Modeling the economic and health consequences of managing chronic osteoarthritis pain with opioids in Germany: comparison of extended-release oxycodone and OROS hydromorphone

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.

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.

When to use discrete event simulation (DES) for the economic evaluation of health technologies? A review and critique of the costs and benefits of DES

Modelling in economic evaluation is an unavoidable fact of life. Cohort-based state transition models are most common, though discrete event simulation (DES) is increasingly being used to implement more complex model structures. The benefits of DES relate to the greater flexibility around the implementation and population of complex models, which may provide more accurate or valid estimates of the incremental costs and benefits of alternative health technologies. The costs of DES relate to the time and expertise required to implement and review complex models, when perhaps a simpler model would suffice. The costs are not borne solely by the analyst, but also by reviewers. In particular, modelled economic evaluations are often submitted to support reimbursement decisions for new technologies, for which detailed model reviews are generally undertaken on behalf of the funding body. This paper reports the results from a review of published DES-based economic evaluations. Factors underlying the use of DES were defined, and the characteristics of applied models were considered, to inform options for assessing the potential benefits of DES in relation to each factor. Four broad factors underlying the use of DES were identified: baseline heterogeneity, continuous disease markers, time varying event rates, and the influence of prior events on subsequent event rates. If relevant, individual-level data are available, representation of the four factors is likely to improve model validity, and it is possible to assess the importance of their representation in individual cases. A thorough model performance evaluation is required to overcome the costs of DES from the users' perspective, but few of the reviewed DES models reported such a process. More generally, further direct, empirical comparisons of complex models with simpler models would better inform the benefits of DES to implement more complex models, and the circumstances in which such benefits are most likely.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of osteoarthritis oral therapies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have been performed for oral non-disease-altering osteoarthritis (OA) treatments for well over a decade. During that period the methods for performing these analyses have evolved as pharmacoeconomic methods have advanced, new treatments have been introduced, and the knowledge of associated adverse events (AEs) has improved.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to trace the development of CEAs for oral non-disease-altering treatments in OA.

METHODS

A systematic search for CEAs of OA oral treatments was performed of the English-language medical literature using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE In-Process, EconLit, and Cochrane. Key requirements for inclusion were that the population described patients with OA or arthritis and that the analysis reported at least one incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Each identified publication was assessed for inclusion. Thirteen characteristics and all AEs appearing in each included CEA were extracted and organized. Reference lists from these CEAs were also searched. A chronology of key CEAs in the field was compiled, noting the characteristics that advanced the state of the art in modeling oral OA treatments.

RESULTS

Thirty publications of 28 CEAs were identified and evaluated. Developments in CEAs included an expanded set of comparators that broadened from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) only to NSAIDs plus gastroprotective agents, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, and opioids. In turn, AEs expanded from gastrointestinal (GI) events to also include cardiovascular (CV) and neurological events. Efficacy, which initially was presumed to be equivalent for all treatments, evolved to treatment-specific efficacies. Decision-tree analyses were generally replaced by Markov models or, occasionally, stochastic or discrete event simulation. Finally, outcomes have progressed from GI-centric measures to also include quality-adjusted life-years.

CONCLUSION

Methods used by CEAs of oral non-disease-altering OA treatments have evolved in response to changing treatments with different safety profiles and efficacies as well as technical advances in the application of decision science to health care.

Cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical management for osteoarthritis pain: a systematic review of the literature and recommendations for future economic evaluation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent and chronic condition characterized by pain and physical disability. Currently, many treatments are available, and they primarily target pain relief. The objectives of this study were to systematically review economic evaluations for pharmaceutical management of OA pain and to provide methodological recommendations for future economic evaluation.

METHODS

Published literature was identified by searching the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE (1948-16 November 2011) with In-Process records and EMBASE (1980-2011 Week 47) via Ovid; The Cochrane Library (Issue 4 of 4, 2011) and the Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED) via Wiley; and PubMed (for non-MEDLINE records). The main search terms were OA and economic evaluations. Two reviewers independently screened all identified articles and extracted the data from those included in the final review.

RESULTS

Twelve articles reporting the cost-effectiveness of various pharmaceuticals were included, with five being trial-based and seven being model-based economic evaluations. The mean health economics quality score of the included articles was 84 (minimum-maximum: 63-99). These evaluations varied in study design, treatments compared, and outcomes measured.

CONCLUSION

The existing economic evaluations on pharmaceutical management of OA pain were of acceptable quality. Comparability of economic evaluations could be improved by selecting standard comparators, adopting a longer time horizon, and directly measuring health utilities.

