Cost-Effectiveness of Tramadol and Oxycodone in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of incorporating tramadol or oxycodone into knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment. METHODS: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model to evaluate long-term clinical and economic outcomes of knee OA patients with a mean age of 60 years with persistent pain despite conservative treatment. We evaluated 3 strategies: opioid-sparing (OS), tramadol (T), and tramadol followed by oxycodone (T+O). We obtained estimates of pain reduction and toxicity from published literature and annual costs for tramadol ($600) and oxycodone ($2,300) from Red Book Online. Based on published data, in the base case, we assumed a 10% reduction in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) effectiveness in opioid-based strategies. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and were discounted at 3% per year. RESULTS: In the base case, T and T+O strategies delayed TKA by 7 and 9 years, respectively, and led to reduction in TKA utilization by 4% and 10%, respectively. Both opioid-based strategies increased cost and decreased QALYs compared to the OS strategy. Tramadol's ICER was highly sensitive to its effect on TKA outcomes. Reduction in TKA effectiveness by 5% (compared to base case 10%) resulted in an ICER for the T strategy of $110,600 per QALY; with no reduction in TKA effectiveness, the ICER was $26,900 per QALY. When TKA was not considered a treatment option, the ICER for T was $39,600 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Opioids do not appear to be cost-effective in OA patients without comorbidities, principally because of their negative impact on pain relief after TKA. The influence of opioids on TKA outcomes should be a research priority.

Cost-effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis in older patients with multiple comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term clinical and economic outcomes of naproxen, ibuprofen, celecoxib or tramadol for OA patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes. DESIGN: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model to examine treatment with these analgesics after standard of care (SOC) - acetaminophen and corticosteroid injections - failed to control pain. NSAID regimens were evaluated with and without proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). We evaluated over-the-counter (OTC) regimens where available. Estimates of treatment efficacy (pain reduction, occurring in ∼57% of patients on all regimens) and toxicity (major cardiac or gastrointestinal toxicity or fractures, risk ranging from 1.09% with celecoxib to 5.62% with tramadol) were derived from published literature. Annual costs came from Red Book Online(®). Outcomes were discounted at 3%/year and included costs, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Key input parameters were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Adding ibuprofen to SOC was cost saving, increasing QALYs by 0.07 while decreasing cost by $800. Incorporating OTC naproxen rather than ibuprofen added 0.01 QALYs and increased costs by $300, resulting in an ICER of $54,800/QALY. Using prescription naproxen with OTC PPIs led to an ICER of $76,700/QALY, while use of prescription naproxen with prescription PPIs resulted in an ICER of $252,300/QALY. Regimens including tramadol or celecoxib cost more but added fewer QALYs and thus were dominated by several of the naproxen-containing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multiple comorbidities, naproxen- and ibuprofen-containing regimens are more effective and cost-effective in managing OA pain than opioids, celecoxib or SOC.

Tramadol and the risk of fracture in an elderly female population: a cost utility assessment with comparison to transdermal buprenorphine.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid treatment for chronic pain is a known risk factor for falls and/or fractures in elderly patients. The latter cause a significant cost to the National Health Service and the Personal Social Services in the UK. Tramadol has a higher risk of fractures than some other opioid analgesics used to treat moderate-to-severe pain and, in the model described here, we investigate the cost effectiveness of transdermal buprenorphine treatment compared with tramadol in a high-risk population. METHODS: A model was developed to assess the cost effectiveness of tramadol compared with transdermal buprenorphine over a 1-year time horizon and a patient population of high-risk patients (female patients age 75 or older). To estimate the total cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of treatment, published odds ratios are used in combination with the published incidence rates of four types of fracture: hip, wrist, humerus and other. RESULTS: The model shows tramadol to be associated with 1,058 more fractures per 100,000 patients per year compared with transdermal buprenorphine, resulting in transdermal buprenorphine being cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than £7,000 compared with tramadol. Sensitivity analysis found this result to be robust. LIMITATIONS: In the UK data, there is uncertainty regarding the transdermal buprenorphine odds ratios for fractures. Odds ratios published in Danish and Swedish studies show similar point estimates but are associated with less uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Transdermal buprenorphine is cost-effective compared to tramadol at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY.

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.

