BackgroundOpioid abuse, including abuse of prescription opioids (“RxOs”) and illicit substances like heroin, is a serious public health issue in Europe. Currently, there is limited data on the magnitude of RxO abuse in Europe, despite increasing public and scientific interest in the issue. The purpose of this study was to use the best-available data to derive comparable estimates of the health care burden of RxO abuse in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (EU5).MethodsPublished data on the prevalence of problem opioid use and the share of opioid abuse patients reporting misuse of non-heroin opioids were used to estimate the prevalence of RxO abuse in the EU5 countries. The costs of RxO abuse were calculated by applying published estimates of the incremental health care costs of opioid abuse to country-specific estimates of the costs of chronic pain conditions. These estimates were input into an economic model that quantified the health care burden of RxO abuse in each of the EU5 countries. Sensitivity analyses examined key assumptions.ResultsBased on best-available current data, prevalence estimates of RxO abuse ranged from 0.7 to 13.7 per 10,000 individuals across the EU5 countries. Estimates of the incremental health care costs of RxO abuse ranged from €900 to €2,551 per patient per year. The annual health care cost burden of RxO abuse ranged from €6,264 to €279,927 per 100,000 individuals across the EU5 countries.ConclusionThis study suggests that RxO abuse imposes a cost burden on health systems in the five largest European countries. The extent of RxO abuse in Europe should be monitored given the potential for change over time. Continued efforts should be made to collect reliable data on the prevalence and costs of RxO abuse in Europe to facilitate an accurate characterization of the extent of this potentially growing problem.

There is unmet need in patients suffering from chronic pain, yet innovation may be impeded by the difficulty of justifying economic value in a field beset by data limitations and methodological variability. A systematic review was conducted to identify and summarise the key areas of variability and limitations in modelling approaches in the economic evaluation of treatments for chronic pain. The results of the literature review were then used to support the development of a fully flexible open-source economic model structure, designed to test structural and data assumptions and act as a reference for future modelling practice. The key model design themes identified from the systematic review included: time horizon; titration and stabilisation; number of treatment lines; choice/ordering of treatment; and the impact of parameter uncertainty (given reliance on expert opinion). Exploratory analyses using the model to compare a hypothetical novel therapy versus morphine as first-line treatments showed cost-effectiveness results to be sensitive to structural and data assumptions. Assumptions about the treatment pathway and choice of time horizon were key model drivers. Our results suggest structural model design and data assumptions may have driven previous cost-effectiveness results and ultimately decisions based on economic value. We therefore conclude that it is vital that future economic models in chronic pain are designed to be fully transparent and hope our open-source code is useful in order to aspire to a common approach to modelling pain that includes robust sensitivity analyses to test structural and parameter uncertainty.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10198-015-0720-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives: Complexities in the neuropathic-pain care pathway make the condition difficult to manage and difficult to capture in cost-effectiveness models. The aim of this study is to understand, through a systematic review of previous cost-effectiveness studies, some of the key strengths and limitations in data and modeling practices in neuropathic pain. Thus, the aim is to guide future research and practice to improve resource allocation decisions and encourage continued investment to find novel and effective treatments for patients with neuropathic pain. Methods: The search strategy was designed to identify peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness evaluations of non-surgical, pharmaceutical therapies for neuropathic pain published since January 2000, accessing five key databases. All identified publications were reviewed and screened according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. Data extraction was designed to reflect key data challenges and approaches to modeling in neuropathic pain and based on published guidelines. Results: The search strategy identified 20 cost-effectiveness analyses meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 14 had original model structures. Cost-effectiveness modeling in neuropathic pain is established and increasing across multiple jurisdictions; however, amongst these studies, there is substantial variation in modeling approach, and there are common limitations. Capturing the effect of treatments upon health outcomes, particularly health-related quality-of-life, is challenging, and the health effects of multiple lines of ineffective treatment, common for patients with neuropathic pain, have not been consistently or robustly modeled. Conclusions: To improve future economic modeling in neuropathic pain, further research is suggested into the effect of multiple lines of treatment and treatment failure upon patient outcomes and subsequent treatment effectiveness; the impact of treatment-emergent adverse events upon patient outcomes; and consistent and appropriate pain measures to inform models. The authors further encourage transparent reporting of inputs used to inform cost-effectiveness models, with robust, comprehensive and clear uncertainty analysis and, where feasible, open-source modeling is encouraged. ARTICLE HISTORY

ObjectivesReal-world evidence (RWE) is essential for the development of pharmaceutical and medical technologies and informs treatment-related decisions by regulatory agencies, payers, healthcare providers, and patients. Given that planning RWE studies present diverse challenges, we developed the RWE Framework, a concise, visual, interactive tool designed to align multidisciplinary stakeholders toward common goals and encourage a methodical approach to RWE study planning.MethodsA search of published literature and internet-based resources was performed to identify guidance on RWE study planning with decision and/or visual aids. A conceptual framework for a study design tool was developed based on best practices for RWE studies, enhanced with an infographic design, and refined by multidisciplinary input from RWE researchers.ResultsThe searches confirmed an unmet need for a concise tool to support a broad range of RWE study designs: only two sources with decision/visual aids were identified. The novel RWE Framework comprises sequential decision steps with instructions to guide users through consideration of research objectives, product approval status, study setting, outcomes of interest, data availability in routine practice, need for primary data collection and/or randomization, study type and methodology, and applicable regulatory standards. Pilot testing using case studies of pharmaceutical assets demonstrated the utility of RWE Framework and applicability for use in team environments.ConclusionsThe RWE Framework is a novel, concise, visual, and interactive tool to inform RWE study planning. It addresses a broad range of real-world study types and research objectives and was found to enhance RWE decision-making by multidisciplinary teams. Further validation is warranted.

No abstract