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

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Management for Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent, disabling disease requiring chronic management that is associated with an enormous individual and societal burden. This systematic review provides a global cost-effectiveness evaluation of pharmacological therapy for the management of OA.

METHODS

Following Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidance, a literature search strategy was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation database (NHS EED) to identify original articles containing cost-effectiveness evaluation of OA pharmacological treatment published before 4 November 2021. Risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for economic evaluations. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to assess the reporting quality of included articles.

RESULTS

Database searches identified 43 cost-effectiveness analysis studies (CEAs) on pharmacological management of OA that were conducted in 18 countries and four continents, with one study containing multiple continents. A total of four classes of drugs were assessed, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioid analgesics, symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs), and intra-articular (IA) injections. The methodological approaches of these studies showed substantial heterogeneity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were (in 2021 US dollars) US$44.40 to US$307,013.56 for NSAIDS, US$11,984.84 to US$128,028.74 for opioids, US$10,930.17 to US$27,799.73 for SYSADOAs, and US$258.36 to US$58,447.97 for IA injections in different continents. The key drivers of cost effectiveness included medical resources, productivity, relative risks, and selected comparators.

CONCLUSION

This review showed substantial heterogeneity among studies, ranging from a finding of dominance to very high ICERs, but most studies found interventions to be cost effective based on specific ICER thresholds. Important challenges in the analysis were related to the standardization and methodological quality of studies, as well as the presentation of results.

Does screening for depressive symptoms help optimize duloxetine use in knee OA patients with moderate pain? A cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

Duloxetine is an FDA-approved treatment for both osteoarthritis (OA) pain and depression, but uptake of duloxetine in knee OA management varies. We examined the cost-effectiveness of adding duloxetine to knee OA care with or without depression screening.

METHODS

We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated computer microsimulation of knee OA, to examine the value of duloxetine for knee OA patients with moderate pain by comparing three strategies: 1) usual care (UC); 2) duloxetine for those who screen positive for depression on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) + UC; and 3) universal duloxetine + UC. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime direct medical costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), discounted at 3% annually. Model inputs, drawn from published literature and national databases, included: annual cost of duloxetine, $721-$937; average pain reduction for duloxetine, 17.5 points on the WOMAC pain scale (0-100); likelihood of depression remission with duloxetine, 27.4%. We considered two willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY. We varied parameters related to the PHQ-9 and duloxetine's cost, efficacy, and toxicities to address uncertainty in model inputs.

RESULTS

The screening strategy led to an additional 17 QALYs per 1,000 subjects and increased costs by $289/subject (ICER=$17,000/QALY). Universal duloxetine led to an additional 31 QALYs per 1,000 subjects and $1,205/subject (ICER=$39,300/QALY). Under the majority of sensitivity analyses, universal duloxetine was cost-effective at the $100,000/QALY threshold.

CONCLUSION

Adding duloxetine to usual care for knee OA patients with moderate pain, regardless of depressive symptoms, is cost-effective at frequently-used WTP thresholds.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Studies of Drug-Based Non-Malignant Chronic Pain Treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Chronic pain is a highly prevalent problem, involving high costs and seriously affecting a patient's quality of life. This review aimed to systematically review economic evaluations of pharmacological-based treatments for non-malignant chronic pain and to compare different treatment approaches with regard to their economic profile.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched in April 2016. Studies were included if quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported. Quality assessment was carried out by using La Torre's weighted scale on the Drummond checklist. Costs were converted into US$2014.

RESULTS

Fourteen economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. Three treatment categories identified were: opioids, anticonvulsants, and anti-depressants. Compared to anticonvulsants and antidepressant, opioids had lower ICER. Transdermal buprenorphine showed an ICER of about US$11,000.00 while pregabalin showed an ICER of US$19,200. Studies included showed a diversity of methodological approaches, such as different modeling approaches and different perspectives (NHS and private payer).

CONCLUSION

There are limitations to the success of making appropriate recommendations about which treatment is most cost-effective due to considerable variability between treatments, pain syndromes, and drug dosages. Opioids may have lower ICER, but the societal implications of the opioid epidemic and overdose deaths should be taken into account when coming to general conclusions about their cost-effectiveness. To ensure correct resource allocation as well as the best benefit for patients, uniform and standardized approaches of cost and outcome measurement in economic evaluations of chronic are needed.

