Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-Utility Analysis of Duloxetine in Osteoarthritis: A US Private Payer Perspective

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Letter to the Editor to this article was published on 06 August 2013

Abstract

Background

Duloxetine has recently been approved in the USA for chronic musculoskeletal pain, including osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain. The cost effectiveness of duloxetine in osteoarthritis has not previously been assessed. Duloxetine is targeted as post first-line (after acetaminophen) treatment of moderate to severe pain.

Objective

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of osteoarthritis from a US private payer perspective compared with other post first-line oral treatments, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and both strong and weak opioids.

Methods

A cost-utility analysis was performed using a discrete-state, time-dependent semi-Markov model based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis guidelines. The model was extended for opioids by adding titration, discontinuation and additional adverse events (AEs). A life-long time horizon was adopted to capture the full consequences of NSAID-induced AEs. Fourteen health states comprised the structure of the model: treatment without persistent AE, six during-AE states, six post-AE states and death. Treatment-specific utilities were calculated using the transfer-to-utility method and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores from a meta-analysis of osteoarthritis clinical trials of 12 weeks and longer. Costs for 2011 were estimated using Red Book, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature and, sparingly, expert opinion. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken, as well as subgroup analyses of patients over 65 years old and a population at greater risk of NSAID-related AEs.

Results

In the base case the model estimated naproxen to be the lowest total-cost treatment, tapentadol the highest cost, and duloxetine the most effective after considering AEs. Duloxetine accumulated 0.027 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) more than naproxen and 0.013 more than oxycodone. Celecoxib was dominated by naproxen, tramadol was subject to extended dominance, and strong opioids were dominated by duloxetine. The model estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$47,678 per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the probabilities of NSAID-related cardiovascular AEs as the inputs to which the ICER was most sensitive when duloxetine was compared with an NSAID. When compared with a strong opioid, duloxetine dominated the opioid under nearly all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When compared with tramadol, the ICER was most sensitive to the costs of duloxetine and tramadol. In subgroup analysis, the cost per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen fell to US$24,125 for patients over 65 years and to US$18,472 for a population at high risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal AEs.

Conclusion

The model estimated that duloxetine was potentially cost effective in the base-case population and more cost effective for subgroups over 65 years or at high risk of NSAID-related AEs. In sensitivity analysis, duloxetine dominated all strong opioids in nearly all scenarios.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zhang W, Moskowitz RW, Nuki G, et al. OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, part I: critical appraisal of existing treatment guidelines and systematic review of current research evidence. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2007;15(9):981–1000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions. Osteoarthritis: national clinical guideline for care and management in adults. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amer M, Bead VR, Bathon J, et al. Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with cardiovascular disease: a cautionary tale. Cardiol Rev. 2010;18(4):204–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Noble M, Treadwell JR, Tregear SJ, et al. Long-term opioid management for chronic noncancer pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; (1): CD006605.

  5. Zhang W, Moskowitz RW, Nuki G, et al. OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, part II: OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2008;16(2):137–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bellingham GA, Peng PWH. Duloxetine: a review of its pharmacology and use in chronic pain management. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010;35(3):294–303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cymbalta® (duloxetine tablets): US prescribing information. Indianapolis: Eli Lilly and Company; 2011.

  8. Brunton S, Wang F, Edwards SB, et al. Profile of adverse events with duloxetine treatment: a pooled analysis of placebo-controlled studies. Drug Saf. 2010;33(5):393–407.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Al MJ, Maniadakis N, Grijseels EWM, et al. Costs and effects of various analgesic treatments for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis in the Netherlands. Value Health. 2008;11(4):589–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bessette L, Risebrough N, Mittmann N, et al. Cost-utility of celecoxib use in different treatment strategies for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis from the Quebec healthcare system perspective. J Med Econ. 2009;12(3):246–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brereton N, Winn B, Akehurst R. The cost-effectiveness of celecoxib vs diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis in the UK; an update to the NICE model using data from the CONDOR trial. J Med Econ 2012: 1–8.

