Nadine Hertel

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a lidocaine 5% medicated plaster compared with gabapentin and pregabalin for treating postherpetic neuralgia: a german perspective.

AbstractObjective: This study set out to assess the cost effectiveness of using a 5% lidocaine (lignocaine) medicated plaster for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) compared with gabapentin, pregabalin 300 mg/day or 600 mg/day in German primary care. The analysis took the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance scheme (GKV). Methods: A Markov model was used to calculate the costs (2007) and benefits of the lidocaine plaster, gabapentin 1800 mg/day and pregabalin 300 or 600 mg/day over a 6-month time horizon in elderly patients with PHN who experienced insufficient pain relief with standard analgesics and could not tolerate or had contraindications to tricyclic antidepressants. The model calculated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and the cost per additional month without symptoms or intolerable adverse effects. The majority of transition probabilities were obtained from randomized controlled trials identified from a systematic literature review. Further model inputs, including resource use, concomitant medication and long-term efficacy/adherence data, were obtained from a Delphi panel. Utility values were taken from a previous study and age adjusted. Cost data were obtained from official price tariffs. Mortality, indirect costs and costs associated with inpatient treatment were not considered in the present analysis due to the perspective and time horizon employed. Results: Over the 6-month period modelled, the mean total therapy cost per patient treated with the lidocaine plaster was €911, compared with €728 for gabapentin, €875 for pregabalin 300 mg/day and €977 for pregabalin 600 mg/ day. Treatment with the lidocaine plaster was related to greater numbers of QALYs and more months without symptoms or intolerable adverse effects (mean 0.300 QALYs and 4.06 months per patient) than with gabapentin (mean 0.247 QALYs and 2.72 months), pregabalin 300 mg/day (mean 0.253 QALYs and 3.02 months) or pregabalin 600 mg/day (mean 0.256 QALYs and 3.22 months). The lidocaine plaster cost €3453/QALY gained and €137 per additional month without adverse effects or symptoms relative to gabapentin and €766/QALY and €35 per month without adverse effects or symptoms relative to pregabalin 300 mg/day. The lidocaine plaster dominated pregabalin 600 mg/day, being less costly and more effective. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that there is a 99.36% chance that the lidocaine plaster is the most clinically effective treatment considered in the analysis and a 99.09% chance that the lidocaine plaster is the most cost-effective treatment of the four therapies considered in the analysis if the GKV is willing to pay at least €20 000/QALY gained. Extensive deterministic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the findings are robust. Conclusions: The 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster is a cost-effective treatment option for the management of PHN in Germany compared with gabapentin and both 300 and 600 mg/day of pregabalin.

Cost-effectiveness of tapentadol prolonged release compared with oxycodone controlled release in the UK in patients with severe non-malignant chronic pain who failed 1st line treatment with morphine

Abstract Objectives: The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tapentadol PR (prolonged release) compared with oxycodone CR (controlled release) in severe non-malignant chronic pain patients in whom controlled release morphine was ineffective or not tolerated. Methods: A Markov model was developed to assess costs and benefits over a 1-year time horizon from the National Health Service perspective in the UK. Patients could either continue on 2nd line therapy or switch to 3rd line opioid due to lack of efficacy or poor tolerability. Patients failing also 3rd line therapy entered the final absorbing health state (4th line). Data on tolerability, efficacy, and utilities for tapentadol and oxycodone were obtained from the three comparative phase III clinical trials. Costs of resource consumption associated with opioid treatment were derived from a retrospective database analysis of anonymized patient records. Results: The model results predicted that initiating 2nd line therapy with tapentadol leads to higher effectiveness and lower costs vs oxycodone. For the overall population included in the clinical trials, mean annual costs per patient when treated with tapentadol and oxycodone were £3543 and £3656, respectively. Treatment with tapentadol, while cheaper than oxycodone, was more effective (0.6371 vs 0.6237 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for tapentadol and oxycodone, respectively), meaning that tapentadol dominated oxycodone. For the sub-group of opioid-experienced patients with severe pain at baseline the ranking in terms of costs and QALYs remained unchanged. Extensive sensitivity analyses showed that conclusions about the cost-effectiveness are consistent. Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness study suggested that initiating 2nd line treatment in patients with severe non-malignant chronic pain in the UK with tapentadol instead of oxycodone improves patients’ quality-of-life and is less costly. Key limitations when interpreting the results are the use of different sources to populate the model and restricted generalizability due to data extrapolation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tapentadol in Severe Chronic Pain in Spain: A Cost Analysis of Data From RCTs

