Search

Objective: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine when considered as an additional treatment option for UK-based patients suffering from diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.Research Design and Methods: A decision-analytic model was used to represent the sequential management of patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. The standard UK treatment strategy was defined as first-line tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline), second-line anticonvulsants (gabapentin) and lastly an opioid-related treatment. The cost-effectiveness of duloxetine was evaluated as an additional first, second, third or fourth-line therapy over a 6-month treatment period for a cohort of 1000 patients. Treatment response was modelled based on changes from baseline pain severity using a standard 11-point pain scale (0-10); full response (>or= 50% change), partial response (30-49%) and no response (< 30%). The model was populated with efficacy and discontinuation data using indirect comparisons of treatment efficacy based on relative effects to a common placebo comparator.Results: The second-line use of duloxetine resulted in cost savings of pound 77,071 for every 1000 treated patients, with an additional 29 patients achieving a full pain response when compared to standard UK treatment. Additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were achieved at 1.88 QALYs per 1000 patients.Conclusions: This UK-based economic model suggests that second-line use of duloxetine is a beneficial and cost-effective treatment strategy for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the point prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and pain associated with DPN (pDPN) in French adults with diabetes and compare severity of symptoms across demographic subpopulations. DESIGN: The participant-administered portion of the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument (MNSI) and selected items of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) formed part of a computer-aided telephone survey posed to a representative, random sample of French households from March 1, 2005 to April 30, 2005. Questions from the MNSI and the BPI were used to assess the point prevalence of DPN and pDPN in French adults with self-reported diabetes. RESULTS: The mean age of the study sample was 68 years (SD = 15), the mean duration of diabetes was 15 years (SD = 12) and 56% of participants were female. The prevalence rates of DPN and pDPN in French adults with diabetes were 11 and 8%, respectively. The average age and diabetes duration of participants with DPN and pDPN were not different from participants in the total sample. Among those participants with pDPN, 35% classified their pain as severe, 49% as moderate, and 17% as mild. The prevalence of DPN was higher in participants with type 1 diabetes (14%) than those with type 2 (9%). Among participants with DPN, 88% with severe pain received pain treatment compared to 71% with moderate pain and 58% with mild pain. The most significant limitation of this study is the lack of validation for administering only a portion of the MNSI, but other limitations include the imprecision associated with self-reported questionnaires, a survey sample that does not include participants with undiagnosed diabetes, and a bias toward elderly participants. CONCLUSION: This study concluded that 8% of participants with diabetes in France had pDPN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]