebo), and 25 (53%) completed six-month follow-up. Participants on gabapentin had less pain (BPI difference 1.72 points, 95% CI:0.07-3.36), and an improvement in mood (HADS difference 4.35 points, 95% CI:1.97-6.73) at six months than those allocated placebo. The majority of participants described their trial experience favorably. At the UK threshold for willingness-to-pay, the probabilities of gabapentin or no treatment being cost-effective are similar. A pilot trial assessing gabapentin for CPP was feasible, but uncertainty remains, highlighting the need for a large definitive trial.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of initiating treatment for painful diabetic neuropathy with pregabalin, duloxetine, gabapentin, or desipramine.

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) affects nearly half of patients with diabetes. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of starting patients with PDN on pregabalin (PRE), duloxetine (DUL), gabapentin (GABA), or desipramine (DES) over a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of third-party payers in the United States. A Markov model was used to compare the costs (2013 $US) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of first-line PDN treatments in 10,000 patients using microsimulation. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Probabilities and utilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were average wholesale price for drugs and national estimates for office visits and hospitalizations. One-way and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were used to examine parameter uncertainty. Starting with PRE was dominated by DUL as DUL cost less and was more effective. Starting with GABA was extendedly dominated by a combination of DES and DUL. DES and DUL cost $23,468 and $25,979, while yielding 3.05 and 3.16 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DUL compared with DES was $22,867/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model was most sensitive to the adherence threshold and utility for mild pain. PSA showed that, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $50,000/QALY, DUL was the most cost-effective option in 56.3% of the simulations, DES in 29.2%, GABA in 14.4%, and PRE in 0.1%. Starting with DUL is the most cost-effective option for PDN when WTP is greater than $22,867/QALY. Decision makers may consider starting with DUL for PDN patients.

A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic studies for pregabalin.

BACKGROUND: With anticonvulsant, anxiolytic, and analgesic properties, pregabalin has been evaluated for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (FM). These chronic conditions diminish patients' quality of life and increase healthcare utilization and costs. OBJECTIVE: To assess the current understanding of economic outcomes associated with pregabalin in neuropathic pain and FM. METHODS: Using keywords related to economic outcomes and pregabalin, we systematically searched MEDLINE- and EMBASE-indexed literature and nonindexed "grey" literature on neuropathic pain and FM published from March 2001 to October 2012. Included studies reported economic findings associated with pregabalin. RESULTS: In the past 11 years, 55 publications assessed the direct costs, resource use, or cost-effectiveness of pregabalin for neuropathic pain and FM. Studies generally lacked comparability due to heterogeneous patient populations, assumptions, time periods, and geographies. In the US, following treatment initiation, pregabalin resulted in similar or higher levels of healthcare use for FM compared with duloxetine. In contrast, medical costs for neuropathic pain did not significantly differ after initiation of pregabalin vs. duloxetine or other standard therapies in the US, but in Spain and Sweden, retrospective database studies suggested that pregabalin was cost-saving vs. gabapentin. Few economic analyses estimated indirect costs. CONCLUSIONS: Neuropathic pain and FM are associated with high healthcare resource use and costs. Economic studies of pregabalin in neuropathic pain and FM indicate some results favorable to other forms of care, but heterogeneity among study designs and populations hinder comparisons. Future economic analyses should aim to address data gaps regarding effects of pregabalin on productivity and resource use.

Cost-utility of cognitive behavioral therapy versus U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended drugs and usual care in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia: an economic evaluation alongside a 6-month randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended pharmacologic treatments (RPTs; pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran) are effective treatment options for fibromyalgia (FM) syndrome and are currently recommended by clinical guidelines. We compared the cost-utility from the healthcare and societal perspectives of CBT versus RPT (combination of pregabalin + duloxetine) and usual care (TAU) groups in the treatment of FM. METHODS: The economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 6-month, multicenter, randomized, blinded, parallel group, controlled trial. In total, 168 FM patients from 41 general practices in Zaragoza (Spain) were randomized to CBT (n = 57), RPT (n = 56), or TAU (n = 55). The main outcome measures were Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs, assessed by using the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire) and improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL, assessed by using EuroQoL-5D visual analogue scale, EQ-VAS). The costs of healthcare use were estimated from patient self-reports (Client Service Receipt Inventory). Cost-utility was assessed by using the net-benefit approach and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). RESULTS: On average, the total costs per patient in the CBT group (1,847 €) were significantly lower than those in patients receiving RPT (3,664 €) or TAU (3,124 €). Patients receiving CBT reported a higher quality of life (QALYs and EQ-VAS scores); the differences between groups were significant only for EQ-VAS. From a complete case-analysis approach (base case), the point estimates of the cost-effectiveness ratios resulted in dominance for the CBT group in all of the comparisons performed, by using both QALYs and EQ-VAS as outcomes. These findings were confirmed by bootstrap analyses, net-benefit curves, and CEACs. Two additional sensitivity analyses (intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis) indicated that the results were robust. The comparison of RPT with TAU yielded no clear preference for either treatment when using QALYs, although RPT was determined to be more cost-effective than TAU when evaluating EQ-VAS. CONCLUSIONS: Because of lower costs, CBT is the most cost-effective treatment for adult FM patients. Implementation in routine medical care would require policymakers to develop more-widespread public access to trained and experienced therapists in group-based forms of CBT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10804772. Registered 29 September 2008.

