Direct Health Care Cost and Work Incapacity Related to Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in Switzerland: A Retrospective Analysis from 2008 to 2015.

OBJECTIVE: First, to determine the number of accident-related complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) cases from 2008 to 2015 and to identify factors associated with an increased risk for developing CRPS. Second, to analyze the duration of work incapacity and direct health care costs over follow-up periods of two and five years, respectively. DESIGN: Retrospective data analysis. SETTING: Database from the Statistical Service for the Swiss National Accident Insurances covering all accidents insured under the compulsory Swiss Accident Insurance Law. SUBJECTS: Subjects were registered after an accident between 2008 and 2015. METHODS: Cases were retrospectively retrieved from the Statistical Service for the Swiss National Accident Insurances. Cases were identified using the appropriate International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, codes. RESULTS: CRPS accounted for 0.15% of all accident cases. Age, female gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.47-1.60), and fracture of the forearm (OR = 38, 95% CI = 35-42) were related to an increased risk of developing CRPS. Over five years, one CRPS case accumulated average insurance costs of $86,900 USD and treatment costs of $23,300 USD. Insurance costs were 19 times and treatment costs 13 times the average costs of accidents without CPRS. Within the first two years after the accident, the number of days lost at work was 20 times higher in patients with CRPS (330 ± 7 days) than in patients without CRPS (16.1 ± 0.1 days). Two-thirds of all CRPS cases developed long-term work incapacity of more than 90 days. CONCLUSION: CRPS is a relatively rare condition but is associated with high direct health care costs and work incapacity.

Prevalence and Cost Analysis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS): A Role for Neuromodulation.

OBJECTIVE: The diagnosis and treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is challenging and there is a paucity of data describing its overall cost burden and quantifying its impact on the US healthcare system. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and healthcare utilization costs associated with CRPS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal study was performed using the Truven MarketScan® database to identify patients with a new indexed diagnosis of CRPS (Type I, II, or both) from 2001 to 2012. We collected total, outpatient, and pain prescription costs three years prior to CRPS diagnosis (baseline), at year of CRPS diagnosis, and eight-year post-CRPS diagnosis. A longitudinal multivariate analysis was used to model the estimated total and pain prescription cost ratios comparing patients diagnosed before and after CRPS. RESULTS: We included 35,316 patients with a newly indexed diagnosis of CRPS (Type I: n = 18,703, Type II: n = 14,599, Unspecified: n = 2014). Baseline characteristics were similar between the CRPS cohorts. Compared to two- and three-year baseline costs, one-year prior to diagnosis for all CRPS patients yielded the highest interquartile median [IQR] costs: total costs $7904[$3469, $16,084]; outpatient costs $6706[$3119, $12,715]; and pain prescription costs $1862[$147, $7649]. At the year of CRPS diagnosis, the median [IQR] costs were significantly higher than baseline costs: total costs $8508[$3943, $16,666]; outpatient costs $7251[$3527, $13,568]; and pain prescription costs $2077[$140, $8856]. Over the eight-year period after CRPS diagnosis, costs between all the years were similar, ranging from the highest (one-year) to lowest (seven-years), $4845 to $3888. The median total cumulative cost 8-years after CRPS diagnosis was $43,026 and $12,037 for pain prescription costs. [Correction added on 06 November 2017 after first online publication: the preceding sentence has been updated to demonstrate the median cumulative cost in replacement of the additive cumulative mean costs.]. During the CRPS diagnosis period, patients are expected to have a total cost 2.17-fold and prescription cost 2.56-fold of their baseline cost annually. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that there is a significant increase in cost and healthcare resource utilization one-year prior to and around the time of CRPS diagnosis. Furthermore, there is an increased annual cost post-diagnosis compared to baseline costs prior to CRPS diagnosis.

Comparison of tonic spinal cord stimulation, high-frequency and burst stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: a double-blind, randomised placebo controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a disabling disease that is sometimes difficult to treat. Although spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can reduce pain in most patients with CRPS, some do not achieve the desired reduction in pain. Moreover, the pain reduction can diminish over time even after an initially successful period of SCS. Pain reduction can be regained by increasing the SCS frequency, but this has not been investigated in a prospective trial. This study compares pain reduction using five SCS frequencies (standard 40 Hz, 500 Hz, 1200 Hz, burst and placebo stimulation) in patients with CRPS to determine which of the modalities is most effective. DESIGN: All patients with a confirmed CRPS diagnosis that have unsuccessfully tried all other therapies and are eligible for SCS, can enroll in this trial (primary implantation group). CRPS patients that already receive SCS therapy, or those previously treated with SCS but with loss of therapeutic effect over time, can also participate (re-implantation group). Once all inclusion criteria are met and written informed consent obtained, patients will undergo a baseline assessment (T0). A 2-week trial with SCS is performed and, if successful, a rechargeable internal pulse generator (IPG) is implanted. For the following 3 months the patient will have standard 40 Hz stimulation therapy before a follow-up assessment (T1) is performed. Those who have completed the T1 assessment will enroll in a 10-week crossover period in which the five SCS frequencies are tested in five periods, each frequency lasting for 2 weeks. At the end of the crossover period, the patient will choose which frequency is to be used for stimulation for an additional 3 months, until the T2 assessment. DISCUSSION: Currently no trials are available that systematically investigate the importance of variation in frequency during SCS in patients with CRPS. Data from this trial will provide better insight as to whether SCS with a higher frequency, or with burst stimulation, results in more effective pain relief. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36655259.

