Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25889173›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

A retrospective, matched cohort study of potential drug-drug interaction prevalence and opioid utilization in a diabetic peripheral neuropathy population initiated on pregabalin or duloxetine.

Jeffrey J Ellis, Alesia B Sadosky, Laura L Ten Eyck, Pallavi Mudumby, Joseph C Cappelleri, Lilian Ndehi, Brandon T Suehs, Bruce Parsons

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Duloxetine, an antidepressant with analgesic properties - a preliminary analysis.Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jeffrey J EllisComprehensive Health Insights Inc., 325 West Main Street WFP6W, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA. jellis21@humana.com.
Alesia B SadoskyPfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, NewYork, NY, 10017, USA. Alesia.Sadosky@pfizer.com.
Laura L Ten EyckFormerly of Comprehensive Health Insights Inc., 325 West Main Street WFP6W, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA. lten_eyck@humana.com.
Pallavi MudumbyComprehensive Health Insights Inc., 325 West Main Street WFP6W, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA. pmudumby@humana.com.
Joseph C CappelleriPfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, NewYork, NY, 10017, USA. joseph.c.cappelleri@pfizer.com.
Lilian NdehiHumana Inc., 323 West Main Street WFP-05C, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA. lndehi@humana.com.
Brandon T SuehsComprehensive Health Insights Inc., 325 West Main Street WFP6W, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA. bsuehs6@humana.com.
Bruce ParsonsPfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, NewYork, NY, 10017, USA. Bruce.Parsons@pfizer.com.
Comprehensive Clinical Research · USPfizer (United States) · USHumana (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnticipating and controlling drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in older patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropaty (pDPN) presents a significant challenge to providers. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of newly initiated pregabalin or duloxetine treatment on Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plan pDPN patients' encounters with potential drug-drug interactions, the healthcare cost and utilization consequences of those interactions, and opioid utilization.

methodsStudy subjects required a pregabalin or duloxetine pharmacy claim between 07/01/2008-06/30/2012 (index event), ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient medical claims with pDPN diagnosis between 01/01/2008-12/31/2012, and ≥12 months pre- and ≥6 post-index enrollment. Propensity score matching was used to balance the pregabalin and duloxetine cohorts on pre-index demographics and comorbidities. Potential DDIs were defined by Micromedex 2.0 and identified by prescription claims. Six-month post-index healthcare utilization (HCU) and costs were calculated using pharmacy and medical claims.

resultsNo significant differences in pre-index demographics or comorbidities were found between pregabalin subjects (n = 446) and duloxetine subjects (n = 446). Potential DDI prevalence was significantly greater (p < 0.0001) among duoxetine subjects (56.7%) than among pregabalin subjects (2.9%). There were no significant differences in HCU or costs between pregablin subjects with and without a potential DDI. By contrast, duloxetine subjects with a potential DDI had higher mean all-cause costs ($13,908 vs. $9,830; p = 0.001), more subjects with ≥1 inpatient visits (35.6% vs 25.4%; p = 0.02), and more subjects with ≥1 emergency room visits (32.8% vs. 20.7%; p = 0.005) in comparison to duloxetine subjects without a potential DDI. There was a trend toward a difference between pregabalin and duloxetine subjects in their respective pre-versus-post differences in milligrams (mg) of morphine equivalents/30 days used (60.2 mg and 176.9 mg, respectively; p = 0.058).

conclusionThe significantly higher prevalence of potential DDIs and potential cost impact found in pDPN duloxetine users, relative to pregabalin users, underscore the importance of considering DDIs when selecting a treatment.

Indexed as

Drug InteractionsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnalgesics, OpioidCohort StudiesDiabetic NeuropathiesDuloxetine HydrochlorideFemaleHumansMaleMedicare Part CMiddle AgedPainPregabalinAnalgesics, OpioidDuloxetine HydrochloridePregabalinPrescription Drugs

Identifiers

PMID25889173
PMCPMC4422427
OpenAlexW1997390231

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.