Article

A health economic model of breakthrough pain.

Center for Palliative Care, Duke University School of Medicine, DUMC 3436, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
The American journal of managed care (Impact Factor: 2.17). 06/2008; 14(5 Suppl 1):S129-40.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although the literature adequately addresses the biologic basis, epidemiology, and management of breakthrough pain (BTP), it does not yet describe the full impact of this troubling, widespread phenomenon. The risks of a scanty understanding of BTP impact are failure to take preventive measures, underdiagnosis, undertreatment, and inappropriate management. Studies to date of the impact of BTP have followed pharmacoeconomic approaches. Building on prior efforts, this paper develops a more comprehensive health economic model that encompasses the full spectrum of costs, outcomes, risks and benefits associated with BTP and its management. The authors provide a rubric within which stakeholders--including providers, institutional leaders, administrators, and policymakers--can systematically balance the myriad potential effects of different treatment scenarios to guide decision-making. The paper then extends this model to the population level, providing a template for health economic analysis of alternate strategies for managing BTP, and delineating steps for accomplishing the analysis.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
120 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Instanyl® (intranasal fentanyl spray) is a novel treatment for breakthrough pain (BTP) in cancer patients. It has shown a rapid onset of pain relief in clinical trials. This study examines the use of Instanyl® in real-life settings. A 3-month observational, prospective, cohort study of cancer patients with BTP receiving Instanyl® (50, 100, or 200 μg) under routine clinical practice. Data were collected at three time points corresponding with routine clinic visits - baseline, Week 4, and Week 13. Primary outcomes: success of titration and maintenance dose after titration. Secondary outcomes: change in maintenance dose of Instanyl® and level of background pain medication; Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) and Patient Treatment Satisfaction Scale (PTSS) scores; adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Titration with Instanyl® was successful in 84.5 % of 309 patients; most patients were titrated at the lowest dose (50 μg). The majority showed no change in maintenance dose, with little change in the level of background pain medication. BPI-SF and PTSS scores significantly improved from baseline to Week 4. The main reason for terminating Instanyl® was death, as expected due to the underlying disease; incidence of ADRs was low and no fatal ADRs were reported. In a real-life group of cancer patients with disease progression, Instanyl® was titrated successfully at doses <200 μg in the majority of patients, requiring only one dose, with no further change in maintenance dose. Pain severity, impact of pain on daily life, and treatment satisfaction significantly improved with Instanyl® treatment. No unexpected ADRs occurred.
    Supportive Care in Cancer 02/2014; 22(6). DOI:10.1007/s00520-014-2128-0 · 2.09 Impact Factor
    This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Satisfaction with pain relief in patients with breakthrough pain in cancer (BTPc) has typically been assessed by overall efficacy without consideration of the rapidity of that response. Objective: To determine the relationship between speed of onset of pain relief and patient satisfaction for treated BTPc episodes overall and for individual treatments. Design: Pooled data from two randomized, double-blinded crossover studies. Setting/Subjects: Patients having 1-4 BTPc episodes per day on ≥60 mg/day oral morphine or equivalent. Episodes treated with fentanyl pectin nasal spray (FPNS; 100-800 μg), immediate-release morphine sulfate (IRMS), or placebo. Measurements: Pain intensity was measured on an 11-point scale (5-60 minutes posttreatment); satisfaction was measured on a 4-point scale (30 and 60 minutes). The primary analysis assessed the overall relationship of time to onset of pain relief (pain intensity difference [PID]≥1) or time to clinically meaningfully reduction in pain (PID≥2) versus patient satisfaction and overall pain intensity (summed pain intensity difference at 30 [SPID30] and 60 minutes [SPID60]) assessed by analysis of variance (ANOVA). A secondary analysis assessed whether satisfaction was different between treatments using a within-patient comparison. Results: Eight hundred thirty-one FPNS-treated, 368 IRMS-treated, and 200 placebo-treated episodes were analyzed. Overall, within the pool there was a statistically significant relationship between time to onset of pain relief (PID≥1 and PID≥2) and patient satisfaction (both speed of relief and overall) at 30 and 60 minutes (p<0.001); this relationship was also true within individual treatment groups (p<0.01). Similar results were found for overall pain intensity reduction. When treatment groups were compared using within-patient data, FPNS provided earlier onset of pain relief than IRMS or placebo (p<0.05), which translated into better satisfaction at 60 minutes (p<0.01). Conclusions: Earlier onset of pain relief resulted in greater patient satisfaction and overall relief of pain; between-treatment comparisons showed that FPNS provided earlier pain relief and greater satisfaction than IRMS or placebo.
    Journal of Palliative Medicine 09/2014; 17(10). DOI:10.1089/jpm.2014.0089 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • Source

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
137 Downloads
Available from
Jun 2, 2014