Pregabalin: a review of its use in adults with generalized anxiety disorder.

Pregabalin (Lyrica(®)), a well established anxiolytic agent, has been approved in the EU for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in adults. It has a distinct mechanism of action relative to other anti-anxiety agents (α2δ binding at presynaptic voltage dependent calcium channels leading to inhibition of excitatory neurotransmission), a rapid onset of effect (typically ≤1 week) and broad spectrum activity against both the psychic and somatic symptoms of GAD. In long-term studies, pregabalin maintained improvements in anxiety symptoms that occurred in response to short-term treatment and delayed the time to relapse of GAD compared with placebo. Common comorbidities of GAD, such as insomnia, gastrointestinal symptoms and subsyndromal depression, have no effect on the anxiolytic efficacy of, and moreover are specifically improved by, pregabalin. Treatment with pregabalin is generally well tolerated; the drug has an adverse event profile that includes dizziness, somnolence and weight gain. The potential for abuse of pregabalin is low; the risk of withdrawal symptoms is generally low when the drug is discontinued gradually (over 1 week). Alongside selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), pregabalin is considered a first-line agent for the long-term treatment of GAD by the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry. It should be stressed, however, that definitive head-to-head studies comparing pregabalin with SSRI/SNRIs, including in patients with GAD and co-morbid major depressive disorder, are currently lacking. Recently, a study of SSRI/SNRI augmentation with pregabalin yielded positive results, while another study of switching from long-term benzodiazepine therapy to pregabalin was inconclusive; further investigations on these topics are warranted.

Patient demographics and health plan paid costs in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.

INTRODUCTION: We determined health plan paid costs and healthcare resource usage of patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). METHODS: CIDP patients from 9 U.S. commercial health plans with claims in 2011 were identified from the Accordant Health Services claims database. We examined demographics, prevalence of comorbidities, prescribed drugs, place of service, and mean annual health plan paid costs per patient. RESULTS: From 6.5 million covered lives, 73 (56% men; mean age 47) met study entry criteria. The most prescribed therapies were intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (26% of patients), gabapentin (26%), and prednisone (16%). The annual health plan paid cost was $56,953. Pharmacy cost was the major cost driver (57% of the total), and IVIg totaled 90% of the pharmacy costs. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare costs for CIDP patients are substantial, with a large burden in pharmacy usage. Studies are needed to determine optimal long-term treatment strategies for CIDP, particularly related to IVIg.

Pharmacoeconomic outcomes for pregabalin: a systematic review in neuropathic pain, generalized anxiety disorder, and epilepsy from a Spanish perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Pregabalin is an anticonvulsant approved in Europe for the treatment of neuropathic pain, as an adjunct therapy for epileptic seizures, and recently for generalized anxiety disorder. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin associated with the treatment of its labeled indications from a societal perspective in Spain. METHODS: Data from the MEDLINE database were searched using algorithms to identify relevant economic evaluations published in English or Spanish on pregabalin for the management of neuropathic pain, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and epilepsy in Spanish patients over the last 10 years. RESULTS: In total, 52 potentially relevant abstracts were identified from the MEDLINE database. Twenty manuscripts met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the selected papers (14/20) evaluated pregabalin for neuropathic pain from a societal perspective in Spain (5 economic models of pregabalin vs. gabapentin, 4 economic analyses of pregabalin in comparison with usual care, 4 economic evaluations comparing pregabalin monotherapy with add-on strategies, and one that evaluated different times of initiating pregabalin therapy). Five studies analyzed the use of pregabalin in Spain for the management of GAD (one cost-effectiveness model that compared pregabalin with venlafaxine, 2 secondary analyses in benzodiazepine-refractory patients, and 2 studies evaluating pregabalin vs. usual care in patients refractory to standard regimens). The last manuscript described a cost-effectiveness model that compared pregabalin versus levetiracetam use for the treatment of refractory partial epilepsy. CONCLUSION: The majority of published evidence supports the possibility that pregabalin could be a cost-effective and/or cost-saving alternative for the treatment of refractory epilepsy, GAD, and neuropathic pain, in both treatment-naïve patients and in those who have demonstrated inadequate response or intolerance to previous therapy.