Evaluación económica de tramadol/paracetamol en el manejo del dolor en pacientes con osteoartrosis en España / Economic evaluation of tramadol/paracetamol in the management of pain in patients with osteoarthritis in Spain

Objetivo. Comparar el coste del tratamiento del dolor en la osteoartrosis (OA) con tramadol/paracetamol frente a los antiinflamatorios no esteroideos (AINE) solos o en combinación con un inhibidor de la bomba de protones (IBP) desde el punto de vista del Sistema Nacional de Salud de España. Métodos. Se realizó un modelo analítico de decisiones que evaluó los costes derivados de las tres estrategias de tratamiento durante 6 meses. Se utilizó un análisis de minimización de costes considerando datos referentes al uso de recursos, costes farmacológicos y costes derivados del tratamiento de los acontecimientos adversos (AA) de la medicación. Resultados. En el análisis del caso base, el coste del tratamiento del dolor de la OA durante 6 meses con tramadol/paracetamol fue de 232,86 €, comparado con 274,60 € con los AINE + IBP y 133,75 € con los AINE solos. Por tanto, el tratamiento con tramadol/paracetamol produce un ahorro de 41,74 € por paciente durante 6 meses respecto a AINE + IBP y un coste adicional de 99,11 € respecto a los AINE solos. Al considerar los AA renales, tramadol/paracetamol produce un ahorro comparado con los tratamientos que contienen AINE (140,02 € respecto de los AINE solos y 280,86 € respecto de los AINE + IBP). Conclusiones. Basándose en los resultados de un modelo teórico analítico de decisiones, los datos sugieren que tramadol/paracetamol produce ahorros comparado con los AINE + IBP en el tratamiento del dolor de la OA durante 6 meses. Tramadol/paracetamol también produce ahorros comparado con los AINE solos si se consideran los AA renales (AU)

Objective. To compare the costs of treating osteoarthritis (OA) pain using combination tramadol/paracetamol tablets, Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Agents (NSAID) alone or NSAID plus proton pump inhibitors (PPI) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Methods. A decision-analytical model was constructed to analyze the cost associated with three treatment strategies over 6 months. A cost-minimization approach was used, which considered data related to resource use, medication costs and costs for the treatment of adverse events. Results. In the base-case analysis, costs for 6 months of treatment of OA pain using tramadol/paracetamol were €232.86, compared with €274.60 for NSAID + PPI and €133.75 for NSAID alone. This provided a savings of €41.74 per patient over 6 months for tramadol/paracetamol compared with NSAID + PPI and a cost increase of €99.11 compared with NSAID alone. When renal adverse events associated with NSAID were considered, tramadol/paracetamol was cost saving compared with all NSAID-based regimens (saving €140.02 vs NSAID alone, €280.86 vs NSAID + PPI). Conclusion. Based on the results of a theoretical decision-analytic model, the data obtained may suggest that tramadol/paracetamol is cost saving compared with NSAID + PPI for the treatment of OA pain over a period of 6 months. Tramadol/paracetamol is also cost saving compared with treatment with NSAID alone if considering renal adverse events (AU)

[Economic evaluation of tramadol/paracetamol in the management of pain in patients with osteoarthritis in Spain]. / Evaluación económica de tramadol/paracetamol en el manejo del dolor en pacientes con osteoartrosis en España.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of treating osteoarthritis (OA) pain using combination tramadol/paracetamol tablets, Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Agents (NSAID) alone or NSAID plus proton pump inhibitors (PPI) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. METHODS: A decision-analytical model was constructed to analyze the cost associated with three treatment strategies over 6 months. A cost-minimization approach was used, which considered data related to resource use, medication costs and costs for the treatment of adverse events. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, costs for 6 months of treatment of OA pain using tramadol/paracetamol were €232.86, compared with €274.60 for NSAID + PPI and €133.75 for NSAID alone. This provided a savings of €41.74 per patient over 6 months for tramadol/paracetamol compared with NSAID + PPI and a cost increase of €99.11 compared with NSAID alone. When renal adverse events associated with NSAID were considered, tramadol/paracetamol was cost saving compared with all NSAID-based regimens (saving €140.02 vs NSAID alone, €280.86 vs NSAID + PPI). CONCLUSION: Based on the results of a theoretical decision-analytic model, the data obtained may suggest that tramadol/paracetamol is cost saving compared with NSAID + PPI for the treatment of OA pain over a period of 6 months. Tramadol/paracetamol is also cost saving compared with treatment with NSAID alone if considering renal adverse events.