  12. Chancellor JVM, Hunsche E, De Cruz E, et al. Economic evaluation of celecoxib, a new cyclo-oxygenase 2 specific inhibitor, in Switzerland. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(Suppl 1):59–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen Y-F, Jobanputra P, Barton P, et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2008; 12 (11): 1–278, iii.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Contreras-Hernández I, Mould-Quevedo JF, Torres-González R, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis for joint pain treatment in patients with osteoarthritis treated at the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS): comparison of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) vs. cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2008;6:21.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. El-Serag HB, Graham DY, Richardson P, et al. Prevention of complicated ulcer disease among chronic users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: the use of a nomogram in cost-effectiveness analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(18):2105–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Haglund U, Svarvar P. The Swedish ACCES model: predicting the health economic impact of celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000;39(Suppl 2):51–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kamath CC, Kremers HM, Vanness DJ, et al. The cost-effectiveness of acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and selective COX-2 inhibitors in the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Value Health. 2003;6(2):144–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions. Osteoarthritis: national clinical guideline for care and management in adults. Appendix D. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Loyd M, Rublee D, Jacobs P. An economic model of long-term use of celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2007;7:25.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Maetzel A, Krahn M, Naglie G. The cost-effectiveness of celecoxib and rofecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Marshall JK, Pellissier JM, Attard CL, et al. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis comparing rofecoxib with nonselective NSAIDs in osteoarthritis: Ontario Ministry of Health perspective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(10):1039–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Marshall D, Strauss M, Pericak D, et al. Economic evaluation of controlled-release oxycodone vs oxycodone-acetaminophen for osteoarthritis pain of the hip or knee. Am J Manag Care. 2006;12(4):205–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moore A, Phillips C, Hunsche E, et al. Economic evaluation of etoricoxib versus non-selective NSAIDs in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis patients in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(10):643–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Patkar A, Langley P, Janagap C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of extended-release and immediate-release tramadol for the treatment of chronic osteoarthritis pain. Value Health. 2007;10(3):A118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pellissier JM, Straus WL, Watson DJ, et al. Economic evaluation of rofecoxib versus nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Clin Ther. 2001;23(7):1061–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schaefer M, DeLattre M, Gao X, et al. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of COX-2 specific inhibitors for arthritis in the Veterans Health Administration. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21(1):47–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Spiegel BMR, Targownik L, Dulai GS, et al. The cost-effectiveness of cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors in the management of chronic arthritis. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(10):795–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Spiegel B, Chiou C, Ofman J. Minimizing complications from nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs: cost effectiveness of competing strategies in varying risk groups. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;53(2):185–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Svarvar P, Aly A. Use of the ACCES model to predict the health economic impact of celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis in Norway. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000;39(Suppl 2):43–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ward A, Bozkaya D, Fleischmann J, et al. Modeling the economic and health consequences of managing chronic osteoarthritis pain with opioids in Germany: comparison of extended-release oxycodone and OROS hydromorphone. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(10):2333–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Yen Z-S, Lai M-S, Wang C-T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for osteoarthritis of the knee in Taiwan. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(9):1797–803.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kristiansen IS, Kvien TK. Cost-effectiveness of replacing NSAIDs with coxibs: diclofenac and celecoxib in rheumatoid arthritis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2002;2(3):229–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Yun HR, Bae S-C. Cost-effectiveness analysis of NSAIDs, NSAIDs with concomitant therapy to prevent gastrointestinal toxicity, and COX-2 specific inhibitors in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2003;25(1):9–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Brown TJ, Hooper L, Elliott RA, et al. A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of five strategies for the prevention of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: a systematic review with economic modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2006; 10 (38): iii–iv, xi–xiii, 1–183.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Barton GR, Sach TH, Jenkinson C, et al. Do estimates of cost-utility based on the EQ-5D differ from those based on the mapping of utility scores? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:51.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Afilalo M, Etropolski MS, Kuperwasser B, et al. Efficacy and safety of tapentadol extended release compared with oxycodone controlled release for the management of moderate to severe chronic pain related to osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled phase III study. Clin Drug Investig. 2010;30:489–505.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lange B, Kuperwasser B, Okamoto A, et al. Efficacy and safety of tapentadol prolonged release for chronic osteoarthritis pain and low back pain. Adv Ther. 2010;27(6):381–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wild JE, Grond S, Kuperwasser B, et al. Long-term safety and tolerability of tapentadol extended release for the management of chronic low back pain or osteoarthritis pain. Pain Pract. 2010;10(5):416–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Peirce-Sandner S, et al. Research design considerations for confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2010;149(2):177–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. The Information Centre for Health and Social Care. Prescription cost analysis: England 2009. 2010. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/pubs/prescostanalysis2009. Accessed 8 Apr 2013.

