↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pregabalin for treatment of chronic low back pain in patients with accompanying lower limb pain (neuropathic component) in Japan

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness analysis of pregabalin for treatment of chronic low back pain in patients with accompanying lower limb pain (neuropathic component) in Japan
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s89833
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ataru Igarashi, Manabu Akazawa, Tatsunori Murata, Toshihiko Taguchi, Alesia Sadosky, Nozomi Ebata, Richard Willke, Koichi Fujii, Jim Doherty, Makoto Kobayashi

Abstract

To assess the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin for the treatment of chronic low back pain with accompanying neuropathic pain (CLBP-NeP) from the health care payer and societal perspectives. The cost-effectiveness of pregabalin versus usual care for treatment of CLBP-NeP was evaluated over a 12-month time horizon using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), derived from the five-dimension, five-level EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, was the measure of effectiveness. Medical costs and productivity losses were both calculated. Expected costs and outcomes were estimated via cohort simulation using a state-transition model, which mimics pain state transitions among mild, moderate, and severe pain. Distributions of pain severity were obtained from an 8-week noninterventional study. Health care resource consumption for estimation of direct medical costs for pain severity levels was derived from a physician survey. The ICER per additional QALY gained was calculated and sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the assumptions across a range of values. Direct medical costs and hospitalization costs were both lower in the pregabalin arm compared with usual care. The estimated ICERs in the base case scenarios were approximately ¥2,025,000 and ¥1,435,000 per QALY gained with pregabalin from the payer and societal perspectives, respectively; the latter included indirect costs related to lost productivity. Sensitivity analyses using alternate values for postsurgical pain scores (0 and 5), initial pain severity levels (either all moderate or all severe), and the actual EQ-5D-5L scores from the noninterventional study showed robustness of results, with ICERs that were similar to the base case. Development of a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed high probability (≥75%) of pregabalin being cost-effective. Using data and assumptions from routine clinical practice, pregabalin is cost-effective for the treatment of CLBP-NeP in Japan.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 47 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 39%
Other 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 33%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Psychology 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 9 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,519,165
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#251
of 524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,041
of 287,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 287,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.