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

BACKGROUND

Duloxetine has recently been approved in the USA for chronic musculoskeletal pain, including osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain. The cost effectiveness of duloxetine in osteoarthritis has not previously been assessed. Duloxetine is targeted as post first-line (after acetaminophen) treatment of moderate to severe pain.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of osteoarthritis from a US private payer perspective compared with other post first-line oral treatments, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and both strong and weak opioids.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed using a discrete-state, time-dependent semi-Markov model based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis guidelines. The model was extended for opioids by adding titration, discontinuation and additional adverse events (AEs). A life-long time horizon was adopted to capture the full consequences of NSAID-induced AEs. Fourteen health states comprised the structure of the model: treatment without persistent AE, six during-AE states, six post-AE states and death. Treatment-specific utilities were calculated using the transfer-to-utility method and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores from a meta-analysis of osteoarthritis clinical trials of 12 weeks and longer. Costs for 2011 were estimated using Red Book, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature and, sparingly, expert opinion. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken, as well as subgroup analyses of patients over 65 years old and a population at greater risk of NSAID-related AEs.

RESULTS

In the base case the model estimated naproxen to be the lowest total-cost treatment, tapentadol the highest cost, and duloxetine the most effective after considering AEs. Duloxetine accumulated 0.027 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) more than naproxen and 0.013 more than oxycodone. Celecoxib was dominated by naproxen, tramadol was subject to extended dominance, and strong opioids were dominated by duloxetine. The model estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$47,678 per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the probabilities of NSAID-related cardiovascular AEs as the inputs to which the ICER was most sensitive when duloxetine was compared with an NSAID. When compared with a strong opioid, duloxetine dominated the opioid under nearly all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When compared with tramadol, the ICER was most sensitive to the costs of duloxetine and tramadol. In subgroup analysis, the cost per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen fell to US$24,125 for patients over 65 years and to US$18,472 for a population at high risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal AEs.

CONCLUSION

The model estimated that duloxetine was potentially cost effective in the base-case population and more cost effective for subgroups over 65 years or at high risk of NSAID-related AEs. In sensitivity analysis, duloxetine dominated all strong opioids in nearly all scenarios.

Clinical simulation model of long-acting opioids for treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate costs and outcomes associated with initial tapentadol ER vs oxycodone CR for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) in the US.

METHODS

This study developed a Monte-Carlo simulation based on the scientific foundation established by published models of long-acting opioids (LAO) in patients having moderate-to-severe CNCP. It estimates costs and outcomes associated with the use of tapentadol ER vs oxycodone CR over a 1-year period from the perspective of a US payer. LAO effectiveness and treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) rates are derived from clinical trials of tapentadol ER vs oxycodone CR; other inputs are based on published literature supplemented sparingly with clinical opinion. Sensitivity analyses consider the impact of real-world dosing patterns for LAO on treatment costs.

RESULTS

Initial tapentadol ER consistently demonstrates better outcomes than initial oxycodone CR (proportion of patients achieving adequate pain relief and no GI TEAE; acute TEAE-free days; days free of chronic constipation; quality-adjusted life days; productive working hours). While total costs with initial tapentadol ER are slightly (2.2%) higher than with initial oxycodone CR, nearly twice as many modeled patients in the initial tapentadol ER arm (29% vs 15%) achieve adequate pain relief and no GI TEAE compared to initial oxycodone CR. In sensitivity analyses, tapentadol ER becomes a dominant strategy when real-world dosing patterns are considered.

CONCLUSION

The additional costs to produce better outcomes (pain relief and no GI TEAE) associated with tapentadol ER are small in the context of double the likelihood of a patient response with tapentadol ER. When daily average consumption (DACON) for oxycodone CR is factored into the analysis, initial tapentadol ER becomes a dominant strategy. Our findings are both strengthened, and limited by the use of randomized trial-centric input parameters. These results should be validated as inputs from clinical practice settings become available.

A discrete-event simulation of smoking-cessation strategies based on varenicline pivotal trial data

BACKGROUND

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the US. While one in five individuals smoke, and 70% of these indicate a desire to quit, <5% of unaided quit attempts succeed. Cessation aids can double or triple the odds of successfully quitting. Models of smoking-cessation behaviour can elucidate the implications of individual abstinence patterns to allow better tailoring of quit attempts to an individual's characteristics.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to develop and validate a discrete-event simulation (DES) to evaluate the benefits of smoking abstinence using data from the pooled pivotal clinical trials of varenicline versus bupropion or placebo for smoking cessation and to provide a foundation for the development of a lifetime smoking-cessation model.

METHODS

The DES model simulated the outcome of a single smoking-cessation attempt over 1 year, in accordance with the clinical trial timeframes. Pharmaceutical costs were assessed from the perspective of a healthcare payer. The model randomly sampled patient profiles from the pooled varenicline clinical trials. All patients were physically and mentally healthy adult smokers who were motivated to quit abruptly. The model allowed for comparisons of up to five distinct treatment approaches for smoking cessation. In the current analyses, three interventions corresponding to the clinical trials were evaluated, which included brief counselling plus varenicline 1.0 mg twice daily (bid) or bupropion SR 150 mg bid versus placebo (i.e. brief counselling only). The treatment periods in the clinical trials were 12 weeks (target quit date: day 8), with a 40-week non-treatment follow-up, and counselling continuing over the entire 52-week period in all treatment groups. The main outcome modelled was the continuous abstinence rate (CAR; defined as complete abstinence from smoking and confirmed by exhaled carbon monoxide ≤ 10 ppm) at end of treatment (weeks 9-12) and long-term follow-up (weeks 9-52), and total time abstinent from smoking over the course of 52 weeks. The model also evaluated costs and cost-effectiveness outcomes.