Potential drug-drug and drug-condition interactions among fibromyalgia patients initiating pregabalin or duloxetine: prevalence and health care expenditure impact.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the prevalence of potential drug-drug/drug-condition interactions (DDI/DCI) among fibromyalgia patients initiating pregabalin or duloxetine, and to determine the impact of potential DDI/DCI on health care expenditures. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: U.S. clinical practice, as reflected within a large administrative claims database. SUBJECTS: Fibromyalgia patients newly initiating pregabalin or duloxetine between July 1, 2008 and October 1, 2010 (initiation date = index). OUTCOME MEASURES: Potential DDI measured using clinical software that identifies co-prescription of medications that potentially interact with pregabalin or duloxetine. Potential DCI, drawn from the contraindications and warnings and precautions sections of pregabalin and duloxetine prescribing information, measured using administrative claims-based algorithms. All-cause health care expenditures measured throughout a 6-month postindex period. Analyses included univariate, bivariate, and multivariable statistical approaches. RESULTS: Seven thousand seven hundred fifty-one pregabalin and 7,785 duloxetine initiators were selected for study: mean age 49 years, 88% female. Only 1.4% of pregabalin initiators had ≥1 potential pregabalin DCI; none had potential pregabalin DDI. In contrast, 67% of duloxetine initiators had potential duloxetine DDI/DCI, driven mostly by potential duloxetine DDI (62% of duloxetine initiators). Compared between pregabalin and duloxetine initiators, differences in the prevalence of potential DDI/DCI were statistically significant (P < 0.001). Multivariable analyses indicated that, among duloxetine initiators, those with potential duloxetine DDI/DCI had postinitiation health care expenditures that were $670 higher (P < 0.001) than those without potential duloxetine DDI/DCI. Among pregabalin initiators, potential pregabalin DDI/DCI were not associated with health care expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Among fibromyalgia patients initiating pregabalin or duloxetine, potential duloxetine DDI could be highly prevalent. Among duloxetine initiators, potential duloxetine DDI/DCI were significantly associated with increased health care expenditures.

Impact of a pregabalin step therapy policy among medicare advantage beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Managed healthcare organizations often utilize formulary management strategies such as prior authorization and step therapy to guide appropriate medication use and to control medication expenditures. The objective of this study was to examine clinical and economic outcomes associated with implementation of a pregabalin step therapy (ST) policy among Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) members. METHODS: Pharmacy and medical claims data from Humana (restricted cohort; ST policy implemented 01/01/2009) and Thomson Reuters MarketScan(®) (unrestricted cohort) were analyzed for MAPD members aged 65 to 89 years receiving treatment for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) or fibromyalgia (FM). Difference-in-differences (DID) was used to examine year-over-year changes in disease-related and all-cause utilization and costs. Regression analyses examined medication utilization and healthcare expenditures after controlling for between-group compositional differences. RESULTS: We identified 13,911 members in the restricted cohort and matched to members from unrestricted health plans. FM (51.0%) and pDPN (41.8%) were the most common diagnoses. Members in the unrestricted cohort were older and had a greater level of comorbidity than members in the restricted cohort. The restricted cohort demonstrated greater year-over-year decrease in pregabalin utilization and increase in year-over-year gabapentin utilization compared with the unrestricted cohort. ST restriction was associated with an increase in disease-related pharmacy costs and a decrease in total medical costs for the restricted cohort compared with the unrestricted cohort. There was no difference between cohorts in total healthcare cost. CONCLUSION: After controlling for differences in age and comorbidity burden between the groups, implementation of a pregabalin ST restriction was associated with increased disease-related pharmacy costs and decreased total medical costs; however, there was no net difference in total healthcare cost or total pharmacy cost.

Direct medical costs and medication compliance among fibromyalgia patients: duloxetine initiators vs. pregabalin initiators.

OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare direct medical costs and medication compliance between patients with fibromyalgia who initiated duloxetine and patients with fibromyalgia who initiated pregabalin in 2008. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study design was used based on a large US national commercial claims database (2006 to 2009). Patients with fibromyalgia aged 18 to 64 who initiated duloxetine or pregabalin in 2008 and who had continuous health insurance 1 year preceding and 1 year following the initiation were selected into duloxetine cohort or pregabalin cohort based on their initiated agent. Medication compliance was measured by total supply days, medication possession ratio (MPR), and proportion of patients with MPR ≥ 0.8. Direct medical costs were measured by annual costs per patient and compared between the cohorts in the year following the initiation. Propensity score stratification and bootstrapping methods were used to adjust for distribution bias, as well as cross-cohort differences in demographic, clinical and economic characteristics, and medication history prior to the initiation. RESULTS: Both the duloxetine (n = 3,033) and pregabalin (n = 4,838) cohorts had a mean initiation age around 49 years, 89% were women. During the postindex year, compared to the pregabalin cohort, the duloxetine cohort had higher totally annual supply days (273.5 vs. 176.6, P < 0.05), higher MPR (0.7 vs. 0.5, P < 0.05), and more patients with MPR ≥ 0.8 (45.1% vs. 29.4%, P < 0.05). Further, relative to pregabalin cohort, duloxetine cohort had lower inpatient costs ($2,994.9 vs. $4,949.6, P < 0.05), lower outpatient costs ($8,259.6 vs. $10,312.2, P < 0.05), similar medication costs ($5,214.6 vs. $5,290.8, P > 0.05), and lower total medical costs ($16,469.1 vs. $20,552.6, P < 0.05) in the postinitiation year. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, patients with fibromyalgia who initiated duloxetine in 2008 had better medication compliance and consumed less inpatient, outpatient, and total medical costs than those who initiated pregabalin.

Cost comparison of drug-drug and drug-condition interactions in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy treated with pregabalin versus duloxetine.

PURPOSE: The frequency and financial impact of potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and drug-condition interactions (DCIs) in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) treated with either pregabalin or duloxetine were compared. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using a large U.S. administrative claims database. Patients selected for study inclusion had a diagnosis of DPN and were newly initiated on either pregabalin or duloxetine between July 1, 2008, and October 1, 2010. Data on potential DDIs and DCIs were collected. Health care costs were measured as the sum of gross covered payments for all medical and prescription claims incurred during the six months after the index date. RESULTS: The study sample comprised 2499 pregabalin users and 1354 duloxetine users. Among pregabalin users, 48 (1.8%) had at least one potential pregabalin DCI; none had potential pregabalin DDIs. Among duloxetine users, 966 (71%) had at least one potential duloxetine DDI or DCI. The frequencies of potential DDIs and DCIs differed significantly between pregabalin and duloxetine users (p < 0.001). Potential duloxetine DDIs and DCIs were associated with a significant increase in mean health care costs in duloxetine users (p = 0.002). Potential pregabalin DDIs and DCIs were not associated with additional health care costs in pregabalin users. CONCLUSION: Among patients with painful DPN treated with either pregabalin or duloxetine, the frequency of potential duloxetine DDIs and DCIs was substantially higher than that of pregabalin. Potential DDIs and DCIs were associated with significantly increased health care costs in duloxetine users.

Adding pregabalin or gabapentin for the management of community-treated patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a comparative cost analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN) is a highly prevalent complication of diabetes mellitus, which is associated with substantial costs to society and national health systems. This economic impact varies depending on the therapeutic management provided to patients. The objective of this study was to compare healthcare resource utilization and costs among pDPN patients newly treated with pregabalin or gabapentin in routine medical practice. METHODS: We performed a retrospective medical records study of pDPN patients newly treated with pregabalin or gabapentin as an add-on therapy who are covered by the Badalona Serveis Assistencials (BSA) health plan, a healthcare provider in Spain, from 2006 to 2009. Healthcare resource utilization and days off work were assessed. The societal perspective was used to estimate costs. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-five records were eligible for analysis: 227 (57.5%) included pregabalin and 168 (42.5%) gabapentin. Mean (standard deviation) concomitant use of analgesics throughout the study was higher in the gabapentin cohort [3.9 (2.2) vs. 3.1 (2.1); p < 0.05], mainly due to greater use of non-narcotics (78.0 vs. 71.8%; p < 0.05) and opioids (32.7 vs. 28.6%; p < 0.05). Healthcare costs accounted for 59.2% of total costs, of which 71.9% occurred in primary care, with a mean cost per patient of €2,476 (year 2010 values). Adjusted mean (95% CI) total costs were significantly lower in pregabalin-treated patients [€2,003 (1,427-2,579)] than in gabapentin-treated patients [€3,127 (2,463-3,790)] (p = 0.013), mainly due to lower healthcare costs [€1,312 (1,192-1,432) vs. €1,675 (1,537-1,814); p < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Adding pregabalin to existing pDPN therapy resulted in lower total healthcare costs and lower resource utilization than resulted from adding gabapentin.

