Lumbar Dorsal Root Ganglion Block as a Prognostic Tool Before Pulsed Radiofrequency: A Randomized, Prospective, and Comparative Study on Cost-Effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: In the study, we discuss the predictive value and cost-effectiveness of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) blocks before using dorsal root ganglion pulsed radiofrequency (DRG-PRF) in the treatment of low back pain. METHODS: The study comprised 60 patients with low back pain who were randomly assigned into 2 groups. Patients in group 1 were screened using DRG block before DRG-PRF treatment for responders. Patients in group 2 underwent DRG-PRF treatment without DRG block. Successful outcome was defined as patient satisfaction, improvement in numerical rating scale, and medication use reduction. RESULTS: In group 1 (n = 30), 24 patients demonstrated good response to DRG block, and 20 patients had successful outcome at 6 months after DRG-PRF therapy. In group 2 (n = 30), 25 of the patients had successful outcome at 6 months after DRG-PRF therapy. The mean medical costs were NT$ 19,245 and NT$ 16,375 for each successful case in groups 1 and 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative cost-effectiveness study, the application of diagnostic DRG blocks before DRG-PRF did not have a significant impact on patient satisfaction, pain index score, or pain medication reduction. Furthermore, the application of diagnostic DRG blocks resulted in overall greater medical costs. These findings suggest that DRG-PRF without screening by DRG block is more cost-effective and less invasive.

Economic evaluation of endoscopic radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus in Spain.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of introducing endoscopic treatment based on radiofrequency ablation plus endoscopic mucosal resection in selected patients into the standard of care of Barrett's esophagus patients with high-grade dysplasia or low-grade dysplasia in Spain. METHODS: The disease evolution was modeled via a semi-Markov model. The treatment strategies compared included endoscopic treatment based on radiofrequency ablation plus endoscopic mucosal resection and the Standard of Care (esophagectomy or palliative chemoradiotherapy according to disease status for high-grade dysplasia and endoscopic surveillance for low-grade dysplasia). Efficacy rates, transition probabilities and utility values were obtained from the literature. Clinical management patterns and resource use were modeled according to Spanish clinical expert opinion. Costs were expressed in euros (€) from 2016 reflecting the Spanish National Health System perspective. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model. RESULTS: With respect to the Spanish Standard of Care, endoscopic treatment based on radiofrequency ablation plus endoscopic mucosal resection was a dominant strategy for high-grade dysplasia patients. When a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per quality-adjusted life-years gained was considered, this was cost-effective for low-grade dysplasia patients (€12,865 per quality-adjusted life-years gained). The sensitivity analyses supported the base case analysis results and pointed towards the main drivers of uncertainty in the model. CONCLUSIONS: From a health care decision-maker, endoscopic treatment based on radiofrequency ablation plus endoscopic mucosal resection is the intervention of choice for dysplasic Barrett's esophagus patients in Spain.

Cost-Effectiveness of Bronchial Thermoplasty, Omalizumab, and Standard Therapy for Moderate-to-Severe Allergic Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) is a recently developed treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. A few studies have suggested the clinical efficacy of this intervention. However, no study has evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BT compared to other alternative treatments for moderate-to-severe allergic asthma, which currently include omalizumab and standard therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard therapy, BT, and omalizumab for moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in the USA. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model with weekly cycles was developed to reflect the course of asthma progression over a 5-year time horizon. The study population was adults with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma whose asthma remained uncontrolled despite using high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS, with or without long-acting beta-agonists [LABA]). A perspective of the health-care system was adopted with asthma-related costs as well as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and exacerbations as the outcomes. RESULTS: For standard therapy, BT, and omalizumab, the discounted 5-year costs and QALYs were $15,400 and 3.08, $28,100 and 3.24, and $117,000 and 3.26, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BT versus standard therapy and omalizumab versus BT was $78,700/QALY and $3.86 million/QALY, respectively. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY, the probability of BT being cost-effective was 9%, and 67%, respectively. The corresponding expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was $155 and $1,530 per individual at these thresholds. In sensitivity analyses, increasing the costs of BT from $14,900 to $30,000 increased its ICER relative to standard therapy to $178,000/QALY, and decreased the ICER of omalizumab relative to BT to $3.06 million/QALY. Reducing the costs of omalizumab by 25% decreased its ICER relative to BT by 29%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, our study suggests that there is more than 60% chance that BT becomes cost-effective relative to omalizumab and standard therapy at the WTP of $100,000/QALY in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. However, there is a substantial uncertainty in the underlying evidence, indicating the need for future research towards reducing such uncertainty.

Cost effectiveness of bronchial thermoplasty in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma.

RATIONALE: Based on its clinical effectiveness, bronchial thermoplasty (BT) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2010 for the treatment of severe persistent asthma in patients 18 years and older whose asthma is not well-controlled with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonist medicines. OBJECTIVE: Assess the 10 year cost-effectiveness of BT for individuals with severe uncontrolled asthma. METHODS: Using a Markov decision analytic model, the cost-effectiveness of BT was estimated. The patient population involved a hypothetical cohort of 41-year-old patients comparing BT to usual care over a 10-year time frame. The main outcome measure was cost in 2013 dollars per additional quality adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: Treatment with BT resulted in 6.40 QALYs and $7512 in cost compared to 6.21 QALYs and $2054 for usual care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for BT at 10 years was $29,821/QALY. At a willingness to pay per QALY of $50,000, BT continues to be cost effective unless the probability of severe asthma exacerbation drops below 0.63 exacerbation per year or the cost of BT rises above $10,384 total for all three bronchoscopic procedures needed to perform thermoplasty and to cover the entire bronchial tree (baseline = $6690). CONCLUSIONS: BT is a cost-effective treatment for asthmatics at high risk of exacerbations. Continuing to follow asthmatics treated with BT beyond 5 years will help inform longer efficacy and support its cost-effectiveness.