Tramadol versus low dose tramadol-paracetamol for patient controlled analgesia during spinal vertebral surgery.

Pain intensity may be high in the postoperative period after spinal vertebral surgery. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness and cost of patient controlled analgesia (PCA) with tramadol versus low dose tramadol-paracetamol on postoperative pain. A total of 60 patients were randomly divided into two groups. One group received 1.5 mg/kg tramadol (Group T) while the other group received 0.75 mg/kg tramadol plus 1 g of paracetamol (Group P) intravenously via a PCA device immediately after surgery and the patients were transferred to a recovery room, Tramadol was continuously infused at a rate of 0.5 mL/h in both groups, at a dose of 10 mg/mL in Group T and 5 mg/mL in Group P. The bolus and infusion programs were adjusted to administer a 1 mL bolus dose of tramadol with a lock time of 10 minutes. In Group P, 1 g of paracetamol was injected intravenously every 6 hours. The four-point nausea scale, numeric rating scale for pain assessment, Ramsey sedation scale, blood pressure, heart rate, respiration rate, peripheral oxygen saturation values and side effects were recorded at 0, 15 and 30 minutes, and at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 18 and 24 hours. The time to reach an Aldrete score of 9 was also recorded. A cost analysis for both groups was performed. In Group P, the numeric rating scale scores were significantly lower than that in Group T at 0 and 15 minutes. The number of side effects, additional analgesic requirement and the total dose of tramadol were lower in Group P than in Group T. However, the total cost of postoperative analgesics was significantly higher in Group P than in Group T (p < 0.001). We conclude that PCA using tramadol-paracetamol could be used safely for postoperative pain relief after spinal vertebral surgery, although at a higher cost than with tramadol alone.

Cost effectiveness of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia from a UK perspective.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia is a chronic condition associated with widespread pain, sleep disturbance and disability. Disease related costs are high and effective treatment options few. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed comparing pregabalin 300 mg or 450 mg against placebo, duloxetine 60 mg or 120 mg, gabapentin, tramadol and amitriptyline. After a 12 week treatment phase patients who responded to treatment entered an ongoing treatment phase using a Markov model in which patients maintained response, lost response or dropped out. The base case considered patients with severe fibromyalgia defined as a Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire score of >or=59 and a pain score of >or=6.5 at baseline. Response rates for pregabalin and placebo were taken from three randomised trials, and a 1 year open-label extension study was used for long-term parameters. Response was defined as a >or=30% improvement over baseline in pain score and a patient global impression of change rating of much improved or very much improved. Relative rates of response for other comparators over placebo were extracted from a systematic review of published randomised controlled studies. The primary effectiveness endpoint was Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Utilities gained over baseline were estimated by applying the SF-6D utility algorithm to SF-36 data collected in the pregabalin trials. Resource use associated with fibromyalgia management was estimated from published studies and costs were estimated from the UK NHS perspective at 2008 prices. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3.5%. Non-parametric bootstrapping analysis was used to generate confidence intervals. RESULTS: In the base case, pregabalin 300 mg and 450 mg increased cost per patient by pound601 (95% CI: 532, 669) and pound653 (587, 727) and improved QALYs per patient by 0.03 (-0.03, 0.06) and 0.03 (-0.04, 0.08) respectively compared to placebo. The cost per QALY gained (CQG) was pound23,166 and pound22,533. In the base case population CQG for pregabalin 450 mg against duloxetine 60 mg and 120 mg was pound19,224 and pound14,096, against gabapentin pound35,737, against tramadol pound98,072, and was dominated by amitriptyline. Sensitivity analysis found the cost effectiveness of pregabalin to be most sensitive to drug price and response rates. Limitations of the analysis include different definitions of response used and lack of subgroup data reported in the published studies synthesised, and limited data on long-term effect of therapies in fibromyalgia. Although the analysis was based on the best available evidence, the comparisons against amitriptyline and tramadol rely on old studies that were not designed to meet current quality criteria. CONCLUSION: This model found pregabalin 300 mg and 450 mg to be cost effective compared with placebo and, within the limits of available evidence, against duloxetine using standard UK criteria in patients with fibromyalgia experiencing severe pain.

Postoperative pain management with tramadol after craniotomy: evaluation and cost analysis.