BACKGROUND Chronic pain is known to be a significant and common health problem. Tapentadol, a recently developed centrally active, oral analgesic agent is used to treat adults with severe chronic pain that can be adequately managed only with opioid analgesics. Tapentadol has been reported to provide an improved adverse-events (AE) profile compared with other potent opioid analgesics at similar levels of analgesia. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of tapentadol to that of opioids commonly used as first-line treatment of severe, chronic, nonmalignant pain from the perspective of the health care payer in Spain. METHODS A Markov state-transition model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment with tapentadol to that of oxycodone, morphine, and transdermal fentanyl (TDF) over a 1-year time horizon. Four health states were defined: (1) treatment discontinuation due to a severe AE; (2) treatment discontinuation due to a lack of efficacy; (3) occurrence of an AE that required medical treatment; and (4) no discontinuation and no AE. If a patient discontinued a treatment, he or she was switched to an alternative, second-line opioid. Data regarding efficacy, tolerability, and utility values (EQ-5D) were derived from randomized clinical trials. Clinical experts estimated the rates of switching to other opioids and the health care resource utilization associated with the treatment of severe chronic pain. Unit costs were derived from public price lists/tariff works and were calculated from the perspective of the National Spanish Health System. The robustness of the model results was tested in extensive sensitivity analyses in which event probabilities, costs, utilities, and treatment-switching rates were altered. RESULTS Data from 3 studies (1981 patients) were included in the model. Overall, the model predicted that initiating first-line treatment with tapentadol in patients with severe, chronic, nonmalignant pain was associated with lower costs and greater efficacy versus first-line treatment with oxycodone. Compared with morphine and TDF, tapentadol yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €2656 and €2069 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. On extensive 1-way and scenario analyses, findings on the cost-effectiveness of tapentadol were consistent. The probability that tapentadol would be cost-effective compared with each comparator at the willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 to €30,000/QALY gained exceeded 90%. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings from the present model, tapentadol is likely to be a cost-effective first-line treatment in patients with severe, chronic, nonmalignant pain in Spain according to the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Compared with morphine and TDF, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were low; compared with oxycodone, tapentadol dominated, showing better quality-of-life outcomes at lower costs.

PND20 COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE LIDOCAINE 5% MEDICATED PLASTER RELATIVE TO GABAPENTIN AND PREGABALIN FOR POST-HERPETIC NEURALGIA IN GERMANY

progressing to clinical definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS). We evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of treating CIS patients with interferon-b-1b (IFNB-1b) to delay conversion to CDMS and subsequent disease progression. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of IFNB-1b compared to no treatment based on a double blind 2-year trial (BENEFIT). Data from the MS registries in Stockholm (Sweden) and in Lyon (France) were used to populate the model in addition to efficacy data from the clinical trial. Patients converting to CDMS are eligible for any of the licensed disease-modifying drugs (DMD) and disease progression under active treatment is estimated using the treated patients in the Stockholm MS Registry. Patients withdrawing from treatment during or after the trial follow the disease progression of patients not on DMDs in the Lyon MS registry (EDMUS). Disease development is expressed as moving from CIS to mild, moderate and severe disability. Costs and utilities are assigned to patients based on observational data from the Stockholm area. Results are presented as cost per quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs) gained, from the societal perspective, in 2006 €. RESULTS: Including all patients, the cost per QALY gained with IFNB-1b is 33,185 € over 20 years. For patients with a mono-focal CIS, prevention with IFNB-1b dominates no treatment, with cost-savings of 13,338 € for a QALY gain of 0.29 (both discounted with 3%). Results are sensitive to the time horizon, the treatment duration and proportion of patients treated at conversion, and the perspective of the analysis. CONCLUSION: Within the framework of this analysis in Sweden, around 35% of estimates are cost-saving and more than half of cost-effectiveness ratios remain below a threshold of 50,000 € under most assumptions.