Patient Reported Outcomes and Post-Operative Pain Management Treatment
Post-operative pain management is an arena that is ripe for innovation and improvement. Over the past several years the options for managing surgical pain while in recovery have remained largely the same, involving a range of pharmacological interventions, along with other types of therapy, but policies remain tightly tied to individual practitioners. A poster presentation by J Abraham et al in partnership with ICON (Greta Lozano-Ortega and Kristine Ogden) at the 2015 ISPOR conference in Philadelphia, PA, explored the potential impact that the introduction of patient satisfaction metrics could have on these pain management decisions.
The study methodology employed by J Abraham et al spoke with a group drawn from orthopedic and gynecology surgical specialties as well as general surgeons. By way of an online survey, these surgeons were asked a number of questions regarding how they interpreted a multimodal therapy strategy (breaking down into an analysis of opioid use, analgesic use, and non-opioid treatments), and how pain management drugs were delivered to the patient.
The study also addressed nine specific attributes associated with pain control management at a total of 28 levels, including a patient's satisfaction with pain control, patient mobility, cost per day, the use of nursing staff, type of medication used and how that medication was administered, analgesic gaps, overall pain control, and adverse event profiles. These were then plotted to distribute their importance according to each surgical specialty.
The results showed an almost universal prioritization of patient satisfaction with pain control, followed closely by mobility, the ability to reduce the occurrence of adverse events, and overall pain control effectiveness by each surgical specialty. The study also illustrated that surgeons depended on opioids as the backbone of their multimodal pain management approach. With patient mobility and patient satisfaction with pain management the top two considerations in developing a post-surgical strategy, it seems clear that patient reported outcomes are as important to clinicians, if not more so, than merely considering the safety and efficacy of a given pharmacological intervention.
An Economic Analysis of Postoperative Pain Management with Fentanyl ITS
Managing postoperative pain has long been the province of intravenous, patient-controlled analgesic (PCA) systems, typically making use of morphine as a pain reliever. A recent ISPOR poster presentation by Abraham J, et al, entitled 'An Economic Analysis of Postoperative Pain Management with Fentanyl Iontophoretic Transdermal System,' takes a look at an alternative to traditional PCA systems from a cost/benefit perspective. Specifically, the poster contrasts the most common clinical patient-controlled analgesic setups with a new iontophoretic system (ITS) used to deliver fentanyl instead of morphine.
The economic benefits of moving to a non-IV PCA system center around the reduction in hospital or clinic resources associated with IV maintenance, including staff time and the supplies and equipment involved. Of course, in evaluating the replacement of a morphine IV with a fentanyl ITS, the poster considered not just resource use but also the safety outcomes related to device errors and opioid adverse events. A time window of 48 hours was used to model the overall impact of the ITS replacement on orthopedic surgical inpatients.
The results of the study indicated that moving to a fentanyl ITS provided immediate benefits in resource management. The amount of time spent by hospital staff per patient dropped from 109 minutes for a morphine IV to 34 minutes for the iontophoretic system. Concurrently, this also resulted in 38% reduction in administration tasks (including pharmacy staff responsibilities) that translated into a $50 savings per patient. Overall, when taking into account the entire 48 hours of care, the study was able to demonstrate a $579 per patient savings through the use of the fentanyl ITS (less fentanyl acquisition costs).
