John A Carter1, Libby K Black2, Kathleen L Deering3, Jonathan S Jahr4. 1. Blue Point LLC, 711 Warrenville Road, Wheaton, IL, 60189-0000, USA. jcarter@bluepointllc.org. 2. Baudax Bio, Inc., 490 Lapp Road, Malvern, PA, USA. 3. EPI-Q, Inc., 915 Harger Road, Oak Brook, IL, USA. 4. Professor Emeritus of Anesthesiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study assesses the budget impact and cost-effectiveness of intravenous meloxicam (MIV) to treat moderate-severe acute postoperative pain in adults. METHODS: A two-part Markov cohort model captured the pharmacoeconomic impact of MIV versus non-opioid intravenous analgesics (acetaminophen, ibuprofen, ketorolac) among a hypothetical adult cohort undergoing selected inpatient procedures and experiencing moderate-severe acute postoperative pain: Part 1 (postoperative hour 0 to discharge, cycled hourly), health states were defined by pain level. Pain transition rates, adverse event probabilities, and concomitant opioid utilization were derived from a network meta-analysis. Part 2 (discharge to week 52, cycled weekly), health states were defined by the presence/absence of pain-related readmission and opioid use disorder as determined by literature-based inputs relating to pain control outcomes. Healthcare utilization and direct medical costs were derived from an administrative claims database analysis. Primary outcomes were the incremental cost per member per month (PMPM) and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Scenario, univariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. The model assumed a private payer perspective in the USA (no discounting, 2019 US$). RESULTS: Modeled outcomes indicated MIV was associated with lower accumulated postoperative pain, fewer adverse events, and less opioid utilization for most procedures and comparators, with longer-term outcomes also generally favoring MIV. The budget impact of MIV was - $0.028 PMPM. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, MIV had lower costs and better outcomes for all comparisons except against ketorolac in orthopedic procedures where the former was cost-effective but not cost saving ($95,925/QALY). Scenario and sensitivity analyses indicated that modeled outcomes were robust to alternative inputs and underlying input uncertainty. Differences in direct medical costs were driven by reduced costs attributable to length of stay and opioid-related adverse drug events. CONCLUSION: MIV was associated with modeled clinical and economic benefits compared to commonly used non-opioid intravenous analgesics.
INTRODUCTION: This study assesses the budget impact and cost-effectiveness of intravenous meloxicam (MIV) to treat moderate-severe acute postoperative pain in adults. METHODS: A two-part Markov cohort model captured the pharmacoeconomic impact of MIV versus non-opioid intravenous analgesics (acetaminophen, ibuprofen, ketorolac) among a hypothetical adult cohort undergoing selected inpatient procedures and experiencing moderate-severe acute postoperative pain: Part 1 (postoperative hour 0 to discharge, cycled hourly), health states were defined by pain level. Pain transition rates, adverse event probabilities, and concomitant opioid utilization were derived from a network meta-analysis. Part 2 (discharge to week 52, cycled weekly), health states were defined by the presence/absence of pain-related readmission and opioid use disorder as determined by literature-based inputs relating to pain control outcomes. Healthcare utilization and direct medical costs were derived from an administrative claims database analysis. Primary outcomes were the incremental cost per member per month (PMPM) and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Scenario, univariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. The model assumed a private payer perspective in the USA (no discounting, 2019 US$). RESULTS: Modeled outcomes indicated MIV was associated with lower accumulated postoperative pain, fewer adverse events, and less opioid utilization for most procedures and comparators, with longer-term outcomes also generally favoring MIV. The budget impact of MIV was - $0.028 PMPM. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, MIV had lower costs and better outcomes for all comparisons except against ketorolac in orthopedic procedures where the former was cost-effective but not cost saving ($95,925/QALY). Scenario and sensitivity analyses indicated that modeled outcomes were robust to alternative inputs and underlying input uncertainty. Differences in direct medical costs were driven by reduced costs attributable to length of stay and opioid-related adverse drug events. CONCLUSION: MIV was associated with modeled clinical and economic benefits compared to commonly used non-opioid intravenous analgesics.
Authors: Shahid Shafi; Ashley W Collinsworth; Laurel A Copeland; Gerald O Ogola; Taoran Qiu; Maria Kouznetsova; I-Chia Liao; Natalie Mears; An T Pham; George J Wan; Andrew L Masica Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Laura A Graham; Karishma Desai; Tyler S Wahl; Elise Aucoin; Joshua S Richman; Melanie S Morris; Kamal M Itani; Gordon L Telford; Mary T Hawn Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: E Eve Shaffer; An Pham; Robert L Woldman; Andrew Spiegelman; Scott A Strassels; George J Wan; Thomas Zimmerman Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 3.845