Annual biologic treatment cost for new and existing patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Greece.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to estimate the annual per-patient cost of treatment with adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab by response status for new and existing patients with moderate to severe psoriasis in Greece. METHODS: An economic analysis was developed from a national health care perspective to estimate the direct cost of treatment alternatives for new and existing patients within a 1-year time horizon. The model included drug acquisition and administration costs for responders and nonresponders. Real-world treatment pattern and resource use data were extracted through nationwide field research using telephone-based interviews with a representative sample of dermatologists. Unit costs were collected from official sources in the public domain. RESULTS: The mean annual cost of treatment for new patients who responded (or did not respond) to treatment was as follows: adalimumab €10,686 (€3,821), etanercept €10,415 (€3,224), infliximab €14,738 (€7,582), and ustekinumab €17,155 (€9,806). For existing patients the mean annual cost was €9,916, €9,462, €12,949, and €17,149, respectively. Results did not change significantly under several one-way sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSION: Under the base-case scenario, the cost of treatment with etanercept is lower than that of the other biological agents licensed for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Greece, for both new and existing patients, irrespective of response status.

Pregabalin vs. opioids for the treatment of neuropathic cancer pain: a prospective, head-to-head, randomized, open-label study.

OBJECTIVES: Neuropathic cancer pain (NCP) is a common manifestation of cancer and/or its treatment. Treatment following the WHO analgesic ladder provides relief for the majority of cancer pain patients; however, concern remains that opioids may be less efficacious for neuropathic pain (NP) compared with nociceptive pain, often necessitating the use of higher doses. Adjuvants, such as pregabalin, have shown to be efficacious for the treatment of NP, although data come mostly from noncancer studies. The comparative efficacy and safety of opioids versus adjuvants has not been studied for NCP. The aim of this study was to directly compare pregabalin versus a strong opioid for the treatment of NCP. METHODS: A total of 120 patients, diagnosed with "definite" NCP, were randomized into two groups and received increasing doses of either oral pregabalin or transdermal fentanyl for 28 days. VAS score, patient satisfaction, need for opioid rescue, and adverse events (AEs) were recorded. RESULTS: In the pregabalin group, a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved at least 30% reduction in VAS compared with the fentanyl group (73.3%, 95% CI: 60.3%-83.93 vs. 36.7%, 95% CI: 24.5%-50.1%, P < 0.0001, respectively), while the percentage mean change from baseline was also significantly different [46% (95% CI: 39.5%-52.8%) for pregabalin and 22% (95% CI: 14.9%-29.5%) for fentanyl (P < 0.0001)]. Patient-reported satisfaction was more frequent with pregabalin, while AEs and treatment discontinuations were more frequent in the fentanyl group. DISCUSSION: Prompt use of a neuropathic pain-specific adjuvant, such as pregabalin, in NCP may lead to better control of the neuropathic component, with opioid-sparing effects.

Pharmacological treatment of neuropathic cancer pain: a comprehensive review of the current literature.

Neuropathic cancer pain (NCP), commonly encountered in clinical practice, may be cancer-related, namely resulting from nervous system tumor invasion, surgical nerve damage during tumor removal, radiation-induced nerve damage and chemotherapy-related neuropathy, or may be of benign origin, unrelated to cancer. A neuropathic component is evident in about 1/3 of cancer pain cases. Although from a pathophysiological perspective NCP may differ from chronic neuropathic pain (NP), such as noncancer-related pain, clinical practice, and limited publications have shown that these two pain entities may share some treatment modalities. For example, co-analgesics have been well integrated into cancer pain-management strategies and are often used as First-Line options for the treatment of NCP. These drugs, including antidepressants and anticonvulsants, are recommended by evidence-based guidelines, whereas, others such as lidocaine patch 5%, are supported by randomized, controlled, clinical data and are included in guidelines for restricted conditions treatment. The vast majority of these drugs have already been proven useful in the management of benign NP syndromes. Treatment decisions for patients with NP can be difficult. The intrinsic difficulties in performing randomized controlled trials in cancer pain have traditionally justified the acceptance of drugs already known to be effective in benign NP for the management of malignant NP, despite the lack of relevant high quality data. Interest in NCP mechanisms and pharmacotherapy has increased, resulting in significant mechanism-based treatment advances for the future. In this comprehensive review, we present the latest knowledge regarding NCP pharmacological management.