  41. Myers JA, Wielage RC, Han B, et al. The efficacy of duloxetine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opioids in osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis PMS2. In: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 17th Annual International Meeting. Washington, DC: 2012. http://www.ispor.org/research_pdfs/40/pdffiles/PMS2.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2013.

  42. The Information Centre for Health and Social Care. Latest list of ADQ values 2009-2010. 2010. http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/Services/PSU/adqs_2009_10.pdf. Accessed 30 Jun 2010.

  43. Wielage RC, Samsa GP, Klein TM, et al. A maximum likelihood simulation technique for estimating adverse event rates from published trials. PRM145. In: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 15th Annual European Congress. Berlin, Germany: 2012. http://www.ispor.org/research_pdfs/42/pdffiles/PRM145.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2013.

  44. Arias E. United States life tables, 2006. US Department of Health and Human Services; 2006. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_21.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2011.

  45. Network PDR. Red Book: pharmacy’s fundamental reference. Montvale: PDR Network, LLC.; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index—medical services component. 2012. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu. Accessed 19 Apr 2012.

  47. Mansley E, Carroll N, Chen K, et al. Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost-effectiveness analyses: a managed care perspective: the ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force Report—part III. Value Health. 2010;13(1):14–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Chappell AS, Desaiah D, Liu-Seifert H, et al. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for the treatment of chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee. Pain Pract. 2011;11(1):33–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Peng X, Wu N, Andrews JS, et al. Factors associated with initiation of high-dose duloxetine among patients with osteoarthritis. Value Health. 2012;15(4):A49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Washington State Department of Social & Health Services. Calculator: tapering plan for client with chronic, non-cancer pain. 2009. http://hrsa.dshs.wa.gov/pharmacy/pdf/TaperSchedule.xlsx. Accessed 29 Mar 2012.

  51. American Medical Association. AMA Coding Online. CPT code/relative value. National: 2011. https://ocm.ama-assn.org/OCM/CPTRelativeValueSearch.do. Accessed 31 Aug 2011.

  52. Trendwatch chartbook: trends affecting hospitals and health systems. 2011. http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/chartbook/index.shtml. Accessed 20 Mar 2012.

  53. Galbreath A, Krasuski R, Smith B, et al. Long-term healthcare and cost outcomes of disease management in a large, randomized, community-based population with heart failure. Circulation. 2004;110:3518–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Goeree R, Blackhouse G, Adachi J. Cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments for women with osteoporosis in Canada. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(7):1425–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lee K, Cipriano L, Owens D, et al. Cost effectiveness of using high sensitivity C-reactive protein to identify intermediate and low cardiovascular risk individuals for statin therapy. Circulation. 2010;122:1478–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Pignone M, Earnshaw S, Tice J, et al. Aspirin, statins, or both drugs for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease events in men: a cost-utility analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:326–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ko C, Deyo R. Cost-effectiveness of strategies for primary prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced peptic ulcer disease. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:400–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hjalte F, Berggren A-C, Bergendahl H, et al. The direct and indirect costs of opioid-induced constipation. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010;40(5):696–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Fryback DG, Dunham NC, Palta M, et al. US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement study. Med Care. 2007;45(12):1162–70.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Grosse SD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8(2):165–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Braithwaite RS, Meltzer DO, King JT, et al. What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule? Med Care. 2008;46(4):349–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, et al. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making. 2000;20(3):332–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Shiroiwa T, Sung Y-K, Fukuda T, et al. International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness? Health Econ. 2010;19(4):422–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Mulder H. Clinical study report: effect of duloxetine 60 mg to 120 mg once daily in patients with chronic low back pain: F1 J-MC-HMEN study report. Indianapolis: Eli Lilly and Company; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Latimer N, Lord J, Grant RL, et al. Cost effectiveness of COX 2 selective inhibitors and traditional NSAIDs alone or in combination with a proton pump inhibitor for people with osteoarthritis. BMJ. 2009;339:b2538.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Risk of myocardial infarction in patients taking cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors or conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: population based nested case-control analysis. BMJ. 2005;330(7504):1366–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Vinogradova Y, et al. Derivation and validation of QRISK, a new cardiovascular disease risk score for the United Kingdom: prospective open cohort study. BMJ. 2007;335(7611):136.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Farkouh ME, Kirshner H, Harrington RA, et al. Comparison of lumiracoxib with naproxen and ibuprofen in the Therapeutic Arthritis Research and Gastrointestinal Event Trial (TARGET), cardiovascular outcomes: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364(9435):675–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Schnitzer TJ, Burmester GR, Mysler E, et al. Comparison of lumiracoxib with naproxen and ibuprofen in the Therapeutic Arthritis Research and Gastrointestinal Event Trial (TARGET), reduction in ulcer complications: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364(9435):665–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Laine L, Curtis SP, Cryer B, et al. Assessment of upper gastrointestinal safety of etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in the Multinational Etoricoxib and Diclofenac Arthritis Long-term (MEDAL) programme: a randomised comparison. Lancet. 2007;369(9560):465–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Food and Drug Administration. Celebrex capsules (celecoxib) medical officer review NDA 20-998/S-009. 2000. http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/briefing/3677b1_03_med.pdf. Accessed 3 Apr 2013.

  72. Pettitt D, Goldstein JL, McGuire A, et al. Overview of the Arthritis Cost Consequence Evaluation System (ACCES): a pharmacoeconomic model for celecoxib. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000;39(Suppl 2):33–42 (discussion 57–59).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Burke TA, Zabinski RA, Pettitt D, et al. A framework for evaluating the clinical consequences of initial therapy with NSAIDs, NSAIDs plus gastroprotective agents, or celecoxib in the treatment of arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(8):33–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Grootendorst P, Marshall D, Pericak D, et al. A model to estimate health utilities index mark 3 utility scores from WOMAC index scores in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(3):534–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Marshall D, Pericak D, Grootendorst P, et al. Validation of a prediction model to estimate Health Utilities Index Mark 3 utility scores from WOMAC index scores in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. Value Health. 2008;11(3):470–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Xie F, Pullenayegum EM, Li S-C, et al. Use of a disease-specific instrument in economic evaluations: mapping WOMAC onto the EQ-5D utility index. Value Health. 2010;13(8):873–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Ruchlin HS, Insinga RP. A review of health-utility data for osteoarthritis: implications for clinical trial-based evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(11):925–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Griffin MR, Yared A, Ray WA. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and acute renal failure in elderly persons. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151(5):488–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Huerta C, Castellsague J, Varas-Lorenzo C, et al. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of ARF in the general population. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;45(3):531–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Lafrance JP, Miller DR. Selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of acute kidney injury. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18(10):923–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Schneider V, Levesque LE, Zhang B, et al. Association of selective and conventional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs with acute renal failure: a population-based, nested case-control analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164(9):881.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Zhang J, Ding EL, Song Y. Adverse effects of cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors on renal and arrhythmia events. JAMA. 2006;296(13):1619–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Charlot M, Ahlehoff O, Norgaard ML, et al. Proton-pump inhibitors are associated with increased cardiovascular risk independent of clopidogrel use: a nationwide cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(6):378–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Yu E, Bauer P, Bain P, et al. Proton pump inhibitors and risk of fractures: a meta-analysis of 11 international studies. Am J Med. 2011;124(6):519–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Bohnert ASB, Valenstein M, Bair MJ, et al. Association between opioid prescribing patterns and opioid overdose-related deaths. JAMA. 2011;305(13):1315–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Hochberg MC. Mortality in osteoarthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2008;26(5 Suppl 51):S120–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Nüesch E, Dieppe P, Reichenbach S, et al. All cause and disease specific mortality in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2011; 342: d1165. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050438/. Accessed 3 Dec 2012.