Projected Cost-Effectiveness for 2 Gene-Drug Pairs Using a Multigene Panel for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

For patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, gene-drug associations exist relevant to first-line treatment options-antiplatelet agent, clopidogrel, and pain medication, tramadol. Knowledge of genotype information may allow for avoidance of adverse drug events during critical clinical windows.

OBJECTIVE

This evaluation estimated cost-effectiveness associated with a multi-gene panel pre-emptively testing two genes providing CYP2C19 genotype-guided strategy for antiplatelet therapy, with CYP2D6 genotype-guided pain management, compared to single gene test for CYP2C19 with random assignment for pain treatment, and to no testing (empiric clopidogrel with random assignment for pain treatment).

METHODS

Decision analysis modeling was used to project costs from a payer perspective and patient quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the three strategies. The model captured composite risks of major adverse cardiovascular events and pain therapy-related adverse drug events and associated utility estimates. We conducted sensitivity analyses to assess influential input parameters.

RESULTS

Over 15 months, multi-gene testing was least costly and yielded more QALYs compared to both single gene and no testing; total incremental costs were $1646 lower with incremental gains of 0.04 QALYs for multi-gene compared with single gene and $11 368 lower with 0.17 QALY gains compared to no test. Base case analyses revealed multi gene was dominant compared to both single gene and no test, as it demonstrated cost savings with increased QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

For these patients, a multi-gene-guided strategy yields a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared to the other two treatment strategies. Pre-emptively ascertaining additional gene-drug pair information can inform clinical and economic decision-making at the point of care.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the pharmacological management of chronic low back pain with four leading drugs

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain is a major health problem that has a substantial effect on people's quality of life and places a significant economic burden on healthcare systems. However, there has been little cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatments for it. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the pharmacological management of chronic low back pain.

METHODS

A total of 474 patients received pharmacological management for chronic low back pain using four leading drugs for 6 months at 28 institutions in Japan. Outcome measures, including EQ-5D, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, the JOA back pain evaluation questionnaire (BPEQ), the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Medical Outcomes Study SF-8, and the visual analog scale, were investigated at baseline and every one month thereafter. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was calculated as drug cost over the quality-adjusted life years. An economic estimation was performed from the perspective of a public healthcare payer in Japan. Stratified analysis based on patient characteristics was also performed to explore the characteristics that affect cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The ICUR of pharmacological management for chronic low back pain was JPY 453,756. Stratified analysis based on patient characteristics suggested that the pharmacological treatments for patients with a history of spine surgery or cancer, low frequency of exercise, long disease period, low scores in lumbar spine dysfunction and gait disturbance of the JOA BPEQ, and low JOA score at baseline were not cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacological management for chronic low back pain is cost-effective from the reference willingness to pay. Further optimization based on patient characteristics is expected to contribute to the sustainable development of a universal insurance system in Japan.

Systematic Review of Decision Analytic Modelling in Economic Evaluations of Low Back Pain and Sciatica

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) and sciatica place significant burden on individuals and healthcare systems, with societal costs alone likely to be in excess of £15 billion. Two recent systematic reviews for LBP and sciatica identified a shortage of modelling studies in both conditions.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to document existing model-based economic evaluations for the treatment and management of both conditions; critically appraise current modelling techniques, analytical methods, data inputs, and structure, using narrative synthesis; and identify unresolved methodological problems and gaps in the literature.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted whereby 6512 records were extracted from 11 databases, with no date limits imposed. Studies were abstracted according to a predesigned protocol, whereby they must be economic evaluations that employed an economic decision model and considered any management approach for LBP and sciatica. Study abstraction was initially performed by one reviewer who removed duplicates and screened titles to remove irrelevant studies. Overall, 133 potential studies for inclusion were then screened independently by other reviewers. Consensus was reached between reviewers regarding final inclusion.

