ISPOR 11th Annual International Meeting May 20-24, 2006
Marriott Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA
RESEARCH ABSTRACT EXAMPLE
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF CONTROLLED-RELEASE OXYCODONE (OXYCONTIN®
TABLETS) (CRO) VERSUS OXYCODONE/ACETAMINOPHEN
(PERCOCET®) (OXY/APAP) FOR OSTEOARTHRITIS PAIN OF THE HIP OR KNEE
Marshall DA1, Strauss ME2, Pericak D1, Buitendyk M1,
Codding C3, Kim S2,
Torrance G1
1Innovus Research Inc, Burlington, ON, Canada; 2Purdue Pharma L.P,
Stamford, CT, USA; 3Oklahoma Sports, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
OBJECTIVES: CRO is efficacious for persistent moderate to severe
osteoarthritis pain based on well-controlled trials. Additionally,
decision-makers
require evidence of effectiveness in routine practice, and
cost-effectiveness compared to standard therapy. METHODS: Open-label,
active-controlled,
randomized, naturalistic four-month study of analgesic effectiveness and
cost-effectiveness of CRO vs. oxy/APAP. Outcomes and resource use were
collected by telephone. Effectiveness was measured in 485 patients as the
proportion having at least 20% improvement from baseline in Western
Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score.
Quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) were calculated from Health Utilities
Index-3
scores. Cost-effectiveness was measured as cost/patient improved and QALYs
gained from societal and health care perspectives using generic
oxy/APAP (base case). Uncertainty was evaluated using multiple one-way
sensitivity analyses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: In total, 62.2% vs. 45.9% (p=0.0003) of patients improved with CRO and oxy/APAP respectively. Mean QALYs gained over four months
with CRO compared to oxy/APAP was 0.0105 (p=0.1673). Mean societal
cost/patient over four months was US$6792 vs. US$6929 (p=0.3345) for
CRO and oxy/APAP, respectively. CRO was both more effective and less
costly than oxy/APAP using the societal perspective (includes costs
associated
with time loss). Using a health care perspective (excludes costs
associated with time loss), cost-effectiveness of CRO was US$4,500/patient
improved and US$69,856/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: From the societal
perspective, CRO was both more effective and less costly than oxy/APAP.
From the health care perspective, CRO compared to generic oxy/APAP fell
within the acceptable range of cost-effectiveness if decision-makers were
willing-to-pay between US$50,000/QALY and US$100,000/QALY. These findings
should be considered in decisions about treating osteoarthritis pain.