Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26983018›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Cost-Effectiveness of Capsaicin 8% Patch Compared with Pregabalin for the Treatment of Patients with Peripheral Neuropathic Pain in Scotland.

Colette Mankowski, Sachin Patel, David Trueman, Anthony Bentley, Chris Poole

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01713426 (Qutenza Versus Pregabalin in Subjects With Peripheral Neuropathic Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01713426 phase4completednot on this map

Qutenza Versus Pregabalin in Subjects With Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: an Open-label, Randomized, Multicenter, Non-inferiority Efficacy and Tolerability Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorAstellas Pharma Europe Ltd.Ran2012 to 2013Enrolled568ConditionsNon-diabetic Painful Peripheral Polyneuropathy, Postherpetic Neuralgia (PHN), Peripheral Nerve Injury (PNI)ArmsQutenza, Pregabalin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2022
    Guideline
  2. The Use of Expert Elicitation among Computational Modeling Studies in Health Research: A Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Colette MankowskiAstellas Pharma Europe Ltd., Chertsey, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Sachin PatelAstellas Pharma UK Ltd, Chertsey, Surrey, United Kingdom.
David TruemanAbacus International, Bicester, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
Anthony BentleyAbacus International, Bicester, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
Chris PooleAstellas Pharma Europe Ltd., Chertsey, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Astellas Pharma (United Kingdom) · GBCACI International (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of capsaicin 8% patch (QUTENZA™) versus pregabalin in patients with PNP from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal and Social Services in Scotland, UK. A decision-tree cost-effectiveness model was developed for non-diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) who were pregabalin-naïve and had not achieved adequate pain relief or tolerated conventional first- or second-line treatments. Patients entering the model received either a single application of capsaicin 8% patch or titrated daily dosing with pregabalin; after 8 weeks patients were classified as responders, non-responders, or were assumed to discontinue treatment due to intolerable adverse events. Responders continued to receive baseline treatment at intervals observed in clinical practice. Non-responders and those who discontinued treatment were assumed to receive last-line therapy (duloxetine). The base-case time horizon was 2 years. Model inputs for effectiveness, discontinuations and health-state utilities were taken from a head-to-head non-inferiority study (ELEVATE, NCT01713426). Other inputs were obtained from published sources or clinical expert opinion. Costs were expressed in GBP 2013/14. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), i.e. cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Model assumptions were tested with scenario analyses. Parameter uncertainty was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Compared with dose-optimized pregabalin, capsaicin 8% patch was the dominant treatment strategy (total cost difference, -£11; total QALY gain, 0.049). Capsaicin 8% patch was also the dominant treatment strategy versus pregabalin in 6 out of 7 scenario analyses. The model was most sensitive to variation in time to capsaicin 8% patch retreatment (maximum ICER, £7,951/QALY at lower-bound 95% confidence interval). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, the probability of capsaicin 8% patch being cost-effective versus pregabalin was 97%. Capsaicin 8% patch is a cost-effective treatment option compared with dose-optimized pregabalin in patients with PNP who have failed one or more previous systemic treatments.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdministration, TopicalAnalgesicsCapsaicinHumansPeripheral Nervous System DiseasesPregabalinScotlandSensory System AgentsAnalgesicsCapsaicinPregabalinSensory System Agents

Identifiers

PMID26983018
PMCPMC4794144
OpenAlexW2300012168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.