A cost-utility analysis of sacral anterior root stimulation (SARS) compared with medical treatment in patients with complete spinal cord injury with a neurogenic bladder.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Sacral anterior root stimulation (SARS) and posterior sacral rhizotomy restores the ability to urinate on demand with low residual volumes, which is a key for preventing urinary complications that account for 10% of the causes of death in patients with spinal cord injury with a neurogenic bladder. Nevertheless, comparative cost-effectiveness results on a long time horizon are lacking to adequately inform decisions of reimbursement. PURPOSE: This study aimed to estimate the long-term cost-utility of SARS using the Finetech-Brindley device compared with medical treatment (anticholinergics+catheterization). STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGS: The following study design is used for the paper: Markov model elaborated with a 10-year time horizon; with four irreversible states: (1) initial treatment, (2) year 1 of surgery for urinary complication, (3) year >1 of surgery for urinary complication, and (4) death; and reversible states: urinary calculi; Finetech-Brindley device failures. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample consisted of theoretical cohorts of patients with a complete spinal cord lesion since ≥1 year, and a neurogenic bladder. OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness was expressed as quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were valued in EUR 2013 in the perspective of the French health system. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analyses were performed to estimate transition probabilities and QALYs. Costs were estimated from the literature, and through simulations using the 2013 French prospective payment system classification. Probabilistic analyses were conducted to handle parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case analysis (2.5% discount rate), the cost-utility ratio was 12,710 EUR per QALY gained. At a threshold of 30,000 EUR per QALY the probability of SARS being cost-effective compared with medical treatment was 60%. If the French Healthcare System reimbursed SARS for 80 patients per year during 10 years (anticipated target population), the expected incremental net health benefit would be 174 QALYs, and the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) would be 4.735 million EUR. The highest partial EVPI is reached for utility values and costs (1.3-1.6 million EUR). CONCLUSIONS: Our model shows that SARS using Finetech-Brindley device offers the most important benefit and should be considered cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 30,000 EUR per QALY. Despite a high uncertainty, EVPI and partial EVPI may indicate that further research would not be profitable to inform decision-making.

Variability of Hepatic 18F-FDG Uptake at Interim PET in Patients With Hodgkin Lymphoma.

INTRODUCTION: When evaluating response of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) to chemotherapy on interim (18)F-FDG-PET/CT, physiological liver uptake is used as reference. Hodgkin lymphoma sites with uptake greater than liver are interpreted as positive. We aimed at examining factors that might influence liver uptake as reference organ. METHODS: Fifty patients with HL who received baseline (18)F-FDG-PET/CT (PET1) and interim PET (PET2), usually after 2 cycles of adriamycin bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine chemotherapy, were included retrospectively. SUVmean normalized for body weight (SUVmean) and for lean body mass (SULmean) were obtained from regions of interest in the right lobe of the liver. RESULTS: On univariate analysis, liver SUVmean on interim PET increased with increasing body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.0453) and were higher in women (P = 0.0401). These factors remained significant on multivariate analysis (P = 0.009 and P = 0.008, respectively). No significant correlation was found with postinjection delay, blood glucose level, and age. Liver SULmean were not affected by the studied variables. Average liver SUVmean in the 50 patients were similar at baseline and interim PET. In 11 patients (22%), however, there was 30% or greater variation in liver SUVmean between PET1 and PET2. No factors explaining intrapatient variation in hepatic uptake between PET1 and PET2 were found on correlation analysis. CONCLUSION: At interim PET in patients with HL, liver SUVmean depends on BMI and sex, but not liver SULmean. Furthermore, our study, conducted with standard clinical procedure, also confirmed the high range of liver uptake values from one patient to another. Caution is required when using liver SUV as reference in patients with high BMI. Intrapatient fluctuation in liver SUVmean should also be expected.