Modeling the economic and health consequences of managing chronic osteoarthritis pain with opioids in Germany: comparison of extended-release oxycodone and OROS hydromorphone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Osmotic controlled-Release Oral delivery System (OROS) hydromorphone ensures continuous release of hydromorphone over 24 hours. It is anticipated that this will facilitate optimal pain relief, improve quality of sleep and compliance. This simulation compared managing chronic osteoarthritis pain with once-daily OROS hydromorphone with an equianalgesic dose of extended-release (ER) oxycodone administered two or three times a day. METHODS: This discrete event simulation follows patients for a year after initiating opioid treatment. Pairs of identical patients are created; one receives OROS hydromorphone the other ER oxycodone; undergo dose adjustments and after titration can be dissatisfied or satisfied, suffer adverse events, pain recurrence, or discontinue the opioid. Each is assigned an initial sleep problems score, and an improved score from a treatment dependent distribution at the end of titration; these are translated to a utility value. Utilities are assigned pre-treatment, updated until the patient reaches the optimal dose or is non-compliant or dissatisfied. The OROS hydromorphone and ER oxycodone doses are converted to equianalgesic morphine doses using the following ratios: hydromorphone to morphine ratio; 1:5, oxycodone to morphine ratio; 1:2. Sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty in the conversion ratios and other key parameters. Direct medical costs are in 2005 euros. RESULTS: Over 1 year on a mean daily morphine-equivalent dose of 90 mg, 14% were estimated to be dissatisfied with each opioid. OROS hydromorphone was predicted to yield 0.017 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)/patient for a small additional annual cost (E141/patient), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of E8343/QALY gained. Changing the assumed conversion ratio for oxycodone:morphine to 1:1.5 led to lower net costs of E68 per patient, E3979/QALY, and for hydromorphone to 1:7.5 to savings. CONCLUSION: Based on these analyses, OROS hydromorphone is expected to yield health benefits at reasonable cost in Germany.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".