RESULTS

For the varenicline, bupropion and placebo cohorts, respectively, the model predicted CARs for weeks 9-12 of 44.3%, 30.4% and 18.6% compared with observed rates of 44.0%, 29.7% and 17.7%; over weeks 9-52, predicted CARs in the model compared with observed rates in the pooled clinical studies were 22.9%, 16.4% and 9.4% versus 22.4%, 15.4% and 9.3%, respectively. Total mean abstinence times accrued in the model varenicline, bupropion and placebo groups, respectively, were 3.6, 2.6 and 1.5 months and total pharmaceutical treatment costs were $US261, $US442 and $US0 (year 2008 values) over the 1-year model period. Using cost per abstinent-month achieved as a measure of cost effectiveness, varenicline dominated bupropion and yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $US124 compared with placebo.

CONCLUSION

The model accurately replicated abstinence patterns observed in the clinical trial data using individualized predictions and indicated that varenicline was more effective and may be less costly than bupropion. This simulation incorporated individual predictions of abstinence and relapse, and provides a framework for lifetime modelling that considers multiple quit attempts over time in diverse patient populations using a variety of quit attempt strategies.

Attitude and perception of patients and health care practitioners toward oral sustained release dosage forms in Palestine

AIM

To evaluate the knowledge of health professionals in Palestine regarding the advantages of sustained release dosage forms (SRDFs) over conventional therapy.

METHODS

Data were gathered from a questionnaire that was handed out to community pharmacists, physicians and patients. Pharmaceutical industry decision makers were enrolled in this study. Data were analyzed using the SPSS.

RESULTS

Pharmacists (92.9%) and 89.2% of physicians thought that SRDFs improve patient compliance. 81.5% of pharmacists and 77% of physicians were in agreement regarding the capacity of SRDFs to maintain therapeutic activity during night. In this study, 81.5% of pharmacists and 81% of physicians believed that SRDFs provide further advantage with psychiatric patients who forget to take their medications. Pharmacists (63.1%) and only 63.5% of physicians believed that SRDFs yield a time saving for nurses who use SRDFs in hospital. Only 45.3% of physicians and 43.4% of pharmacists thought that SRDFs result in cost saving due to better disease management. Pharmacists (95.2%) and 95.9% of physicians agreed that SRDFs could be the right choice for faith patient's who must take their medication during the month of Ramadan. Pharmacists (66.7%) and 50.7% of physicians recognize that SRDFs may be unsafe if they are improperly formulated. Bad swallowing was also recognized as inconveniences of SRDFs by 67.9% of pharmacists and 57.3% of physicians. Given the above advantages, 75% of patients showed economical problems regarding the cost of the single course therapy of SRDFs and 100% of interviewed patients were enthusiastic about the advantage of SRDFs during Ramadan.

CONCLUSION

The advantages of SRDFs are not completely understood by Palestinian health professionals. Pharmaceutical industries should pay more attention to the development and advertising of SRDFs due to the valuable advantages of these dosage forms.

OROS hydromorphone prolonged release: a review of its use in the management of chronic, moderate to severe pain

OROS hydromorphone prolonged release (OROS hydromorphone) [Jurnista] is a once-daily formulation of the opioid agonist hydromorphone that utilizes OROS (osmotic-controlled release oral delivery system) technology to deliver the drug at a near constant rate, thereby providing consistent analgesia over a 24-hour period. It is indicated for use in patients with severe pain and contraindicated in those with acute or post-operative pain. In several, randomized, multicentre, phase III trials, oral OROS hydromorphone administered once daily for up to 52 weeks was generally effective in the treatment of patients with chronic, moderate to severe cancer or nonmalignant/noncancer pain with regard to improvements from baseline to endpoint in patient-assessed measures of pain intensity, pain relief and/or functional impairment. Pharmacoeconomic analyses suggest that OROS hydromorphone provides greater cost utility than other opioids in this patient population. In addition, OROS hydromorphone was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, with most adverse events being mild to moderate in severity and similar to those seen with other opioids. Thus, OROS hydromorphone is an effective and useful alternative to other opioids for the treatment of patients with severe pain.

A new extended release formulation (OROS) of hydromorphone in the management of pain

Opioid analgesics are essential in the treatment of moderate to severe cancer-related pain. Opioids are also recognized as important in the management of other severe, persistent refractory painful conditions, such as sickle cell disease and arthritis. In the clinical practice of pain management, stable opioid dosing generally depends on achieving maximal analgesia with tolerable side effects typical of opioid analgesics. There is a wide interindividual variability of responsiveness to exogenous opioids both in terms of analgesic efficacy and side effects. Optimizing pain management for the individual patient may require sequential trials of opioid medications until the regimen with the most favorable therapeutic ratio of efficacy to side effects is determined.