1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Healthcare Costs And Resource Utilization In Chronic Pain Patients Treated With Extended-Release Formulations Of Tapentadol, Oxycodone, Or Morphine Stratified By Type Of Pain: A Retrospective Claims Analysis, 2012–2016

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Chronic pain treatment imposes a substantial economic burden on US society. Treatment costs may vary across subgroups of patients with different types of pain. The aim of our study was to compare healthcare costs (HC) and resource utilization in musculoskeletal (MP), neuropathic (NP), and cancer pain (CaP) patients treated with long-acting opioids (LAO), using real-world evidence.

          Patients and methods

          We compared total HC and resource utilization in subgroups of chronic pain patients (MP, NP or CaP) treated with three LAO alternatives: morphine-sulfate extended-release (MsER), oxycodone ER (OxnER) and tapentadol ER (TapER). Retrospective claims data were analyzed in the IBM Truven Health MarketScan ® Commercial Claims Database (October 2012 through March 2016). All patients were continuously health plan enrolled for at least 12 months before the index date (first LAO prescription date) and during the LAO-treatment period. The cohorts were propensity-score matched.

          Results

          A total of 2824 TapER-treated patients were matched to 16,716 OxnER-treated patients, while 2827 TapER patients were matched to 16,817 MsER patients. The average monthly total HC were lower in the TapER than in the OxnER cohort ($2510 vs. $3720, p<0.001), reflecting significantly lower outpatient, inpatient and emergency department visit rates in the TapER cohort. Similarly, the TapER cohort exhibited a lower average monthly total HC ($2520 vs. $2900, p<0.05) than MsER cohort, with significantly fewer inpatient and outpatient visits in the TapER cohort. TapER demonstrated significantly lower total HC than OxnER in patients with NP and MP, and similar to OxnER in CaP patients. TapER costs were similar to MsER costs in all pain-type subpopulations.

          Conclusion

          Based on real-world evidence, the TapER treatment for chronic pain was associated with significantly lower HC compared with MsER or OxnER. When categorized by type of pain, TapER remained a less costly strategy in comparison with OxnER for MP and NP.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Adherence and health care costs

          Medication nonadherence is an important public health consideration, affecting health outcomes and overall health care costs. This review considers the most recent developments in adherence research with a focus on the impact of medication adherence on health care costs in the US health system. We describe the magnitude of the nonadherence problem and related costs, with an extensive discussion of the mechanisms underlying the impact of nonadherence on costs. Specifically, we summarize the impact of nonadherence on health care costs in several chronic diseases, such as diabetes and asthma. A brief analysis of existing research study designs, along with suggestions for future research focus, is provided. Finally, given the ongoing changes in the US health care system, we also address some of the most relevant and current trends in health care, including pharmacist-led medication therapy management and electronic (e)-prescribing.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Research gaps on use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain: findings from a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society and American Academy of Pain Medicine clinical practice guideline.

            Chronic noncancer pain is common and use of opioids is increasing. Previously published guidelines on use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain have been based primarily on expert consensus due to lack of strong evidence. We conducted searches on Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases through July 2008 to identify studies that addressed one or more of 37 Key Questions that a multidisciplinary expert panel identified as important to be answered to generate evidence-based recommendations on the use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain. A total of 14 systematic reviews, 38 randomized trials not included in a previously published systematic review, and 13 other studies met inclusion criteria. Almost all of the randomized trials of opioids for chronic noncancer pain were short-term efficacy studies. Critical research gaps on use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain include: lack of effectiveness studies on long-term benefits and harms of opioids (including drug abuse, addiction, and diversion); insufficient evidence to draw strong conclusions about optimal approaches to risk stratification, monitoring, or initiation and titration of opioid therapy; and lack of evidence on the utility of informed consent and opioid management plans, the utility of opioid rotation, the benefits and harms specific to methadone or higher doses of opioids, and treatment of patients with chronic noncancer pain at higher risk for drug abuse or misuse. Currently, clinical decisions regarding the use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain need to be made based on weak evidence. Research funding priorities need to be set to address these critical research needs if the care of patients with chronic noncancer pain is to improve.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Socio-economic burden of patients with a diagnosis related to chronic pain--register data of 840,000 Swedish patients.

              Chronic pain constitutes a substantial socio-economic challenge but little is known about its actual cost. To estimate the direct and indirect costs of patients with a diagnosis related to chronic pain (DRCP), to determine variation in these costs across different diagnosis groups, and to identify what resources constitute the most important components of costs. Patient level data from three administrative registries in Västra Götalandsregionen in Sweden including inpatient and outpatient care, prescriptions, long-term sick-leaves, and early retirement were extracted. Patients with a DRCP between January 2004 and November 2009 were selected. In total, 840,000 patients with a DRCP were identified. The mean total costs per patient and year were estimated at 6400 EUR but were higher for patients with cancer (10,400 EUR). Patients on analgesic drugs had more than twice as high costs as patients without analgesic drugs, on average. Indirect costs (sick-leaves and early retirement) constituted the largest cost component (59%) followed by outpatient (21%) and inpatient care (14%), whereas analgesic drug prescriptions constituted less than 1 percent of the total. The socio-economic burden of patients with a diagnosis related to chronic pain amounts to 32 billion EUR per year, when findings from Västra Götalandsregionen are extrapolated to the whole of Sweden. This compares to a fifth of the total Swedish tax burden in 2007 or about a tenth of Swedish GDP. This study does not provide evidence on what costs are caused by chronic pain per se. However, the higher costs of patients on analgesic drugs might indicate that the consequences of pain are of major importance. © 2011 European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain Chapters.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                JPR
                jpainres
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove
                1178-7090
                08 November 2019
                2019
                : 12
                : 3037-3048
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Health Economics and Outcomes Research Department, ZRx Outcomes Research Inc , Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]Field Medical Affairs, Depomed, Inc , Newark, CA, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Vladimir Zah Health Economics and Outcomes Research Department, ZRx Outcomes Research Inc ., 3373 Cawthra Road, Mississauga, Ontario, CanadaTel/fax +14169534427 Email vzah@outcomesresearch.ca
                Article
                222617
                10.2147/JPR.S222617
                6850678
                © 2019 Zah et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 6, References: 31, Pages: 12
                Funding
                Funded by: Collegium Pharmaceutical
                This work was supported by Depomed, Inc. and Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., consecutively licensed companies for the commercialization of tapentadol in the United States, under an unrestricted grant. The source of funding has no influence on the study design and the analysis of the results.
                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article