RESULTS

Twenty-one publications of 20 unique models were included in the review, five of which were modelling studies in LBP and 16 in sciatica. Results revealed a poor standard of modelling in both conditions, particularly regarding modelling techniques, analytical methods, and data quality. Specific issues relate to inappropriate representation of both conditions in terms of health states, insufficient time horizons, and use of inappropriate utility values.

CONCLUSION

High-quality modelling studies, which reflect modelling best practice, as well as contemporary clinical understandings of both conditions, are required to enhance the economic evidence for treatments for both conditions.

A Cost-Effectiveness Model for Adjunctive Smoked Cannabis in the Treatment of Chronic Neuropathic Pain

Background: A recent meta-analysis affirmed the benefit of medicinal cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain, a disabling and difficult-to-treat condition. As medicinal cannabis use is becoming increasingly prevalent among Americans, an exploration of its economic feasibility is warranted. We present this cost-effectiveness analysis of adjunctive cannabis pharmacotherapy for chronic peripheral neuropathy.

Materials and Methods: A published Markov model comparing conventional therapies for painful diabetic neuropathy was modified to include arms for augmenting first-line, second-line (if first-line failed), or third-line (if first- and second-line failed) therapies with smoked cannabis. Microsimulation of 1,000,000 patients compared the cost (2017 U.S. dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) of usual care with and without adjunctive cannabis using a composite of third-party and out-of-pocket costs. Model efficacy inputs for cannabis were adapted from clinical trial data. Adverse event rates were derived from a prospective study of cannabis for chronic noncancer pain and applied to probability inputs for conventional therapies. Cannabis cost was derived from retail market pricing. Parameter uncertainty was addressed with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results: Adding cannabis to first-line therapy was incrementally less effective and costlier than adding cannabis to second-line and third-line therapies. Third-line adjunctive cannabis was subject to extended dominance, that is, the second-line strategy was more effective with a more favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $48,594 per QALY gained, and therefore, third-line adjunctive cannabis was not as cost-effective. At a modest willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained, second-line adjunctive cannabis was the strategy most likely to be cost-effective.

Conclusion: As recently proposed willingness-to-pay thresholds for the United States health marketplace range from $110,000 to $300,000 per QALY, cannabis appears cost-effective when augmenting second-line treatment for painful neuropathy. Further research is warranted to explore the long-term benefit of smoked cannabis and standardization of its dosing for chronic neuropathic pain.

Opioid Use is Associated with Higher Severity-Adjusted Episode Costs in Patients with Conservatively Managed Degenerative Joint Disease of the Back and Neck

BACKGROUND

Opioid use and misuse are urgent health issues. Previous studies suggest that opioid use increases healthcare resource use but severity adjustment is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the severity-adjusted cost difference between opioid users and non-users among patients with conservatively managed degenerative joint disease of the spine within a large commercial health plan population in the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was performed using a national commercial database covering 531,819 patients aged 18-64 years with non-surgically managed cervical or lumbar degenerative spine disease during 2015-6. Patients were grouped based on whether there was evidence for an opioid prescription. Costs for the opioids themselves were excluded. Severity adjustment, on an ascending integer scale from 1 to 4, was performed based on member demographics, clinical comorbidities, disease progression indicators, and complications.

RESULTS

Median episode costs for patients given opioids were approximately twice that for patients not given opioids after severity adjustment. For patients with episodes in both years and stable severity, patients with new prescriptions for opioids in 2016 doubled their median 2015 costs, and patients who had opioids discontinued in 2016 had a 60% cost reduction. Episode costs showed a nearly linear increase based on the length of time taking opioids, as well as with a higher average daily dose. Cost increases with opioids were broad across service categories even when comparing within the same severity-adjusted episodes of care.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest a clinically and statistically significant increase in episode costs associated with opioid use for degenerative joint disease of the spine, both within and between patients, and higher costs with a longer duration of opioid use as well as with higher daily dosages. Given the health consequences surrounding the overuse of opioids, concerted efforts to move towards a non-opioid pain control strategy are needed.

