Cost-effectiveness of total disc replacement versus multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain: a Norwegian multicenter RCT.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of total disc replacement (TDR) versus multidisciplinary rehabilitation (MDR) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The existing studies on CLBP report cost-effectiveness of fusion surgery versus disc replacement and fusion versus rehabilitation. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of TDR versus MDR. METHODS: Between April 2004 and May 2007, 173 patients with CLBP (>1 yr) were randomized to TDR (n = 86) or MDR (n = 87). Treatment effects (Euro Qol 5D [EQ-5D] and Short Form 6D [SF-6D]) and relevant direct and indirect costs at 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment were assessed. Gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) after 2 years was estimated. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The mean QALYs gained (standard deviation) using EQ-5D was 1.29 (0.53) in the TDR group and 0.95 (0.52) in the MDR group, a significant difference of 0.34 (95% confidence interval 0.18-0.50). The mean total cost per patient in the TDR group was &OV0556;87,622 (58,351) compared with &OV0556;74,116 (58,237) in the MDR group, which was not significantly different (95% confidence interval: -4041 to 31,755). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the TDR procedure varied from &OV0556;39,748 using EQ-5D (TDR cost-effective) to &OV0556;128,328 using SF-6D (TDR not cost-effective). The dropout rate was 20% (15% TDR group, 24% MDR group). Five patients moved from the MDR to the TDR group, whereas 9 patients randomized to TDR declined surgery. Using per-protocol analysis instead of intention-to-treat analysis indicated that TDR was not cost-effective, irrespective of the use of EQ-5D or SF-6D. CONCLUSION: In this study, TDR was cost-effective compared with MDR after 2 years when using EQ-5D for assessing QALYs gained and a willingness to pay of &OV0556;74,600 (kr500,000/QALY). TDR was not cost-effective when SF-6D was used; therefore, our results should be interpreted with caution. Longer follow-up is needed to accurately assess the cost-effectiveness of TDR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

[Teleradiologic follow up of patients treated with aortic stent grafting]. / Teleradiologisk oppfølging av pasienter behandlet med stentgraft i aorta.

BACKGROUND: A study has confirmed the possibility of follow up in the local hospital of patients who have undergone endovascular repair. We present a cost analysis of such a regimen compared to follow up at a university hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: By using discharge data from the Norwegian Patient Register we identified a group of patients which could have been followed up at their local hospital for their stent-grafted abdominal aortic aneurysm and estimated the cost effects of performing follow ups locally. RESULTS: The cost analysis showed a potential for cost savings from local follow ups, especially from moving from inpatient care at the university hospital to outpatient care locally. The result of this cost analysis differs from other Norwegian studies of teleradiology by identifying a possibility for more cost-effective treatment. INTERPRETATION: Using teleradiology to follow up these patients will free up capacity in the university hospital. Most probably, other groups of patients can also be followed up by teleradiology. The university hospitals can use this freed-up capacity for new patients. Teleradiology could lead to more efficient use of health care facilities, which should be in the interest of the health authorities.