PRECISE - pregabalin in addition to usual care for sciatica: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica is a type of neuropathic pain that is characterised by pain radiating into the leg. It is often accompanied by low back pain and neurological deficits in the lower limb. While this condition may cause significant suffering for the individual, the lack of evidence supporting effective treatments for sciatica makes clinical management difficult. Our objectives are to determine the efficacy of pregabalin on reducing leg pain intensity and its cost-effectiveness in patients with sciatica. METHODS/DESIGN: PRECISE is a prospectively registered, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin compared to placebo, in addition to usual care. Inclusion criteria include moderate to severe leg pain below the knee with evidence of nerve root/spinal nerve involvement. Participants will be randomised to receive either pregabalin with usual care (n = 102) or placebo with usual care (n = 102) for 8 weeks. The medicine dosage will be titrated up to the participant's optimal dose, to a maximum 600 mg per day. Follow up consultations will monitor individual progress, tolerability and adverse events. Usual care, if deemed appropriate by the study doctor, may include a referral for physical or manual therapy and/or prescription of analgesic medication. Participants, doctors and researchers collecting participant data will be blinded to treatment allocation. Participants will be assessed at baseline and at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 26 and 52. The primary outcome will determine the efficacy of pregabalin in reducing leg pain intensity. Secondary outcomes will include back pain intensity, disability and quality of life. Data analysis will be blinded and by intention-to-treat. A parallel economic evaluation will be conducted from health sector and societal perspectives. DISCUSSION: This study will establish the efficacy of pregabalin in reducing leg pain intensity in patients with sciatica and provide important information regarding the effect of pregabalin treatment on disability and quality of life. The impact of this research may allow the future development of a cost-effective conservative treatment strategy for patients with sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, ACTRN 12613000530729.

Pregabalin versus gabapentin in the management of peripheral neuropathic pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy: a cost effectiveness analysis for the Greek healthcare setting.

BACKGROUND: The anticonvulsants pregabalin and gabapentin are both indicated for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain. The decision on which treatment provides the best alternative, should take into account all aspects of costs and outcomes associated with the two therapeutic options. The objective of this study was to examine the cost - effectiveness of the two agents in the management of patients with painful diabetic neuropathy or post - herpetic neuralgia, under the third party payer perspective in Greece. METHODS: The analysis was based on a dynamic simulation model which estimated and compared the costs and outcomes of pregabalin and gabapentin in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients suffering from painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (DPN) or Post-Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN). In the model, each patient was randomly allocated an average pretreatment pain score, measured using an eleven-point visual analogue scale (0 - 10) and was "run through" the model, simulating their daily pain intensity and allowing for stochastic calculation of outcomes, taking into account medical interventions and the effectiveness of each treatment. RESULTS: Pregabalin demonstrated a reduction in days with moderate to severe pain when compared to gabapentin. During the 12 weeks the pregabalin arm demonstrated a 0.1178 (SE 0.0002) QALY gain, which proved to be 0.0063 (SE 0.0003) higher than that in the gabapentin arm. The mean medication cost per patient was higher for the pregabalin arm when compared to the gabapentin arm (i.e. €134.40) over the 12 week treatment period. However, this higher cost was partially offset by the reduced direct medical costs (i.e. the cost of specialist visits, the cost of diagnostic tests and the other applied interventions). Comparing costs with respective outcomes, the ICERs for pregabalin versus gabapentin were €13 (95%CI: 8 - 18) per additional day with no or mild pain and €19,320 (95%CI: 11,743 - 26,755) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Neuropathic pain carries a great disease burden for patients and society and, is also, associated with a significant economic burden. The treatment of pain associated with DPN and PHN with pregabalin is a cost-effective intervention for the social security in Greece compared to gabapentin. Thus, these findings need to be taken into consideration in the decision - making process when considering which therapy to use for the treatment of neuropathic pain.