Effectiveness of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) compared with oxycodone/naloxone PR for the management of severe chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component: a randomized, controlled, open‐label, phase 3b/4sStudy

[Abstract] OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR in non-opioid-pretreated patients with severe chronic low back pain with a neuropathic pain component. METHODS: Eligible patients (average pain intensity [numerical rating scale-3 (NRS-3)] ≥6; painDETECT positive/unclear) were randomized to twice-daily tapentadol PR 50 mg or oxycodone/naloxone PR 10 mg/5 mg. After a 21-day titration (maximum twice-daily doses: tapentadol PR 250 mg, or oxycodone/naloxone PR 40 mg/20 mg plus oxycodone PR 10 mg), target doses were continued for 9 weeks. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the change in NRS-3 from baseline to final evaluation; the exact repeated confidence interval (RCI) for tapentadol PR minus oxycodone/naloxone PR was used to establish noninferiority (upper limit <1.3) and superiority (confirmatory analyses). RESULTS: For the primary effectiveness endpoint, tapentadol PR was noninferior to oxycodone/naloxone PR (97.5% RCI: [-1.820, -0.184]; P < 0.001). This exact RCI also yielded evidence of superiority for tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (significantly greater reduction in pain intensity; P = 0.003). Improvements (baseline to final evaluation) in painDETECT and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory scores were significantly greater with tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (all P ≤ 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The study was formally shown to be positive and demonstrated, in the primary effectiveness endpoint, the noninferiority for tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR. The effectiveness of tapentadol PR was superior to that of oxycodone/naloxone PR by means of clinical relevance and statistical significance (confirmatory evidence of superiority). Tapentadol PR was associated with significantly greater improvements in neuropathic pain-related symptoms and global health status than oxycodone/naloxone PR and with a significantly better gastrointestinal tolerability profile. Tapentadol PR may be considered a first-line option for managing severe chronic low back pain with a neuropathic pain component

Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Consistent healthcare decisionmaking requires systematic consideration of decision criteria and evidence available to inform them. This can be tackled by combining multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The objective of this study was to field-test a decision support framework (EVIDEM), explore its utility to a drug advisory committee and test its reliability over time.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Tramadol for chronic non-cancer pain was selected by the health plan as a case study relevant to their context. Based on extensive literature review, a by-criterion HTA report was developed to provide synthesized evidence for each criterion of the framework (14 criteria for the MCDA Core Model and 6 qualitative criteria for the Contextual Tool). During workshop sessions, committee members tested the framework in three steps by assigning: 1) weights to each criterion of the MCDA Core Model representing individual perspective; 2) scores for tramadol for each criterion of the MCDA Core Model using synthesized data; and 3) qualitative impacts of criteria of the Contextual Tool on the appraisal. Utility and reliability of the approach were explored through discussion, survey and test-retest. Agreement between test and retest data was analyzed by calculating intra-rater correlation coefficients (ICCs) for weights, scores and MCDA value estimates.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The framework was found useful by the drug advisory committee in supporting systematic consideration of a broad range of criteria to promote a consistent approach to appraising healthcare interventions. Directly integrated in the framework as a "by-criterion" HTA report, synthesized evidence for each criterion facilitated its consideration, although this was sometimes limited by lack of relevant data. Test-retest analysis showed fair to good consistency of weights, scores and MCDA value estimates at the individual level (ICC ranging from 0.676 to 0.698), thus lending some support for the reliability of the approach. Overall, committee members endorsed the inclusion of most framework criteria and revealed important areas of discussion, clarification and adaptation of the framework to the needs of the committee.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>By promoting systematic consideration of all decision criteria and the underlying evidence, the framework allows a consistent approach to appraising healthcare interventions. Further testing and validation are needed to advance MCDA approaches in healthcare decisionmaking.</p