Work-Related Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Diagnosis and Treatment.

Complex regional pain syndrome can be a debilitating disorder, which, in its earliest stages, can be prevented by aggressive rehabilitation based on reactivation. It is critical to follow international criteria on making the diagnosis; overdiagnosis can lead to inappropriate interventions and further disability. When present, early recognition with reactivation is the cornerstone of treatment. This article presents a phased approach to treatment that suggests movements of nonresponders quickly to more integrated levels of care. Some commonly used invasive interventions, such as sympathectomy and spinal cord stimulation, have not been proved effective; these unproven and potentially harmful therapies should be avoided.

Rehabilitation perspectives of neuromodulation.

Chronic pain is one of the most prevalent and costly health care problems in the United States today. Two conditions, failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), in particular have been difficult to manage, resulting in increased disability and poorer quality of life measures for patients as well as increased treatments cost for payers. Given the cost of chronic pain management and overall subjectivity of analog pain scores, many payers are emphasizing the importance of functional outcomes as a means of assessing efficacy of treatment. Neuromodulation devices such as spinal cord stimulators are shown to be cost effective and able to improve functional outcomes and quality of life. Specific rehabilitation therapies also demonstrate improved functional outcomes. This article aims to discuss the role of rehabilitation in the patient with a neuromodulatory device. From the available data and our clinical experience, we recommend incorporating rehabilitation after placement of a neuromodulation device in order to optimize functional outcomes.

Spinal cord stimulation as treatment for complex regional pain syndrome should be considered earlier than last resort therapy.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), by virtue of its historically described up-front costs and level of invasiveness, has been relegated by several complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) treatment algorithms to a therapy of last resort. Newer information regarding safety, cost, and efficacy leads us to believe that SCS for the treatment of CRPS should be implemented earlier in a treatment algorithm using a more comprehensive approach. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on pain care algorithmic thinking and applied the safety, appropriateness, fiscal or cost neutrality, and efficacy (S.A.F.E.) principles to establish an appropriate position for SCS in an algorithm of pain care. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Based on literature-contingent considerations of safety, efficacy, cost efficacy, and cost neutrality, we conclude that SCS should not be considered a therapy of last resort for CRPS but rather should be applied earlier (e.g., three months) as soon as more conservative therapies have failed.

Spinal cord stimulation: a review.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a safe and effective treatment of a variety of chronic pain conditions. As our understanding of the mechanisms of action and potential uses of SCS has evolved, clinical and technological advancements have followed. This review provides an overview of potential mechanisms of action of SCS, evidence for its effectiveness, potential complications, and highlights of developing areas of interest.

The cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Health-care policymakers and payers require cost-effectiveness evidence to inform their treatment funding decisions. The aims of this study were to assess the cost-effectiveness of the addition of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) compared with conventional management alone (CMM) in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and to determine the cost-effectiveness of nonrechargeable versus rechargeable SCS implanted pulse generators (IPGs). METHODS: A decision analytic model was used to synthesize data on CRPS patient outcomes and health-care costs over a 15-year time horizon from the perspective of the UK National Health Services. Data were sourced from two SCS randomized controlled trials. Results are expressed as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in 2008 GBP. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness of SCS compared with CMM was £3562 per QALY, a finding that was robust across sensitivity analyses with an 87% probability that SCS is cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000. When the longevity of an IPG is 4 years or less, a rechargeable (and initially more expensive) IPG is more cost-effective than a nonrechargeable IPG. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with CRPS, SCS is cost-effective as an adjunct to CMM. Despite their initial increased expense, rechargeable IPGs should be considered when IPG longevity is likely to be short. These findings support policymakers to extend the use of SCS as a good value for money treatment for CRPS.

Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature and assessment of prognostic factors.

OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the management of patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and identify the potential predictors of SCS outcome. DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature and meta-regression. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for controlled and uncontrolled studies and economic evaluations relating to the use of SCS in patients with either CRPS type I or II. RESULTS: One randomised controlled trial, 25 case series and one cost-effectiveness study were included. In the randomised controlled trial in type I CRPS patients, SCS therapy lead to a reduction in pain intensity at 24 months of follow-up (mean change in VAS score -2.0), whereas pain was unchanged in the control group (mean change in VAS score 0.0) (p<0.001). In the case series studies, 67% (95% CI 51%, 84%) of type I and type II CRPS patients implanted with SCS reported pain relief of at least 50% over a median follow-up period of 33 months. No statistically significant predictors of pain relief with SCS were observed in multivariate meta-regression analysis across studies. An economic analysis based on the randomised controlled trial showed a lifetime cost saving of approximately 58,470 (60,800 US dollars) with SCS plus physical therapy compared with physical therapy alone. The mean cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 12-month follow-up was 22,580 (23,480 US dollars). CONCLUSIONS: SCS appears to be an effective therapy in the management of patients with CRPS type I (Level A evidence) and type II (Level D evidence). Moreover, there is evidence to demonstrate that SCS is a cost-effective treatment for CRPS type I.