Acetaminophen is a commonly-used analgesic in the US and, at doses of more than 4 g/day, can lead to serious hepatotoxicity. Recent FDA and CMS decisions serve to limit and monitor exposure to high-dose acetaminophen. This literature review aims to describe the exposure to and consequences of high-dose acetaminophen among chronic pain patients in the US. Each year in the US, approximately 6% of adults are prescribed acetaminophen doses of more than 4 g/day and 30,000 patients are hospitalized for acetaminophen toxicity. Up to half of acetaminophen overdoses are unintentional, largely related to opioid-acetaminophen combinations and attempts to achieve better symptom relief. Liver injury occurs in 17% of adults with unintentional acetaminophen overdose.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundWe assessed the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Canadian public healthcare perspective, incorporating data from the IMPACT trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02164513).MethodsBaseline inputs and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into the validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model. Canadian unit costs and drug costs (Canadian dollars [C$], 2017) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Analyses were probabilistic, and outputs included exacerbation rates, costs, and life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.ResultsCompared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a lifetime horizon, the analyses predicted that treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, more LYs and more QALYs gained, with a small incremental cost. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was C$18,989 (95% confidence interval [CI]: C$14,665, C$25,753) versus FF/VI and C$13,776 (95% CI: C$9787, C$19,448) versus UMEC/VI. FF/UMEC/VI remained cost-effective versus both FF/VI and UMEC/VI in all sensitivity analyses, including in scenario analyses that considered different intervention and comparator discontinuation rates, and treatment effects for subsequent therapy.ConclusionTreatment with FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, in Canada.

No abstract