Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 25, Issue 12, pp 785–802 | Cite as

Economic Evaluation of Tramadol/ Paracetamol Combination Tablets for Osteoarthritis Pain in The Netherlands

  • Hiltrud Liedgens
  • Mark J. C. Nuijten
  • Barbara Poulsen Nautrup
Original Research Article


Objective: To compare the costs of treating osteoarthritis (OA) pain using combination tramadol/paracetamol tablets, NSAIDs alone, NSAIDs plus proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), or NSAIDs plus histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) from the perspective of the Dutch healthcare system.

Design and methods: A decision-analytical model was constructed to model the cost outcomes of the four treatment strategies over 6 months. A cost-minimisation approach was used, which considered data related to resource utilisation, medication costs and costs for the treatment of adverse events. Data, derived mainly from the clinical literature, were supplemented by inputs from a Delphi panel as well as official price and tariff lists. The base-case analysis considered direct medical costs, including those for treating all adverse events with tramadol/paracetamol and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events with NSAIDs. Separate scenario analyses explored costs of NSAID-based regimens: (i) according to 21 levels of risk for GI adverse events, and (ii) when renal events attributable to NSAIDs were considered. Robustness of the model was tested using univariate sensitivity analysis.

Results: In the base-case analysis, costs for 6 months' treatment of OA pain using tramadol/paracetamol were €244.45, compared with €317.32 for NSAIDs + PPIs, €200.67 for NSAIDs + H2RAs, and €125.86 for NSAIDs alone. This provided a cost saving of €72.87 per patient over 6 months for tramadol/ paracetamol compared with NSAIDs + PPIs. Tramadol/paracetamol became cost saving compared with NSAIDs alone and NSAIDs + H2RAs for GI risk levels >13 and >10, respectively. When renal adverse events of NSAIDs were considered, tramadol/paracetamol was cost saving compared with all NSAID-based regimens (saving €228.40 vs NSAIDs, €418.42 vs NSAIDs + PPIs, and €302.69 vs NSAIDs + H2RAs [year of costing 2005]). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the model was robust to wide-ranging changes in the value of input parameters.

Conclusion: Tramadol/paracetamol is cost saving compared with NSAIDs + PPIs for the treatment of OA pain over a period of 6 months regardless of the risk of GI or renal complications. Tramadol/paracetamol is also cost saving compared with treatment with NSAIDs alone and NSAIDs + H2RAs for patients at medium and high risk of GI adverse events and in all cases if considering renal adverse events. Despite not being quantified in monetary terms, the lower incidence of adverse events with tramadol/paracetamol is a clinical benefit.