In this section
-
Digital Disruption
-
Digital Disruption whitepaper
- AI and clinical trials
-
Clinical trial data anonymisation and data sharing
-
Clinical Trial Tokenisation
-
Closing the evidence gap: The value of digital health technologies in supporting drug reimbursement decisions
-
Digital disruption in biopharma
-
Disruptive Innovation
- Remote Patient Monitoring
-
Personalising Digital Health
- Real World Data
-
The triad of trust: Navigating real-world healthcare data integration
-
Digital Disruption whitepaper
-
Patient Centricity
-
Agile Clinical Monitoring
-
Capturing the voice of the patient in clinical trials
-
Charting the Managed Access Program Landscape
-
Developing Nurse-Centric Medical Communications
- Diversity and inclusion in clinical trials
-
Exploring the patient perspective from different angles
-
Patient safety and pharmacovigilance
-
A guide to safety data migrations
-
Taking safety reporting to the next level with automation
-
Outsourced Pharmacovigilance Affiliate Solution
-
The evolution of the Pharmacovigilance System Master File: Benefits, challenges, and opportunities
-
Sponsor and CRO pharmacovigilance and safety alliances
-
Understanding the Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report
-
A guide to safety data migrations
-
Patient voice survey
-
Patient Voice Survey - Decentralised and Hybrid Trials
-
Reimagining Patient-Centricity with the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT)
-
Using longitudinal qualitative research to capture the patient voice
-
Agile Clinical Monitoring
-
Regulatory Intelligence
-
An innovative approach to rare disease clinical development
- EU Clinical Trials Regulation
-
Using innovative tools and lean writing processes to accelerate regulatory document writing
-
Current overview of data sharing within clinical trial transparency
-
Global Agency Meetings: A collaborative approach to drug development
-
Keeping the end in mind: key considerations for creating plain language summaries
-
Navigating orphan drug development from early phase to marketing authorisation
-
Procedural and regulatory know-how for China biotechs in the EU
-
RACE for Children Act
-
Early engagement and regulatory considerations for biotech
-
Regulatory Intelligence Newsletter
-
Requirements & strategy considerations within clinical trial transparency
-
Spotlight on regulatory reforms in China
-
Demystifying EU CTR, MDR and IVDR
-
Transfer of marketing authorisation
-
An innovative approach to rare disease clinical development
-
Therapeutics insights
- Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders
- Cardiovascular
- Cell and Gene Therapies
- Central Nervous System
-
Glycomics
- Infectious Diseases
- NASH
- Oncology
- Paediatrics
-
Respiratory
-
Rare and orphan diseases
-
Advanced therapies for rare diseases
-
Cross-border enrollment of rare disease patients
-
Crossing the finish line: Why effective participation support strategy is critical to trial efficiency and success in rare diseases
-
Diversity, equity and inclusion in rare disease clinical trials
-
Identify and mitigate risks to rare disease clinical programmes
-
Leveraging historical data for use in rare disease trials
-
Natural history studies to improve drug development in rare diseases
-
Patient Centricity in Orphan Drug Development
-
The key to remarkable rare disease registries
-
Therapeutic spotlight: Precision medicine considerations in rare diseases
-
Advanced therapies for rare diseases
-
Transforming Trials
-
Accelerating biotech innovation from discovery to commercialisation
-
Ensuring the validity of clinical outcomes assessment (COA) data: The value of rater training
-
Linguistic validation of Clinical Outcomes Assessments
-
Optimising biotech funding
- Adaptive clinical trials
-
Best practices to increase engagement with medical and scientific poster content
-
Decentralised clinical trials
-
Biopharma perspective: the promise of decentralised models and diversity in clinical trials
-
Decentralised and Hybrid clinical trials
-
Practical considerations in transitioning to hybrid or decentralised clinical trials
-
Navigating the regulatory labyrinth of technology in decentralised clinical trials
-
Biopharma perspective: the promise of decentralised models and diversity in clinical trials
-
eCOA implementation
- Blended solutions insights
-
Implications of COVID-19 on statistical design and analyses of clinical studies
-
Improving pharma R&D efficiency
-
Increasing Complexity and Declining ROI in Drug Development
-
Innovation in Clinical Trial Methodologies
- Partnership insights
-
Risk Based Quality Management
-
Transforming the R&D Model to Sustain Growth
-
Accelerating biotech innovation from discovery to commercialisation
-
Value Based Healthcare
-
Strategies for commercialising oncology treatments for young adults
-
US payers and PROs
-
Accelerated early clinical manufacturing
-
Cardiovascular Medical Devices
-
CMS Part D Price Negotiations: Is your drug on the list?
-
COVID-19 navigating global market access
-
Ensuring scientific rigor in external control arms
-
Evidence Synthesis: A solution to sparse evidence, heterogeneous studies, and disconnected networks
-
Global Outcomes Benchmarking
-
Health technology assessment
-
Perspectives from US payers
-
ICER’s impact on payer decision making
-
Making Sense of the Biosimilars Market
-
Medical communications in early phase product development
-
Navigating the Challenges and Opportunities of Value Based Healthcare
-
Payer Reliance on ICER and Perceptions on Value Based Pricing
-
Payers Perspectives on Digital Therapeutics
-
Precision Medicine
-
RWE Generation Cross Sectional Studies and Medical Chart Review
-
Survey results: How to engage healthcare decision-makers
-
The affordability hurdle for gene therapies
-
The Role of ICER as an HTA Organisation
-
Strategies for commercialising oncology treatments for young adults
-
Blog
-
Videos
-
Webinar Channel