Prescription Medication Use Among Community-Based U.S. Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Population Based Study

Many classes of medications have been evaluated in chronic low back pain (cLBP), however their utilization in the community remains unclear. We examined patterns of prescription medication use among Americans with cLBP in a nationally representative, community-based sample. The Back Pain Survey was administered to a representative sample of U.S. adults aged 20 to 69 years (N = 5,103) during the 2009 to 2010 cycle of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. cLBP was defined as self-reported pain in the area between the lower posterior margin of the ribcage and the horizontal gluteal fold on most days for at least 3 months (N = 700). Home-based interviews with pill bottle verification were used to capture commonly prescribed medications for chronic pain. Among the sample of U.S. adults with cLBP aged 20 to 69 years, 36.9% took at least 1 prescription pain medication in the past 30 days; of them, 18.8% used opioids, 9.7% nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 8.5% muscle relaxants, and 6.9% gabapentin or pregabalin. Nonpain antidepressants and hypnotics were used by 17.8% and 4.7%, respectively. Opioids were used long-term in 76.9% of cases (median = 2 years) and were frequently coadministered with antidepressants, benzodiazepines, or hypnotics. Ninety-four percent of prescription opioids in the cLBP population were used by individuals with less than a college education. Opioids were the most widely used prescription analgesic class in community-based U.S. adults with cLBP and were often coadministered with other central nervous system-active medications. Opioid use was highly prevalent among less educated Americans with cLBP.

PERSPECTIVE

Because prescription opioid use is an issue of national concern, we examined pain-related prescription medication use in community-dwelling U.S. adults with cLBP. Opioids were the most common prescription pain medication, typically used long-term, in combination with other central nervous system-active agents, and disproportionately among individuals with less than a college education.

Health economic evidence gaps and methodological constraints in low back pain and neck pain: Results of the Research Agenda for Health Economic Evaluation (RAHEE) project

Despite the increased interest in economic evaluations, there are difficulties in applying the results of such studies in practice. Therefore, the "Research Agenda for Health Economic Evaluation" (RAHEE) project was initiated, which aimed to improve the use of health economic evidence in practice for the 10 highest burden conditions in the European Union (including low back pain [LBP] and neck pain [NP]). This was done by undertaking literature mapping and convening an Expert Panel meeting, during which the literature mapping results were discussed and evidence gaps and methodological constraints were identified. The current paper is a part of the RAHEE project and aimed to identify economic evidence gaps and methodological constraints in the LBP and NP literature, in particular. The literature mapping revealed that economic evidence was unavailable for various commonly used LBP and NP treatments (e.g., injections, traction, and discography). Even if economic evidence was available, many treatments were only evaluated in a single study or studies for the same intervention were highly heterogeneous in terms of their patient population, control condition, follow-up duration, setting, and/or economic perspective. Up until now, this has prevented economic evaluation results from being statistically pooled in the LBP and NP literature, and strong conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of LBP and NP treatments can therefore not be made. The Expert Panel identified the need for further high-quality economic evaluations, especially on surgery versus conservative care and competing treatment options for chronic LBP. Handling of uncertainty and reporting quality were considered the most important methodological challenges.

Can Chronic Pain Patients Be Adequately Treated Using Generic Pain Medications to the Exclusion of Brand-Name Ones?

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports, approximately 8 in 10 prescriptions filled in the United States are for generic medications, with an expectation that this number will increase over the next few years. The impetus for this emphasis on generics is the cost disparity between them and brand-name products. The use of FDA-approved generic drugs saved 158 billion dollars in 2010 alone. In the current health care climate, there is continually increasing pressure for prescribers to write for generic alternative medications, occasionally at the expense of best clinical practices. This creates a conflict wherein both physicians and patients may find brand-name medications clinically superior but nevertheless choose generic ones. The issue of generic versus brand medications is a key component of the discussion of health payers, physicians and their patients. This review evaluates some of the important medications in the armamentarium of pain physicians that are frequently used in the management of chronic pain, and that are currently at the forefront of this issue, including Opana (oxymorphone; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malvern, PA), Gralise (gabapentin; Depomed, Newark, CA), and Horizant (gabapentin enacarbil; XenoPort, Santa Clara, CA) that are each available in generic forms as well. We also discuss the use of Lyrica (pregabalin; Pfizer, New York, NY), which is currently unavailable as generic medication, and Cymbalta (duloxetine; Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN), which has been recently FDA approved to be available in a generic form. It is clear that the use of generic medications results in large financial savings for the cost of prescriptions on a national scale. However, cost-analysis is only part of the equation when treating chronic pain patients and undervalues the relationships of enhanced compliance due to single-daily dosing and stable and reliable pharmacokinetics associated with extended-duration preparations using either retentive technologies or delayed absorption strategies. Medications given to chronic pain patients should be individualized to best serve analgesic needs and assure patient safety primarily, based on high levels of scientific and economic evidence. Decisions regarding utilization should not be made based solely on limited or faulty assessments of cost-benefit analyses.