  1. 1.
    Creamer P, Hochberg MC. Osteoarthritis. Lancet 1997; 350(9076): 503–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Srikanth VK, Fryer JL, Zhai G, et al. A meta-analysis of sex differences, prevalence, incidence and severity of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005 Sep; 13(9): 769–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    March LM, Bagga H. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis in Australia. Med J Aust 2004; 180(5 Suppl.): S6–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lawrence RC, Heimick CG, Arnett FC, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and selected musculoskeletal disorders in the United States. Arthritis Rheum 1998; 41(5): 778–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Woo J, Lau E, Lee P, et al. Impact of osteoarthritis on quality of life in a Hong Kong Chinese population. J Rheumatol 2004; 31(12): 2433–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Groessl EJ, Kaplan RM, Cronan TA. Quality of well-being in older people with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 49(1): 23–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jakobsson U, Hallberg IR. Pain and quality of life among older people with rheumatoid arthritis and/or osteoarthritis: a literature review. J Clin Nurs 2002; 11(4): 430–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D'Ambrosia RD. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis. Orthopedics 2005. 28(2 Suppl): s201–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dominick KL, Ahern FM, Gold CH, et al. Health-related quality of life and health service use among older adults with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 51(3): 326–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gabriel SE, et al. Indirect and nonmedical costs among people with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis compared with nonarthritic controls. J Rheumatol 1997; 24(1): 43–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yelin E, Callahan LF. The economic cost and social and psychological impact of musculoskeletal conditions. National Arthritis Data Work Groups. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38(10): 1351–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wolfe MM, Lichtenstein DR, Singh G. Gastrointestinal toxicity of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. N Engl J Med 1999; 340(24): 1888–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fries JF, Williams CA, Bloch DA, et al. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated gastropathy: incidence and risk factor models. Am J Med 1991; 91(3): 213–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wolfe F, Hawley DJ. The comparative risk and predictors of adverse gastrointestinal events in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis: a prospective 13 year study of 2131 patients. J Rheumatol 2000; 27(7): 1668–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singh G, Triadafilopoulos G. Epidemiology of NSAID induced gastrointestinal complications. J Rheumatol Suppl 1999; 56: 18–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Altman R. International experiences with diclofenac in osteoarthritis. Am J Med 1986; 80(4B): 48–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bjordal JM, Ljunggren AE, Klovning, et al. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors, in osteoarthritic knee pain: meta-analysis of randomised placebo controlled trials. BMJ 2004; 329(7478): 1317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hawkey CJ, Karrasch JA, Szczepanski L, et al. Omeprazole compared with misoprostol for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Omeprazole versus Misoprostol for NSAID-induced Ulcer Management (OMNIUM) Study Group. N Engl J Med 1998. 338(11): 727–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singh G, Ramey DR, Morfeld D, et al. Gastrointestinal tract complications of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective observational cohort study. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156(14): 1530–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stalnikowicz R, Rachmilewitz D. NSAID-induced gastro- duodenal damage: is prevention needed? A review and metaanalysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 1993; 17(3): 238–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Silverstein FE, Graham DY, Senior JR, et al. Misoprostol reduces serious gastrointestinal complications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123(4): 241–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Graham DY, Agrawal NM, Campbell DR, et al. Ulcer prevention in long-term users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: results of a double-blind, randomized, multicenter, active- and placebo-controlled study of misoprostol vs lansoprazole. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162(2): 169–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lai KC, Lam SK, Chu KM, et al. Lansoprazole reduces ulcer relapse after eradication of Helicobacter pylori in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug users: a randomized trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 18(8): 829–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yeomans ND, Tulassay Z, Juhasz L,et al. A comparison of omeprazole with ranitidine for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Acid Suppression Trial: Ranitidine versus Omeprazole for NSAID-associated Ulcer Treatment (ASTRONAUT) Study Group. N Engl J Med 1998; 338(11): 719–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Whelton A. Nephrotoxicity of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: physiologic foundations and clinical implications. Am J Med 1999; 106(5B): 13S–24SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Evans JM, McGregor E, McMahon AD, et al. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and hospitalization for acute renal failure. QJM 1995; 88(8): 551–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    de Wit GA, Ramsteijn PG, de Charro FT. Economic evaluation of end stage renal disease treatment. Health Policy 1998; 44(3): 215–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zazioco G. COX-2 inhibitors: the battle for market dominance. Drug Market Dev 2001; 12(5): 131–7Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Champion GD, Feng PH, Azuma T, et al. NSAID-induced gastrointestinal damage: epidemiology, risk and prevention, with an evaluation of the role of misoprostol: an Asia-Pacific perspective and consensus. Drugs 1997; 53(1): 6–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Herings RM, Klungel OH. An epidemiological approach to assess the economic burden of NSAID-induced gastrointestinal events in The Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19(6): 655–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chevat C, Pena BM, Al MJ, et al. Healthcare resource utilisation and costs of treating NSAID-associated gastrointestinal toxicity: a multinational perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19Suppl. 1: 17–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    FitzGerald GA, Patrono C. The COXIBs, selective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase-2. N Engl J Med 2001; 345(6): 433–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Noble SL, King DS, Olutade JI. Cyclooxygenase-2 enzyme inhibitors: place in therapy. Am Fam Physician 2000; 61(12): 3669–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, et al. Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 343(21): 1520–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Silverstein FE, Faich G, Goldstein JL, et al. Gastrointestinal toxicity with celecoxib vs nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: the CLASS study: a randomized controlled trial. Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study. JAMA 2000; 284(10): 1247–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ahmad SR, Kortepeter C, Brinker A, et al. Renal failure associated with the use of celecoxib and rofecoxib. Drug Saf 2002; 25(7): 537–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Whelton A, Maurath CJ, Verburg KM, et al. Renal safety and tolerability of celecoxib, a novel cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor. Am J Ther 2000; 7(3): 159–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bresalier RS, Sandier RS, Quan H, et al. Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial. N Engl J Med 2005; 352(11): 1092–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Solomon SD, McMurray JJ, Pfeffer MA, et al. Cardiovascular risk associated with celecoxib in a clinical trial for colorectal adenoma prevention. N Engl J Med 2005; 352(11): 1071–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chancellor JV, Hunsche E, de Cruz E, et al. Economic evaluation of celecoxib, a new cyclo-oxygenase 2 specific inhibitor, in Switzerland. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19Suppl. 1: 59–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    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): 144–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cox ER, Motheral B, Mager D. Verification of a decision analytic model assumption using real-world practice data: implications for the cost effectiveness of cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibitors (COX-2s). Am J Manag Care 2003; 9(12): 785–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    McClellan K, Scott LJ. Tramadol/paracetamol. Drugs 2003; 63(11): 1079–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Raffa RB. Pharmacology of oral combination analgesics: rational therapy for pain. J Clin Pharm Ther 2001; 26(4): 257–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Grond S, Sablotzki A. Clinical pharmacology of tramadol. Clin. Pharmacokinet 2004; 43(13): 879–923PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pincus T, Koch GG, Sokka T, et al. A randomized, double-blind, crossover clinical trial of diclofenac plus misoprostol versus acetaminophen in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44(7): 1587–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Case, JP, Baliunas AJ, et al. Lack of efficacy of acetaminophen in treating symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison trial with diclofenac sodium. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163(2): 169–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Adler L, McDonald C, O'Brien C, et al. A comparison of once-daily tramadol with normal release tramadol in the treatment of pain in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2002; 29(10): 2196–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rosenthal NR, Silverfield JC, Wu SC, et al. Tramadol/acetami-nophen combination tablets for the treatment of pain associated with osteoarthritis flare in an elderly patient population. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004; 52(3): 374–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Edwards JE, McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Combination analgesic efficacy: individual patient data meta-analysis of single-dose oral tramadol plus acetaminophen in acute postoperative pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 2002; 23(2): 121–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pavelka K, Peliskova Z, Stehlikova H. Intraindividual differences in pain relief and functional improvement in osteoarthritis with diclofenac and tramadol. Clin Drug Invest 1998; 16(6): 421–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Alwine LK. TRAMAP-ANA-006 Study Group. Long-term (2 years) analgesic efficacy of tramadol/acetaminophen tablets [abstract]. Annual European Congress of Rheumatology, EULAR; 2000 Jun 21–24; NiceGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    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; 19Suppl. 1: 33–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pharmakotherapeutisch Kompas. Netherlands, 2005 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 May]
  55. 55.
    Mullican WS, Lacy JR. Tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets and codeine/acetaminophen combination capsules for the management of chronic pain: a comparative trial. Clin Ther 2001; 23(9): 1429–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zabinski RA, Burke TA, Johnson J, et al. An economic model for determining the costs and consequences of using various treatment alternatives for the management of arthritis in Canada. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19Suppl. 1: 49–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Peloso P, Rosenthal N, Wu S, et al. A pooled analysis of tramadol/acetaminophen tablets for treatment of lower back pain in an elderly patient population. Am Ger Soc 2003; 51Suppl. 4: S143–4Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Central Tariffs for consultations and procedures in health care. Utrecht: College Tarieven Gezondheidszorg, 2003Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Oostenbrink J, Koopmanschap M, Rutten FF. Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek. CVZ 2001, 70-103Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Axon Pharius Data 2005 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 May]
  61. 61.
    Stichting Renine, Registratie Nierfunktievervanging Nederland [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 May]
  62. 62.
    de Leest H, van Dieten H, van Tulder M, et al. Costs of treating bleeding and perforated peptic ulcers in The Netherlands. J Rheumatol 2004; 31(4): 788–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Nuijten M, Poulsen Nautrup B. Cost effectiveness of the combination tramadol plus paracetamol in treatment of subacute low back pain in a Dutch health care setting [abstract]. Value Health 2004; 7(6): 724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Langman MJ, Weil J, Wainwright P, et al. Risks of bleeding peptic ulcer associated with individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Lancet 1994; 343(8905): 1075–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    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): 47–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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): 1366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Johnsen SP, Larsson H, Tarone RE, et al. Risk of hospitalization for myocardial infarction among users of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and other NSAIDs: a population-based case-control study. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165(9): 978–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Graham DJ, Campen D, Hui R, et al. Risk of acute myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death in patients treated with cyclo-oxygenase 2 selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: nested case-control study. Lancet 2005; 365(9458): 475–81PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiltrud Liedgens
    • 1
  • Mark J. C. Nuijten
    • 2
  • Barbara Poulsen Nautrup
    • 1
  1. 1.Grünenthal GmbHAachenGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Medical Technology AssessmentErasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations