IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v17y2016i6d10.1007_s10198-015-0720-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic evaluation in chronic pain: a systematic review and de novo flexible economic model

Author

Listed:
  • W. Sullivan

    (BresMed Health Solutions)

  • M. Hirst

    (MundiPharma International)

  • S. Beard

    (BresMed Health Solutions)

  • D. Gladwell

    (BresMed Health Solutions)

  • F. Fagnani

    (CEMKA-EVAL)

  • J. López Bastida

    (University Castilla-La Mancha)

  • C. Phillips

    (Swansea University)

  • W. C. N. Dunlop

    (MundiPharma International)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • W. Sullivan & M. Hirst & S. Beard & D. Gladwell & F. Fagnani & J. López Bastida & C. Phillips & W. C. N. Dunlop, 2016. "Economic evaluation in chronic pain: a systematic review and de novo flexible economic model," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(6), pages 755-770, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:17:y:2016:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-015-0720-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-015-0720-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-015-0720-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-015-0720-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lukas Radbruch & K. Lehmann & H.-H. Gockel & D. Neighbors & G. Nuyts, 2002. "Costs of opioid therapy for chronic nonmalignant pain in Germany: an economic model comparing transdermal fentanyl (Durogesic) with controlled-release morphine," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 3(2), pages 111-119, June.
    2. Bastian Haß & Juliane Lungershausen & Nadine Hertel & Barbara Poulsen Nautrup & Wioletta Kotowa & Hiltrud Liedgens, 2009. "Cost-effectiveness of strong opioids focussing on the long-term effects of opioid-related fractures: a model approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(3), pages 309-321, July.
    3. W. Greiner & K. Lehmann & S. Earnshaw & C. Bug & R. Sabatowski, 2006. "Economic evaluation of Durogesic in moderate to severe, nonmalignant, chronic pain in Germany," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 7(4), pages 290-296, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abdullah Gökçınar & Metin Çakanyıldırım & Theodore Price & Meredith C. B. Adams, 2022. "Balanced Opioid Prescribing via a Clinical Trade-Off: Pain Relief vs. Adverse Effects of Discomfort, Dependence, and Tolerance/Hypersensitivity," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 297-318, December.
    2. Bastian Haß & Juliane Lungershausen & Nadine Hertel & Barbara Poulsen Nautrup & Wioletta Kotowa & Hiltrud Liedgens, 2009. "Cost-effectiveness of strong opioids focussing on the long-term effects of opioid-related fractures: a model approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(3), pages 309-321, July.
    3. Stephen Mac & Ryan O’Reilly & Neill K J Adhikari & Robert Fowler & Beate Sander, 2020. "Point-of-care diagnostic tests for influenza in the emergency department: A cost-effectiveness analysis in a high-risk population from a Canadian perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economic evaluation; Chronic pain; Transparency; Modelling assumptions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:17:y:2016:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-015-0720-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.