Italian
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
BMC Health Services Research 2017-Aug

A systematic review of the effectiveness of policies restricting access to pregabalin.

Solo gli utenti registrati possono tradurre articoli
Entra registrati
Il collegamento viene salvato negli appunti
Brett R Stacey
Jonathan Liss
Regina Behar
Alesia Sadosky
Bruce Parsons
Elizabeth T Masters
Patrick Hlavacek

Parole chiave

Astratto

BACKGROUND

Formularies often employ restriction policies to reduce pharmacy costs. Pregabalin, an alpha-2-delta ligand, is approved for treatment of fibromyalgia (FM); neuropathic pain (NeP) due to postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), spinal cord injury; and as adjunct therapy for partial onset seizures. Pregabalin is endorsed as first-line therapy for these indications by several US and EU medical professional societies. However, restriction policies such as prior authorization (PA) and step therapy (ST) often favor less costly generic pain medications over pregabalin.

METHODS

A structured literature search (PubMed, past 11 years) was conducted to evaluate whether restriction policies against pregabalin support real-world economic and healthcare utilization benefits.

RESULTS

Search criteria identified three claims analyses and a modeling study that evaluated patients with NeP and/or FM with and without PA restrictions; three other studies included patients with FM and NeP in plans with ST requirements, and one evaluated a mail order requirement program. All studies evaluated outcomes during follow-up periods of 6 months or longer. Overall, PA, ST, and mail order restriction policies effectively reduced pregabalin usage, but the effects were inconsistent with reducing pharmacy costs and were non-significant for total disease-related medical costs. Two studies (one PA; one ST) reported significantly higher disease-related costs in restricted plans. The modeling study failed to demonstrate cost savings with PA. Opioid usage was higher in PA-restricted plans (two studies). The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several professional NeP guidelines recommend opioid use only in cases when other non-opioid pain therapies have proven ineffective. New US Government taskforce guidelines now seek to reduce opioid exposure. Additionally, in both ST studies, gabapentin utilization (a common ST edit) was significantly increased. Both studies had substantial proportions of FM and pDPN patients and the only pain condition gabapentin is approved to treat in the United States is PHN.

CONCLUSIONS

PA and ST restriction policies significantly decrease utilization of pregabalin, but do not consistently demonstrate cost savings for US health plans. More research is needed to evaluate whether these policies may lead to increased opioid usage as found in some studies.

BACKGROUND

N/A.

Unisciti alla nostra
pagina facebook

Il database di erbe medicinali più completo supportato dalla scienza

  • Funziona in 55 lingue
  • Cure a base di erbe sostenute dalla scienza
  • Riconoscimento delle erbe per immagine
  • Mappa GPS interattiva - tagga le erbe sul luogo (disponibile a breve)
  • Leggi le pubblicazioni scientifiche relative alla tua ricerca
  • Cerca le erbe medicinali in base ai loro effetti
  • Organizza i tuoi interessi e tieniti aggiornato sulle notizie di ricerca, sperimentazioni cliniche e brevetti

Digita un sintomo o una malattia e leggi le erbe che potrebbero aiutare, digita un'erba e osserva le malattie ei sintomi contro cui è usata.
* Tutte le informazioni si basano su ricerche scientifiche pubblicate

Google Play badgeApp Store badge