OBJECT: Patients undergoing craniotomies have traditionally received opiates with acetaminophen for the management of their postoperative pain. The use of narcotic pain medications can be costly, decrease rates of early postoperative ambulation, lengthen hospital stays, and alter a patient's neurological examination. The use of alternative pain medications such as tramadol may benefit patients by resolving many of these issues. METHODS: The authors conducted a randomized, blinded prospective study to evaluate the efficacy of alternative pain management strategies for patients following craniotomies. Fifty patients were randomly assigned either to a control group who received narcotics and acetaminophen alone or an experimental group who received tramadol in addition to narcotic pain medications (25 patients assigned to each group). RESULTS: The control group was noted to have statistically significant higher visual analog scale pain scores, an increased length of hospital stay, and increased narcotic use compared with the tramadol group. The narcotics and acetaminophen group also had increased hospitalization costs when compared with the tramadol group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of scheduled atypical analgesics such as tramadol in addition to narcotics with acetaminophen for the management of postoperative pain after craniotomy may provide better pain control, decrease the side effects associated with narcotic pain medications, encourage earlier postoperative ambulation, and reduce total hospitalization costs.

Direct and indirect costs of pain therapy for osteoarthritis in an insured population in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the health care utilization and cost of illness for osteoarthritis (OA) patients taking pain medications. Specifically, the goals were to estimate the direct health care and indirect costs of OA. METHODS: A claims database of privately insured patients was used to identify OA patients. Prescription drug pain treatments included tramadol, cyclooxygenase-II inhibitors, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Mean annual per patient costs were calculated from an employer's perspective. RESULTS: OA patients were prescribed multiple drugs simultaneously and/or sequentially to manage pain. OA patients had a number of prevalent comorbid conditions. Average annual direct medical, drug, and indirect work loss costs were $8601, $2941, and $4603, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There was a substantial payer burden associated with OA resulting from the drug, medical, and disability costs and OA-related comorbidities and high concomitant medication utilization.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of patient-controlled analgesia compared to continuous elastomeric pump infusion of tramadol and metamizole]. / Análisis coste-efectividad de la PCA postoperatoria frente a la infusión continua elastomérica de tramadol y metamizol.

OBJECTIVES: Little information is available on the cost-effectiveness of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). The present study compared PCA to continuous infusion by elastomeric pump. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty ASA 1 or 2 patients undergoing major gynecologic surgery were enrolled for a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and costs derived from intravenous PCA with metamizole and tramadol compared to continuous infusion of the same analgesic solution by elastomeric pump in the 48 hours following surgery. Patient satisfaction and side effects were also recorded. RESULTS: The analgesic effectiveness and side effects of the 2 regimens were similar, although 61% of patients in the elastomeric pump group needed morphine for rescue analgesia compared to 33% in the PCA group (P < .05). In the PCA group, 81% of the patients said they would repeat the analgesic treatment compared to only 56% in the elastomeric pump group (P = .05). The mean number of nursing interventions was 16 for the PCA group and 19 for the elastomeric pump group. The mean cost of the treatment (not including the PCA pump, provided by the manufacturer) was Euros 41.35 for the PCA group and Euros 56.22 for the elastomeric pump group. CONCLUSIONS: The analgesic efficacy of the 2 regimens was similar. However, patient satisfaction was greater with PCA and use of an elastomeric pump was more expensive. In the setting of the present study, postoperative PCA proved to be more advantageous than continuous elastomeric pump infusion.

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.

Opioid purchases and expenditure in nine western European countries: 'are we killing off morphine?'.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice the major role of opioid drugs is the management of malignant and nonmalignant pain. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the trend in sales of four opioid analgesic drugs (codeine, tramadol, morphine, fentanyl), from wholesalers to community pharmacies, as an indicator of opioid consumption in nine European countries in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Secondary aims are to compare: (a) the amount of each drug purchased by different countries in 2003; (b) the average price for each drug in the different countries in 2003; and (c) the total expenditure for each opioid from 2001 to 2003. METHODS: Data from the Statistical Report on drugs purchased by pharmacies was supplied by IMS Health, an internationally accepted information provider for the pharmaceutical and health care industries. FINDING: In the period 2001 2003, while the percentage increase of purchases of fentanyl and tramadol was considerable, that of morphine was the lowest in most of the nine countries. The largest consumer of codeine was the UK and of tramadol was Belgium. The consumption of morphine was the lowest reported in all the countries together and was three times lower than that of transdermal fentanyl. There was a high variability in the costs of the opioids among the different countries. In 2003, the total expenditure for fentanyl reached the highest total expenditure [corrected] followed by codeine. Morphine presents the lowest expenditure in all nine countries and over all three years. INTERPRETATION: These results open up many questions. What factors influence opioid purchasing and costs in these European countries? It would be interesting to have the answers from those people who know the actual situation in the individual countries.