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.

Pharmacological management of chronic lower back pain: a review of cost effectiveness

Lower back pain is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal conditions in the developed world and accounts for significant health services use. The American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society have published a joint clinical guideline that recommends providing patients with information on prognosis and self-management, the use of medications with proven benefits and, for those who do not improve, consideration be given to the use of spinal manipulation (for acute lower back pain only), interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, massage, yoga, cognitive behavioural therapy or relaxation. The purpose of this review was to evaluate published economic evaluations of pharmacological management for chronic lower back pain. A total of seven studies were eligible for inclusion in there view. The quality of the economic evaluations undertaken in the included studies was not high. This was primarily because of the nature of the underlying clinical evidence, most of which did not come from rigorous randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the manner in which it was incorporated into the economic evaluations. All studies provided reasonable information about what aspects of healthcare and other resource use were identified, measured and valued. However, the reporting of total costs was not uniform across studies. Measures of pain and disability were the most commonly collected outcomes measures. Two studies collected information on quality of life directly from participants while two studies modelled this information based on the literature. Future economic evaluations of interventions for chronic lower back pain, including pharmacological interventions, should be based on the results of well-conducted RCTs where the measurement of costs and outcomes such as quality of life and quality-adjusted life-years is included in the trial protocol, and which have a follow-up period sufficient to capture meaningful changes in both costs and outcomes. In the absence of RCT data, economic models should be used to estimate future costs and outcomes using robust methods.

Cost-utility of cognitive behavioral therapy for low back pain from the commercial payer perspective

STUDY DESIGN

Markov cost-utility model.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-utility of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for the treatment of persistent nonspecific low back pain (LBP) from the perspective of US commercial payers.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

CBT is widely deemed clinically effective for LBP treatment. The evidence is suggestive of cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

We constructed and validated a Markov intention-to-treat model to estimate the cost-utility of CBT, with 1-year and 10-year time horizons. We applied likelihood of improvement and utilities from a randomized controlled trial assessing CBT to treat LBP. The trial randomized subjects to treatment but subjects freely sought health care services. We derived the cost of equivalent rates and types of services from US commercial claims for LBP for a similar population. For the 10-year estimates, we derived recurrence rates from the literature. The base case included medical and pharmaceutical services and assumed gradual loss of skill in applying CBT techniques. Sensitivity analyses assessed the distribution of service utilization, utility values, and rate of LBP recurrence. We compared health plan designs. Results are based on 5000 iterations of each model and expressed as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-utility of CBT was $7197 per quality-adjusted life-year in the first year and $5855 per quality-adjusted life-year over 10 years. The results are robust across numerous sensitivity analyses. No change of parameter estimate resulted in a difference of more than 7% from the base case for either time horizon. Including chiropractic and/or acupuncture care did not substantively affect cost-effectiveness. The model with medical but no pharmaceutical costs was more cost-effective ($5238 for 1 yr and $3849 for 10 yr).

CONCLUSION

CBT is a cost-effective approach to manage chronic LBP among commercial health plans members. Cost-effectiveness is demonstrated for multiple plan designs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

US-Based Drug Cost Parameter Estimation for Economic Evaluations

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, more than 10% of national health expenditures are for prescription drugs. Assessing drug costs in US economic evaluation studies is not consistent, as the true acquisition cost of a drug is not known by decision modelers. Current US practice focuses on identifying one reasonable drug cost and imposing some distributional assumption to assess uncertainty.

