IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v26y2008i12p1045-1064.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Cost-Utility Comparison of Four First-Line Medications in Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

Author

Listed:
  • Alec O’Connor
  • Katia Noyes
  • Robert Holloway

Abstract

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 Methods: Published and unpublished clinical trial and cross-sectional data were incorporated into a decision analytic model to estimate the net health and cost consequences of treatment for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 $US, year 2006 values, using a US thirdparty payer perspective. The patients included in the model were outpatients with moderate to severe pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy and no contraindications to treatment with tricyclic antidepressants. Four medications were compared: desipramine 100 mg/day, gabapentin 2400 mg/day, pregabalin 300 mg/day and duloxetine 60 mg/day. Results: Desipramine and duloxetine were both more effective and less expensive than gabapentin and pregabalin in the base-case analysis and through a wide range of sensitivity analyses. Duloxetine offered borderline value compared with desipramine in the base case ($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. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2008

Suggested Citation

  • Alec O’Connor & Katia Noyes & Robert Holloway, 2008. "A Cost-Utility Comparison of Four First-Line Medications in Painful Diabetic Neuropathy," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(12), pages 1045-1064, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:26:y:2008:i:12:p:1045-1064
    DOI: 10.2165/0019053-200826120-00007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/0019053-200826120-00007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/0019053-200826120-00007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alec O’Connor, 2009. "Neuropathic Pain," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 95-112, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:26:y:2008:i:12:p:1045-1064. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.