Long-term cost-effectiveness of initiating treatment for painful diabetic neuropathy with pregabalin, duloxetine, gabapentin, or desipramine.

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) affects nearly half of patients with diabetes. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of starting patients with PDN on pregabalin (PRE), duloxetine (DUL), gabapentin (GABA), or desipramine (DES) over a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of third-party payers in the United States. A Markov model was used to compare the costs (2013 $US) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of first-line PDN treatments in 10,000 patients using microsimulation. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Probabilities and utilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were average wholesale price for drugs and national estimates for office visits and hospitalizations. One-way and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were used to examine parameter uncertainty. Starting with PRE was dominated by DUL as DUL cost less and was more effective. Starting with GABA was extendedly dominated by a combination of DES and DUL. DES and DUL cost $23,468 and $25,979, while yielding 3.05 and 3.16 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DUL compared with DES was $22,867/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model was most sensitive to the adherence threshold and utility for mild pain. PSA showed that, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $50,000/QALY, DUL was the most cost-effective option in 56.3% of the simulations, DES in 29.2%, GABA in 14.4%, and PRE in 0.1%. Starting with DUL is the most cost-effective option for PDN when WTP is greater than $22,867/QALY. Decision makers may consider starting with DUL for PDN patients.

A cost-utility comparison of four first-line medications in painful diabetic neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Painful diabetic neuropathy is common and adversely affects patients' quality of life and function. Several treatment options exist, but their relative efficacy and value are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative efficacy, costs and cost effectiveness of the first-line treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy. METHODS: Published and unpublished clinical trial and cross-sectional data were incorporated into a decision analytic model to estimate the net health and cost consequences of treatment for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy over 3-month (base case), 1-month and 6-month timeframes. Efficacy was measured in QALYs, and costs were measured in $US, year 2006 values, using a US third-party payer perspective. The patients included in the model were outpatients with moderate to severe pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy and no contraindications to treatment with tricyclic antidepressants. Four medications were compared: desipramine 100 mg/day, gabapentin 2400 mg/day, pregabalin 300 mg/day and duloxetine 60 mg/day. RESULTS: Desipramine and duloxetine were both more effective and less expensive than gabapentin and pregabalin in the base-case analysis and through a wide range of sensitivity analyses. Duloxetine offered borderline value compared with desipramine in the base case ($US47,700 per QALY), but not when incorporating baseline-observation-carried-forward analyses of the clinical trial data ($US867,000 per QALY). The results were also sensitive to the probability of obtaining pain relief with duloxetine. CONCLUSIONS: Desipramine (100 mg/day) and duloxetine (60 mg/day) appear to be more cost effective than gabapentin or pregabalin for treating painful diabetic neuropathy. The estimated value of duloxetine relative to desipramine depends on the assumptions made in the statistical analyses of clinical trial data.

A cost-effectiveness comparison of desipramine, gabapentin, and pregabalin for treating postherpetic neuralgia.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the net health effects and costs resulting from treatment with different first-line postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) medications. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis using published literature. PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical cohort of patients aged 60 to 80 with PHN. INTERVENTIONS: Desipramine 100 mg/d, gabapentin 1,800 mg/d, and pregabalin 450 mg/d. MEASUREMENTS: A decision model was designed to describe possible treatment outcomes, including different combinations of analgesia and side effects, during the first 3 months of therapy for moderate to severe PHN. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Costs were estimated using the perspective of a third-party payer. Multivariate, univariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, and the time frame of the model was varied to 1-month and 6-month horizons. RESULTS: Desipramine was more effective and less expensive than gabapentin or pregabalin (dominant) under all conditions tested. Gabapentin was more effective than pregabalin but at an incremental cost of $216,000/QALY. Below $140/month, gabapentin became more cost-effective than pregabalin at a threshold of $50,000/QALY, and below $115/month gabapentin dominated pregabalin. CONCLUSION: Desipramine appears to be more effective and less expensive than gabapentin or pregabalin for the treatment of older patients with PHN in whom it is not contraindicated. After its price falls, generic gabapentin will likely be more cost-effective than pregabalin.

Initial antidepressant choice in primary care. Effectiveness and cost of fluoxetine vs tricyclic antidepressants.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical, functional, and economic outcomes of initially prescribing fluoxetine with outcomes of initially selecting imipramine or desipramine. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care clinics of a Seattle, Wash, area staff-model health maintenance organization from 1992 through 1994. PATIENTS: A total of 536 adults beginning antidepressant treatment for depression. INTERVENTION: Random assignment of initial antidepressant prescription (desipramine, fluoxetine, or imipramine). Subsequent antidepressant treatment (doses, medication changes or discontinuation, specialty referral) was managed by the primary care physician. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessments after 1, 3, and 6 months examined clinical outcomes (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the depression subscale of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist) and quality-of-life outcomes (Medical Outcomes Study SF-36). Medication use and health care costs were assessed using the health maintenance organization's computerized data. RESULTS: Patients assigned to receive fluoxetine reported fewer adverse effects, were more likely to continue the original medication, and were more likely to reach adequate doses than patients beginning treatment with either tricyclic drug. The fluoxetine group reported marginally better clinical outcomes after 1 month, but these differences were not statistically significant and disappeared by the 3-month assessment. Quality-of-life outcomes in the 3 groups did not differ. Total health care costs over 6 months were approximately equal for the 3 groups, with higher antidepressant costs in the fluoxetine group balanced by lower outpatient visit and inpatient costs. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes, quality-of-life outcomes, and overall treatment costs provide no clear guidance on initial selection of fluoxetine or tricyclic drugs. Thus, patients' and physicians' preferences are an appropriate basis for treatment selection.

Comparing the cost effectiveness of psychiatric treatments: bulimia nervosa.

We conducted an exploratory post hoc study that compared the cost effectiveness of five treatments for bulimia nervosa: 15 weeks of cognitive behavioral therapy (CB) followed by three monthly sessions, 16 weeks (Med16) and 24 weeks (Med24) of desipramine (< or = 300 mg/day), and CB combined with desipramine for those durations (Combo16 and Combo24). We illustrate how a treatment's cost effectiveness varies according to when evaluation is done and how effectiveness and cost are defined. At 32 weeks, Med16 appears the most cost-effective treatment, and Combo16 appears the least. At 1 year, Med24 appears the most cost-effective treatment, and Combo16 appears the least. Using this post hoc analysis as an example, we discuss the pitfalls and limitations of cost-effectiveness analysis of psychiatric treatments.