METHODS

We propose a set of Rules based on current pharmacy practice that account for the heterogeneity of drug product costs. The set of products derived from our Rules, and their associated costs, form an empirical distribution that can be used for more realistic sensitivity analyses and create transparency in drug cost parameter computation. The Rules specify an algorithmic process to select clinically equivalent drug products that reduce pill burden, use an appropriate package size, and assume uniform weighting of substitutable products. Three diverse examples show derived empirical distributions and are compared with previously reported cost estimates.

RESULTS

The shapes of the empirical distributions among the 3 drugs differ dramatically, including multiple modes and different variation. Previously published estimates differed from the means of the empirical distributions. Published ranges for sensitivity analyses did not cover the ranges of the empirical distributions. In one example using lisinopril, the empirical mean cost of substitutable products was $444 (range = $23-$953) as compared with a published estimate of $305 (range = $51-$523).

CONCLUSIONS

Our Rules create a simple and transparent approach to creating cost estimates of drug products and assessing their variability. The approach is easily modified to include a subset of, or different weighting for, substitutable products. The derived empirical distribution is easily incorporated into 1-way or probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Cost effectiveness of duloxetine for osteoarthritis: a Quebec societal perspective

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of duloxetine compared to other oral postacetaminophen treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) from a Quebec societal perspective.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed enhancing the Markov model from the 2008 OA guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). The NICE model was extended to include opioid and antidepressant comparators, adding titration, discontinuation, and relevant adverse events (AEs). Comparators included duloxetine, celecoxib, diclofenac, naproxen, hydromorphone, and oxycodone extended release (oxycodone). AEs included gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), as well as fracture, opioid abuse, and constipation, among others. Costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated in 2011 Canadian dollars. The base case modeled a cohort of 55-year-old patients with OA for a 12-month period of treatment, followed by treatment from a basket of post-discontinuation oral therapies until death. Sensitivity analyses (one-way and probabilistic) were conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, naproxen was the least expensive treatment, whereas oxycodone was the most expensive. Duloxetine accumulated the highest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with an ICER of $36,291 per QALY versus celecoxib. Duloxetine was dominant over opioids. In subgroup analyses, ICERs for duloxetine versus celecoxib were $15,619 and $20,463 for patients at high risk of NSAID-related AEs and patients ages >65 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Duloxetine was cost effective for a cohort of 55-year-old patients with OA, and more so in older patients and those with greater AE risks.

Comparison of the costs of nonoperative care to minimally invasive surgery for sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis in a United States commercial payer population: potential economic implications of a new minimally invasive technology

Introduction

Low back pain is common and treatment costly with substantial lost productivity and lost wages in the working-age population. Chronic low back pain originating in the sacroiliac (SI) joint (15%–30% of cases) is commonly treated with nonoperative care, but new minimally invasive surgery (MIS) options are also effective in treating SI joint disruption. We assessed whether the higher initial MIS SI joint fusion procedure costs were offset by decreased nonoperative care costs from a US commercial payer perspective.

Methods

An economic model compared the costs of treating SI joint disruption with either MIS SI joint fusion or continued nonoperative care. Nonoperative care costs (diagnostic testing, treatment, follow-up, and retail pharmacy pain medication) were from a retrospective study of Truven Health MarketScan^® data. MIS fusion costs were based on the Premier’s Perspective™ Comparative Database and professional fees on 2012 Medicare payment for Current Procedural Terminology code 27280.

Results

The cumulative 3-year (base-case analysis) and 5-year (sensitivity analysis) differentials in commercial insurance payments (cost of nonoperative care minus cost of MIS) were $14,545 and $6,137 per patient, respectively (2012 US dollars). Cost neutrality was achieved at 6 years; MIS costs accrued largely in year 1 whereas nonoperative care costs accrued over time with 92% of up front MIS procedure costs offset by year 5. For patients with lumbar spinal fusion, cost neutrality was achieved in year 1.

Conclusion

Cost offsets from new interventions for chronic conditions such as MIS SI joint fusion accrue over time. Higher initial procedure costs for MIS were largely offset by decreased nonoperative care costs over a 5-year time horizon. Optimizing effective resource use in both nonoperative and operative patients will facilitate cost-effective health care delivery. The impact of SI joint disruption on direct and indirect costs to commercial insurers, health plan beneficiaries, and employers warrants further consideration.