Rates of abuse of tramadol remain unchanged with the introduction of new branded and generic products: results of an abuse monitoring system, 1994-2004.

PURPOSE: The analgesic Tramadol HCl (Ultram) was approved in 1994 as a non-scheduled drug under the CSA provided that a novel risk-management program would be developed by an Independent Steering Committee (ISC). The risk-management program began in 1995 with the launch of Ultram, and has been modified over the past decade to accommodate Ultracet (Ultram and acetaminophen) in 2001 and generic tramadol in 2002. This provided a unique opportunity to study the potential changes in abuse as the generic and combination products became available. METHODS: To proactively detect cases of abuse and diversion, the ISC developed a comprehensive questionnaire which was completed quarterly by an extensive network of drug abuse experts (n = 309) and police agencies (n = 100) who were asked to indicate how many diversion cases involving Ultram, Ultracet, and generic tramadol were identified during the preceding 3 months and what were the ten most commonly diverted drugs in their catchment area during that period. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The data generated demonstrate that the abuse of tramadol remained very low despite new branded and generic formulations. Contrary to the hypothesis that cheaper generic drugs would lead to higher rates of abuse, we found no increase in abuse with the introduction of generic tramadol. Ultracet abuse rates, unlike those found with other widely used hydrocodone and oxycodone combination products, have been even lower than that observed for tramadol. Since the FDA has now mandated that proactive risk-management plans be implemented for new drugs, the tramadol risk-management plan may be useful as a prototypic model which can be modified to accommodate other drugs with abuse potential.

Tramadol: does it have a role in emergency medicine?

Tramadol is a synthetic analgesic new to the Australasian market where its use is rapidly increasing. It is used extensively overseas, particularly in Europe where it has been popular since its introduction in Germany in the late 1970s. Tramadol has a dual mechanism of action: weak mu opioid receptor agonist and a reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and noradrenaline. Thus, it has distinct advantages and disadvantages compared to other available analgesics. Its use is advocated in a variety of acute and chronic pain states as well as some non-analgesic applications. The use of tramadol in an emergency setting is not well studied, with most published trials assessing its efficacy and tolerability in postoperative or dental models. This literature review concludes that tramadol does not offer any particular benefits over existing analgesics for the majority of emergency pain relief situations.

[Increasing importance of opioids in geriatrics]. / Zunehmende Bedeutung der Opioide in der Geriatrie.

BACKGROUND: During the previous 20 years the prescription of opioids for medical use has increased steadily. Patients and professionals have great reservations about the use of opioids in the elderly. The aim of this study was to describe the changes in analgesic therapy in a geriatric clinic during the previous 10 years. METHOD: The quality and quantity of prescriptions for opioids as well as the costs of the analgesic therapy in a large geriatric clinic between 1994 and 2003 were analyzed. RESULTS: The use of opioids increased steadily from 0.72 mg per day and patient in 1994 to 9.50 mg in 2003 (1320%). The introduction of sustained release tilidine/naloxone and tramadol led to a change of the prescribed forms but only to a slight increase in the total consumption of these drugs. In 1994 the average daily cost of analgesic therapy was 15 cents per patient compared with 46 cents in 2003. The percentage of analgesics in the pharmacological budget increased from 5.6 to 10.8%. CONCLUSION: Dealing with opioids should be a part of the training program for all members of the geriatric team. Analgesics have come to play an important role in the pharmacological budget at least in this geriatric clinic.

Tramadol--a new analgesic.

Tramadol (Zydol-Searle) is a centrally acting opioid analgesic newly marketed in the UK for use by mouth or injection. It is licensed for the prevention and treatment of moderate to severe pain. The manufacturer claims that it causes less constipation and respiratory depression than conventional opioids and that it offers a special "dual action". We examine the claims and consider the place of tramadol.