Modifiable prognostic factors of high costs related to healthcare utilization among older people seeking primary care due to back pain: an identification and replication study.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is an extensive burden to our healthcare system, yet few studies have explored modifiable prognostic factors associated with high costs related to healthcare utilization, especially among older back pain patients. The aims of this study were to identify modifiable prognostic factors for high costs related to healthcare utilization among older people seeking primary care with a new episode of back pain; and to replicate the identified associations in a similar cohort, in a different country. METHODS: Data from two cohort studies within the BACE consortium were used, including 452 and 675 people aged ≥55 years seeking primary care with a new episode of back pain. High costs were defined as costs in the top 25th percentile. Healthcare utilization was self-reported, aggregated for one-year of follow-up and included: primary care consultations, medications, examinations, hospitalization, rehabilitation stay and operations. Costs were estimated based on unit costs collected from national pricelists. Nine potential modifiable prognostic factors were selected based on previous literature. Univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression models were used to identify and replicate associations (crude and adjusted for selected covariates) between each modifiable prognostic factor and high costs related to healthcare utilization. RESULTS: Four modifiable prognostic factors associated with high costs related to healthcare utilization were identified and replicated: a higher degree of pain severity, disability, depression, and a lower degree of physical health-related quality of life. Kinesiophobia and recovery expectations showed no prognostic value. There were inconsistent results across the two cohorts with regards to comorbidity, radiating pain below the knee and mental health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION: The factors identified in this study may be future targets for intervention with the potential to reduce high costs related to healthcare utilization among older back pain patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04261309, 07 February 2020. Retrospectively registered.

Healthcare utilization and costs associated with autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in Norwegian patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients experience long-term deterioration of neurological function, reduced quality of life, long-lasting treatment cycles, and an increased risk of early workability loss imposing an economic burden to society. Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) has shown promising treatment effects for relapsing remitting MS (RRMS). This study employs a micro-costing approach to estimate healthcare utilization and costs associated with AHSCT in Norwegian RRMS patients. Patient-level data were extracted from medical journals of 30 RRMS patients receiving AHSCT treatment at Haukeland University Hospital in the period from January 2015 to January 2018. The time horizon for the analysis was from the pretransplant screening until one year after AHSCT. A correlation was found between patient body weight and total healthcare cost. The average total healthcare cost of AHSCT for RRMS patients was estimated to EUR 66 304 (95% CI: EUR 63 598 - EUR 69 010) including costs associated with the pre-AHSCT period, AHSCT treatment phases and one-year follow-up. The majority of the costs, EUR 64 329, occurred during the treatment phase and within the first 100 days after AHSCT. The results indicate that long-term healthcare cost savings may be achieved using AHSCT in selected patients with aggressive RRMS. This is due to the high costs of most used disease modifying treatments. Further research including long-term clinical data is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of this treatment.

Healthcare utilization and related costs among older people seeking primary care due to back pain: findings from the BACE-N cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe healthcare utilization and estimate associated costs during 1 year of follow-up among older people seeking primary care due to a new episode back pain and to describe healthcare utilization across patients with different risk profiles stratified using the StarT Back Screening Tool (SBST). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A total of 452 people aged ≥55 years seeking Norwegian primary care with a new episode of back pain were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of this study was total cost of healthcare utilization aggregated for 1 year of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included components of healthcare utilization aggregated for 1 year of follow-up. Healthcare utilization was self-reported and included: primary care consultations, medications, examinations, hospitalisation, rehabilitation stay, and operations. Costs were estimated based on unit costs collected from national pricelists. Healthcare utilization across patients with different SBST risk profiles was compared using Kruskal-Wallis test, post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests and Bonferroni adjustment. RESULTS: In total, 438 patients were included in the analysis. Mean (BCa 95% CI) total cost per patient over 1 year was €825 (682-976). Median (BCa 95% CI) total cost was €364 (307-440). The largest cost category was primary care consultations, accounting for 56% of total costs. Imaging rate was 34%. The most commonly used medication was paracetamol (27%-35% of patients). Medium- and high-risk patients had a significantly higher degree of healthcare utilization compared with low-risk patients (p<0.030). CONCLUSION: This study estimated a 1 year mean and median cost of healthcare utilization of €825 and €364, respectively. Patients within the top 25th percentile accounted for 77% of all costs. Patients classified as medium risk and high risk had a significantly higher degree of healthcare utilization compared with patients classified as low risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04261309, results.

Surgical treatment is not cost-effective compared to nonoperative treatment for displaced distal radius fractures in patients 65 years and over.

AIMS: The purpose was to compare operative treatment with a volar plate and nonoperative treatment of displaced distal radius fractures in patients aged 65 years and over in a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial. A total of 50 patients were randomized to each group. We prospectively collected data on resource use during the first year post-fracture, and estimated costs of initial treatment, further operations, physiotherapy, home nursing, and production loss. Health-related quality of life was based on the Euro-QoL five-dimension, five-level (EQ-5D-5L) utility index, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated. RESULTS: The mean QALYs were 0.05 higher in the operative group during the first 12 months (p = 0.260). The healthcare provider costs were €1,533 higher per patient in the operative group: €3,589 in the operative group and 2,056 in the nonoperative group. With a suggested willingness to pay of €27,500 per QALY there was a 45% chance for operative treatment to be cost-effective. For both groups, the main costs were related to the primary treatment. The primary surgery was the main driver of the difference between the groups. The costs related to loss of production were high in both groups, despite high rates of retirement. Retirement rate was unevenly distributed between the groups and was not included in the analysis. CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment was not cost-effective in patients aged 65 years and older compared to nonoperative treatment of displaced distal radius fractures in a healthcare perspective. Costs related to loss of production might change this in the future if the retirement age increases. Level of evidence: II Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(12):1027-1034.

Cost-utility analysis of antibiotic treatment in patients with chronic low back pain and Modic changes: results from a randomised, placebo-controlled trial in Norway (the AIM study).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of 100 days of antibiotics in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) and type I or II Modic changes included in the Antibiotic treatment In patients with chronic low back pain and Modic changes (AIM) study. DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis from a societal and healthcare perspective alongside a double-blinded, parallel group, placebo, multicentre trial. SETTING: Hospital outpatient clinics at six hospitals in Norway. The main results from the AIM study showed a small effect in back-related disability in favour of the antibiotics group, and slightly larger in those with type I Modic changes, but this effect was below the pre-defined threshold for clinically relevant effect. PARTICIPANTS: 180 patients with chronic LBP, previous disc herniation and Modic changes type I (n=118) or type II (n=62) were randomised to antibiotic treatment (n=89) or placebo-control (n=91). INTERVENTIONS: Oral treatment with either 750 mg amoxicillin or placebo three times daily for 100 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by EuroQoL-5D over 12 months and costs for healthcare and productivity loss measured in Euro (€1=NOK 10), in the intention-to-treat population. Cost-utility was expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Mean (SD) total cost was €21 046 (20 105) in the amoxicillin group and €19 076 (19 356) in the placebo group, mean difference €1970 (95% CI; -3835 to 7774). Cost per QALY gained was €24 625. In those with type I Modic changes, the amoxicillin group had higher healthcare consumption than the placebo group, resulting in €39 425 per QALY gained. Given these ICERs and a willingness-to-pay threshold of €27 500 (NOK 275 000), the probability of amoxicillin being cost-effective was 51%. Even when the willingness-to-pay threshold increased to €55 000, the probability of amoxicillin being cost-effective was never higher than 53%. CONCLUSIONS: Amoxicillin treatment showed no evidence of being cost-effective for people with chronic LBP and Modic changes during 1-year follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02323412.