The association of pain interference and opioid use with healthcare utilization and costs,and wage loss among adults with osteoarthritis in the United States

Abstract

Aim: To examine associations of opioid use and pain interference with activities (PIA), healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs, and wage loss in noninstitutionalized adults with osteoarthritis in the United States (US).

Methods: Adults with osteoarthritis identified from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for 2011/2013/2015 were stratified by no-opioid use with no/mild PIA, no-opioid use with moderate/severe PIA, opioid use with no/mild PIA, and opioid use with moderate/severe PIA. Outcomes included annualized total HRU, direct healthcare costs, and wage loss. Multivariable regression analyses were used for comparisons versus no-opioid use with no/mild PIA (referent). The counterfactual recycled prediction method estimated incremental costs. Results reflect weighted nationally representative data.

Results: Of 4,921 participants (weighted n?=?20,785,007), 46.5% had no-opioid use with no/mild PIA; 23.2% had no-opioid use with moderate/severe PIA; 9.6% had opioid use with no/mild PIA; and 20.7% had opioid use with moderate/severe PIA. Moderate/severe PIA and/or opioid use were associated with significantly higher HRU and associated costs, and wage loss. Relative to adults with no/mild PIA, opioid users with moderate/severe PIA were more likely to have hospitalizations, specialist visits, and emergency room visits (all p?<?.001). Relative to the referent, opioid use with no/mild PIA had higher per-patient incremental annual total healthcare costs ($11,672, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?$11,435–$11,909) and wage loss ($1,395, 95% CI?=?$1,376–$1,414) as did opioid use with moderate/severe PIA ($13,595, 95% CI?=?$13,319–$13,871; and $2,331, 95% CI?=?$2,298–$2,363) (all p?<?.001). Compared with the referent, estimated excess national total healthcare costs/lost wages were $23.3 billion/$1.3 billion for opioid use with no/mild PIA, and $58.5 billion/$2.2 billion for opioid use with moderate/severe PIA.

Limitations: Unobservable/unmeasured factors that could not be accounted for.

Conclusions: Opioid use with moderate/severe PIA had significantly higher HRU, costs, and wage loss; opioid use was more relevant than PIA to the economic burden. These results suggest unmet needs for alternative pain management strategies.     

Impact of increasing adherence to disease-modifying therapies on healthcare resource utilization and direct medical and indirect work loss costs for patients with multiple sclerosis

Abstract

Objectives:

To estimate the effect of adherence to disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs, and model the impact of a 10 percentage point increase in adherence on these outcomes.     

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness modeling of pharmaceutical therapies in neuropathic pain: variation in practice,key challenges,and recommendations for the future

Objectives: Complexities in the neuropathic-pain care pathway make the condition difficult to manage and difficult to capture in cost-effectiveness models. The aim of this study is to understand, through a systematic review of previous cost-effectiveness studies, some of the key strengths and limitations in data and modeling practices in neuropathic pain. Thus, the aim is to guide future research and practice to improve resource allocation decisions and encourage continued investment to find novel and effective treatments for patients with neuropathic pain.

Methods: The search strategy was designed to identify peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness evaluations of non-surgical, pharmaceutical therapies for neuropathic pain published since January 2000, accessing five key databases. All identified publications were reviewed and screened according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. Data extraction was designed to reflect key data challenges and approaches to modeling in neuropathic pain and based on published guidelines.

Results: The search strategy identified 20 cost-effectiveness analyses meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 14 had original model structures. Cost-effectiveness modeling in neuropathic pain is established and increasing across multiple jurisdictions; however, amongst these studies, there is substantial variation in modeling approach, and there are common limitations. Capturing the effect of treatments upon health outcomes, particularly health-related quality-of-life, is challenging, and the health effects of multiple lines of ineffective treatment, common for patients with neuropathic pain, have not been consistently or robustly modeled.

Conclusions: To improve future economic modeling in neuropathic pain, further research is suggested into the effect of multiple lines of treatment and treatment failure upon patient outcomes and subsequent treatment effectiveness; the impact of treatment-emergent adverse events upon patient outcomes; and consistent and appropriate pain measures to inform models. The authors further encourage transparent reporting of inputs used to inform cost-effectiveness models, with robust, comprehensive and clear uncertainty analysis and, where feasible, open-source modeling is encouraged.     

Economic modelling of costs associated with outcomes reported for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in the CANVAS and EMPA-REG cardiovascular outcomes trials

Aims: To model direct medical costs associated with reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in T2DM patients reported in the CANVAS and EMPA-REG trials, which assessed the cardiovascular safety of canagliflozin and empagliflozin, respectively.

Materials and methods: Costs were modeled from a US managed care organization (MCO) perspective for the CVD outcomes included in both trials: three-point major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and its components (cardiovascular-related death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke), as well as heart failure requiring hospitalization. The rate of CVD events averted (difference between study drug and placebo) was projected to the portion of an MCO T2DM population matching the respective trial’s inclusion criteria. A targeted literature search for paid amounts directly associated with each CVD event provided the unit costs, which were applied to the projected number of events averted, to calculate costs avoided per member per year (PMPY). One-way sensitivity analyses were performed on events averted, unit costs, and percentages of trial-applicable patients.

Results: Based on three-point MACE events averted, costs avoided PMPY of $6.17 (range: $1.27–$10.94) for CANVAS and $2.75 ($0.19–$4.83) for EMPA-REG were estimated. Costs avoided for individual components of MACE ranged from $0.77 to $3.84 PMPY for CANVAS and from -$0.97 (additional costs) to $1.54 for EMPA-REG. PMPY costs avoided for heart failure were $2.72 for CANVAS and $1.32 for EMPA-REG.

Limitations and conclusions: Models assumed independent, non-recurrent outcomes and were restricted to medical costs directly associated with the trial-reported events. The reductions in CVD events in T2DM patients reported for both CANVAS and EMPA-REG project to a positive cost avoidance for these events in an MCO population. The analysis did not include an assessment of the impact on total cost, as the costs associated with adverse events, drug utilization or other clinical outcomes were not examined.