Advertisement

Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 374–379 | Cite as

Cost analysis applied to postoperative analgesia regimens: a comparison between parecoxib and propacetamol

  • P. TilleulEmail author
  • H. Weickmans
  • P. Tan Sean
  • A. Lienhart
  • M. Beaussier
Original Paper

Abstract

Background

Postoperative pain management represents a significant part of perioperative costs. Non-opioid analgesics are often used in combination with opiates to improve pain relief and reduce opioid-related side effects.

Objective

To assess the costs and cost efficacy of intravenous (i.v.) parecoxib versus i.v. propacetamol in postoperative pain.

Methods

A prospective, randomised, double-blind, clinical evaluation was performed to compare the efficacy of a single bolus injection of 40 mg parecoxib and 2 g propacetamol, administered twice within 12 h following surgical repair of inguinal hernia. Resources for each arm of treatment were collected, and total costs were determined, including costs of drug acquisition, devices and labour for preparation of the two analgesic drugs. Cost-efficacy analysis was performed as the cost to achieve complete satisfaction with analgesia. Incremental cost efficacy was determined as the ratio between the differential costs and the differential patient satisfaction. The analysis was performed from an institutional perspective over a 12 h time frame.

Results

A total of 182 patients was evaluated. Pain at rest and morphine consumption were observed to be reduced in the parecoxib group. The percentages of patients totally satisfied with their pain management 12 h after surgery were 87% in the parecoxib-treated group and 70% in the propacetamol-treated group (P < 0.01). The average cost per patient was higher in the parecoxib group, € 6.65 vs € 5.28 in the propacetamol group). Cost per patient satisfied was calculated at a mean value of € 7.64 for parecoxib and € 7.54 for propacetamol. Incremental cost per additional patient satisfied was € 8.02 in the parecoxib-treated group when preparation costs were included. Sensitivity analysis (±15%), including a bootstrap method applied to costs and efficacy, did not modify these conclusions.

Conclusion

Parecoxib exhibits higher cost and greater patient satisfaction than does propacetamol. From a cost-efficacy approach, incremental cost per additional patient satisfied for parecoxib treatment must be analysed in light of overall perioperative pharmaceutical cost.

Keywords

Analgesics Cost effectiveness Parecoxib Postoperative pain Propacetamol Surgery 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank John Cochran for his assistance in preparing the manuscript. This study was supported by an educational grant from Pfizer. This study was presented, in part, at the 33rd ESCP meeting in Stockholm in May 2005.

References

  1. 1.
    White PF. The role of non-opioid analgesic techniques in the management of pain after ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg 2002;94:577–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhao SZ, Chung F, Hanna DB et al. Dose–response relationship between opioid use and adverse effects after ambulatory surgery. J Pain Symptom Manag 2004;28:35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rawal N, Hylander J, Nydhal PA et al. Survey of postoperative analgesia following ambulatory surgery. Acta Anaesth Scand 1997;41:1017–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Song D, Greilich NB, White PF et al. Recovery profiles and costs of anesthesia for outpatient unilateral inguinal herniorrhaphy. Anesth Analg 2000;91:876–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheer SM, Goa KL. Parecoxib (parecoxib sodium). Drugs 2001;61:133–43.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilron I, Milne B, Hong M. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in postoperative pain management: current evidence and future directions. Anesthesiology 2003;99:1198–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leese PT, Talwalker S, Kent JD, Recker DP. Valdecoxib does not impair platelet function. Am J Emerg Med 2002; 20: 275–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Depre M, Van Hecken A, Verbesselt R et al. Tolerance and pharmacokinetics of propacetamol. a paracetamol formulation for intravenous use. Fund Clin Pharmacol 1992;6:259–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beaussier M, Weickmans H, Paugam C et al. Randomized double blind comparison between parecoxib sodium and propacetamol for parenteral postoperative analgesia after inguinal hernia repair in adult patients. Anesth Analg 2005;100:1309–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kranke P, Morin A, Roewer N et al. Patient global evaluation of analgesia and safety for injected parecoxib for postoperative pain: A quantitative systematic review. Anesth Analg 2004;99:797–806.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cook R, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 1995;310:452–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laupacis A, Sackett DL. Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med 1988;318:1728–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carpenter J, Bithel J. Bootstraps confidence intervals: when, which, what? A practical guide for medical statisticians. Stat Med 2000;19:1141–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Macario A, Vitez T, Dunn B et al. Where are the costs in perioperative care? Analysis of hospital costs and charges for inpatient surgical care. Anesthesiology 1995;83:1138–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Macario A, McCoy M. The pharmacy cost of delivering postoperative analgesia to patients undergoing joint replacement surgery. J Pain 2003;4:22–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D’Hease J, Vanlesberghe C, Umbrain V et al. Pharmacoeconomic of a disposable patient-controlled analgesia device and intramuscular analgesia in surgical patients. Eur J Anaesth 1998;15:297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schuster M, Gottschalk A, Freitag M et al. Cost drivers in patient-controlled epidural analgesia for postoperative pain management after major surgery. Anaesth Analg 2004;98:708–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    White PF. The changing role of non-opioid analgesic techniques in the management of postoperative pain. Anesth Analg 2005;1001(5 Suppl):S5–S22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Watcha MF, White PF. Economics of anesthetic practice. Anesthesiology 1997; 86:1170–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Engoren M. Cost-effectiveness of different postoperative analgesic treatments. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2003;4:1507–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Daniels SE, Grossman EH, Kuss ME et al. A double blind, randomized comparison of intramuscularly and intravenously administered parecoxib sodium versus ketorolac and placebo in a post-oral surgery pain model. Clin Ther 2001;23:1018–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hubbard RC, Naumann TM, Traylor L et al. Parecoxib sodium has opioid sparing effects in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia. Br J Anaesthes 2003;90:166–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Malan TP, March G, Hakki SI et al. Parecoxib sodium, a parenteral cyclooxygenase 2 selective inhibitor, improves morphine analgesia and is opioid-sparing effect following total hip arthroplasty. Anesthesiology 2003;98:950–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ng A, Smith G, Davidson AC. Analgesic effects of parecoxib following total abdominal hysterectomy. Br J Anaesthes 2003;90:746–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ott E, Nusmeier NA, Duke PC, Feneck RO et al. Efficacy and safety of the cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors parecoxib and valdecoxib in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;125:1481–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barton SF, Langeland FF, Snabes MC et al. Efficacy and safety of intravenous parecoxib sodium in relieving acute postoperative pain following gynecologic laparotomy surgery. Anesthesiology. 2002;97:306–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lauritsen J, Moller A. Publications in anesthesia journals: quality and clinical relevance. Anesth Analg 2004;99:1486–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Watcha MF, Issioui T, Klein KW et al. Cost and effectiveness of rofecoxib. celecoxib and acetaminophen for preventing pain after ambulatory otolaryngologic surgery. Anesth Analg 2003;96:987–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Issioui T, Klein KW, White PF et al. Cost-efficacy of rofecoxib versus acetaminophen for preventing pain after ambulatory surgery. Anesthesiology 2002;974:931–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Tilleul
    • 1
    Email author
  • H. Weickmans
    • 2
  • P. Tan Sean
    • 1
  • A. Lienhart
    • 2
  • M. Beaussier
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PharmacyHopital Saint AntoineParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive CareHopital Saint Antoine, University Paris VI Pierre et Marie CurieParisFrance

Personalised recommendations