Real-world treatment pattern and outcomes among patients who took tapentadol IR or oxycodone IR

Comparison of opioid prescribing upon hospital discharge in patients receiving tapentadol versus oxycodone following orthopaedic surgery

Background The changing of opioids during the transition of care from hospital to home may be associated with harm. Objective To compare patients receiving tapentadol IR versus oxycodone IR following orthopaedic surgery during hospitalisation with regard to the changing of opioids at hospital discharge. Setting A major metropolitan tertiary referral hospital in Australia. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study. Participants included adult orthopaedic surgery patients receiving postoperative tapentadol IR or oxycodone IR during hospitalisation between 1 January 2018 and 30 June 2019. Main outcome measure The proportion of patients for whom the opioid prescribed was changed at hospital discharge. Results The study cohort included 199 patients. Of these, 100 patients received oxycodone and 99 patients received tapentadol post-operatively during hospitalisation. The mean age was 66 years (SD, 12 years) and 111 (56%) were female. The most common surgeries were total knee arthroplasty (91, 46%), total hip arthroplasty (63, 32%) and shoulder surgery (26, 13%). Patients in the tapentadol group were more likely to be changed to a different opioid upon hospital discharge than the oxycodone group (57% versus 9%, difference 48% [95% CI 36-59%, p < 0.01). After adjusting for confounders, post-operative tapentadol use was more likely to be associated with opioid changing upon discharge (OR 16.5, 95% CI 6.7 to 40.8, p < 0.01). Conclusions The post-operative use of tapentadol IR during hospitalisation was associated with an increased likelihood of opioid changing at hospital discharge. This practice could have patient safety implications.

Outcomes Associated with Treatment of Chronic Pain with Tapentadol Compared with Morphine and Oxycodone: A UK Primary Care Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

This study compared adverse outcomes and resource use for patients with a diagnosis of pain treated with tapentadol prolonged-release (PR) versus those treated with morphine controlled-release (CR) and oxycodone CR.

METHODS

Data were sourced from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), a database derived from UK primary care. Patients prescribed tapentadol PR between May 2011 and December 2016 were selected and matched to two groups of controls treated with either morphine CR or oxycodone CR on gender, age, pain duration, pain site, pain aetiology, Charlson index and prior analgesia. Times to first adverse event (constipation or nausea/vomiting) were compared within a Cox proportional hazards model. Rates of primary care contacts, accident and emergency contacts and, for a subset of patients linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), inpatient admissions and outpatient contacts were compared using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) derived from Poisson regression.

RESULTS

A total of 1907 patients prescribed tapentadol PR were identified and 1791 (93.9%) had a pain diagnosis. Of these 1246 (65.3%) were matched to morphine controls and 829 (43.4%) to oxycodone controls. Compared to controls, gastrointestinal adverse events with tapentadol PR treatment were reduced; aHR = 0.532 (0.402-0.703; p < 0.001) versus morphine CR and 0.517 (0.363-0.735; p < 0.001) versus oxycodone CR. Compared with morphine CR, primary care contacts [IRR = 0.831 (0.802-0.861)], accident and emergency attendance [0.739 (0.572-0.951)], outpatient contacts [0.917 (0.851-0.989)] and inpatients contacts [0.789 (0.664-0.938)] were reduced. For oxycodone, the respective figures were 0.735 (0.703-0.768), 0.971 (0.699-1.352), 0.877 (0.799-0.962) and 0.748 (0.601-0.932).

CONCLUSION

Tapentadol PR was associated with significantly fewer adverse gastrointestinal events than morphine CR and oxycodone CR in patients with a diagnosis of pain. There was also significantly reduced primary and secondary care resource use. As with all observational studies, potential bias due to residual confounding and confounding by indication should be considered.

FUNDING

Grünenthal Ltd.

Effect of Apixaban Versus Warfarin Use on Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Among Elderly Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The clinical trial ARISTOTLE showed that apixaban was superior to warfarin in reducing the risks of stroke and bleeding among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Further study of the effect of apixaban versus warfarin use on health care resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs in the real-world setting is warranted, especially among elderly patients who are at higher risk of stroke and bleeding.

OBJECTIVE

To compare HCRU and costs among elderly NVAF patients treated with apixaban versus warfarin in the United States.

METHODS

Elderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years) with Medicare coverage who initiated apixaban or warfarin were identified from the Humana research database during January 1, 2013-September 30, 2015. Patients were required to have 12 months of continuous insurance coverage before drug initiation (baseline period) and an atrial fibrillation diagnosis during the baseline period or on the date of drug initiation. NVAF patients were grouped into cohorts depending on the drug initiated. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to control for differences in demographics and clinical characteristics of study cohorts. Patients were followed after the index date for a variable length of follow-up. All-cause and disease-specific HCRU and costs during the follow-up were evaluated before and after PSM and reported as per patient per year.

RESULTS

Of the overall (unmatched) population, 8,250 patients (mean age: 78.0 years) initiated apixaban and 14,051 patients (mean age: 78.2 years) initiated warfarin. Among NVAF patients who initiated apixaban versus those who initiated warfarin, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores (3.0 vs. 3.4, P < 0.001); stroke risk scores, including CHADS₂ (2.7 vs. 2.9, P < 0.001) and CHA₂DS₂-VASc (4.6 vs. 4.7, P < 0.001); and bleeding risk scores, including HAS-BLED (3.1 vs. 3.2, P < 0.001), were lower. Additionally, total annual all-cause health care costs were lower during the baseline period for patients treated with apixaban versus warfarin ($17,077 vs. $20,236, P < 0.001). After PSM, 14,214 patients were matched, with 7,107 in each cohort. Mean age, CCI score, and stroke and bleeding risks were similar between matched cohorts, as were total all-cause health care costs during the baseline period. During the follow-up among matched cohorts, apixaban versus warfarin treatment was associated with higher annual pharmacy costs ($5,159 vs. $2,867, P < 0.001) but lower annual inpatient ($8,327 vs. $14,296, P < 0.001), outpatient ($9,655 vs. $11,469, P < 0.001), and total all-cause health care costs ($23,141 vs. $28,633, P < 0.001), which were reflective of lower inpatient, outpatient, and all-cause HCRU among apixaban-treated patients. Furthermore, bleeding-related ($2,101 vs. $3,963, P < 0.001) and stroke-related ($652 vs. $1,178, P = 0.001) annual medical costs were lower for patients treated with apixaban versus warfarin.

CONCLUSIONS

After controlling for differences in patient characteristics, in the real-world setting apixaban versus warfarin use was associated with less HCRU and lower total all-cause health care costs and costs for bleeding- and stroke-related medical services, but greater pharmacy costs, among elderly NVAF patients.

DISCLOSURES

This study was sponsored by Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Deitelzweig is a consultant for Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb and has served on their advisory boards and received speaker fees. Deitelzweig also serves as consultant and advisory board member to Portola and Janssen. Luo, Trocio, and Mardekian are employees of Pfizer and own stock in the company. Gupta and Curtice are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb and own stock in the company. Lingohr-Smith, Menges, and Lin are employees of Novosys Health, which received research funds from Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb to conduct this study and develop the manuscript. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Deitelzweig, Luo, and Gupta, along with Trocio, Mardekian, Curtice, and Lin. Lin, Menges, and Lingohr-Smith took the lead in data collection, with assistance from the other authors. Data interpretation was performed by Deitelzweig, Menges, and Lin, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by Lingohr-Smith and Menges, along with the other authors, and revised by all the authors. Some aspects of this study were presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in New Orleans, Louisiana, November 12-16, 2016.