  88. Wernicke J, Pangallo B, Wang F, et al. Hepatic effects of duloxetine-I: spontaneous reports and epidemiology of hepatic events. Curr Drug Saf. 2008;3(2):132–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Wernicke J, Acharya N, Strombom I, et al. Hepatic effects of duloxetine-II: spontaneous reports and epidemiology of hepatic events. Curr Drug Saf. 2008;3(2):143–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Strombom I, Wernicke J, Seeger J, et al. Hepatic effects of duloxetine-III: spontaneous reports and epidemiology of hepatic events. Curr Drug Saf. 2008;3(2):154–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Chappell J, He J, Knadler MP, et al. Effects of duloxetine on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of warfarin at steady state in healthy subjects. J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;49(12):1456–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Vestergaard P. Pain-relief medication and risk of fractures. Curr Drug Saf. 2008;3(3):199–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Fishbain DA, Cole B, Lewis J, et al. What percentage of chronic nonmalignant pain patients exposed to chronic opioid analgesic therapy develop abuse/addiction and/or aberrant drug-related behaviors? A structured evidence-based review. Pain Med. 2008;9(4):444–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Van Zanten SJO, Chiba N, Armstrong D, et al. A randomized trial comparing omeprazole, ranitidine, cisapride, or placebo in Helicobacter pylori negative, primary care patients with dyspepsia: the CADET-HN Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(7):1477–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. HCUPnet: a tool for identifying, tracking, and analyzing national hospital statistics. 2011. http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/HCUPnet.jsp?Id=F8967BC73C6E5630&Form=DispTab&JS=Y&Action=%3E%3ENext%3E%3E&__InDispTab=Yes&_Results=Newquery. Accessed 25 Jul 2011.

  96. Kanis JA, Stevenson M, McCloskey EV, et al. Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a systematic review and cost-utility analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2007; 11 (7): iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–231.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Meadows ES, Klein R, Rousculp MD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of preventative therapies for postmenopausal women with osteopenia. BMC Womens Health. 2007;7(1):6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Fihn S, Vaughan-Sarrazin M, Lowy E, et al. Declining mortality following acute myocardial infarction in the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2009;9(1):44.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Kleindorfer D, Broderick J, Khoury J, et al. The unchanging incidence and case-fatality of stroke in the 1990s. Stroke. 2006;37(10):2473–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Roger VL, Weston SA, Redfield MM, et al. Trends in heart failure incidence and survival in a community-based population. JAMA. 2004;292(3):344.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Stevenson M, Davis S, Lloyd-Jones M, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(4):1–134.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Lakshminarayan K, Anderson DC, Jacobs DR, et al. Stroke rates 1980–2000: the Minnesota stroke survey. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;169(9):1070.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Health Avalere. Avalere Health analysis of American Hospital Association Annual Survey data, 2009, for community hospitals. Chicago: American Hospital Association; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Greiner W, Lehmann K, Earnshaw S, et al. Economic evaluation of Durogesic in moderate to severe, nonmalignant, chronic pain in Germany. Eur J Health Econ. 2006;7(4):290–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. White A, Birnbaum H, Schiller M, et al. Economic impact of opioid abuse, dependence, and misuse. Am J Pharm Benefits. 2011;3(4):e59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Neighbors DM, Bell TJ, Wilson J, et al. Economic evaluation of the fentanyl transdermal system for the treatment of chronic moderate to severe pain. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001;21(2):129–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, et al. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA. 1996;276(16):1339.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. National Health Service. Osteoarthritis costing report. Implementing NICE guidance. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Maetzel A, Krahn M, Naglie G. The cost effectiveness of rofecoxib and celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49(3):283–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding to perform this research was provided by Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis IN, USA. Mr Wielage is an employee of Medical Decision Modeling, a contract research organization and vendor to Eli Lilly and Company. Ms Bansal is a past employee of Medical Decision Modeling. Dr Andrews is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Mr Klein is a principal and employee of Medical Decision Modeling. Dr Happich is an employee of Lilly Deutschland GmbH.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Decision Modeling Inc., 8909 Purdue Road, Suite #550, Indianapolis, IN, 46268, USA

    Ronald C. Wielage, Megha Bansal & Robert W. Klein

  2. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    J. Scott Andrews

  3. Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Bad Homburg, Germany

    Michael Happich

Authors
  1. Ronald C. Wielage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Megha Bansal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Scott Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert W. Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Happich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald C. Wielage.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 679 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wielage, R.C., Bansal, M., Andrews, J.S. et al. Cost-Utility Analysis of Duloxetine in Osteoarthritis: A US Private Payer Perspective. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 11, 219–236 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0031-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0031-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation