A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy Compared with Circumferential Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) relative to circumferential lumbar fusion with femoral ring allograft (FRA) in the United Kingdom. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Circumferential lumbar fusion is an established treatment for discogenic low back pain. However, IDET could be a cost-effective treatment alternative as it can be carried out as a day case. METHODS: Patient-level data were available for patients with discogenic low back pain treated with FRA (n = 37) in a randomized trial of FRA vs. titanium cage, and for patients recruited to a separate study evaluating the use of IDET (n = 85). Both studies were carried out at a single institution in the United Kingdom. Patients were followed-up for 24 months, with data collected on low back disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back and leg pain (visual analog scale), quality of life (Short Form 36), radiographic evaluations, and U.K. National Health Service (NHS) resource use. Cost-effectiveness was measured by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Both treatments produced statistically significant improvements in outcome at 24-month follow-up. NHS costs were significantly lower with IDET due to a shorter mean procedure time (377.4 minutes vs. 49.9 minutes) and length of stay (7 days vs. 1.2 days). At a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the probability that IDET is cost effective is high. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments led to significant improvements in patient outcomes that were sustained for at least 24 months. Costs were lower with IDET, and for appropriate patients IDET is an effective and cost-effective treatment alternative.

Economic evaluation of pharmacological treatments for overactive bladder from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the costs and outcomes associated with different sequences of oral anti-muscarinic agents and the selective ß(3)-adrenoceptor agonist, mirabegron, for the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB). METHODS: A Markov model with monthly cycle length and time horizon up to 3 years was designed to compare two different sequences of up to three lines of oral therapy for OAB. Patients who discontinued one oral medication could switch to another oral medication or could discontinue treatment. Patients whose symptoms were not controlled were considered for botulinum toxin or sacral nerve stimulation. Outcomes were measured by (a) number of patients with controlled symptoms (no incontinence episodes and <8 micturitions per 24 h); (b) patients with no incontinence episodes per 24 hours; and (c) patients with <8 micturitions per 24 h. RESULTS: Including a third-line oral medication before considering other treatment options improved all patient outcomes, irrespective of the specific drugs used. A three-line sequence including two generic (oxybutynin first line and tolterodine extended-release second line) and one branded drug (solifenacin 5 mg third line) resulted in inferior patient outcomes at costs similar to a sequence of branded drugs (mirabegron first line, solifenacin 5 mg second line, solifenacin 10 mg third line): controlled patients (generic 29.6/1000 vs branded 38.7/1000); patients with no incontinence episodes (103.6/1000 vs 123.7/1000); patients with <8 micturitions (228.7/1000 vs 262.1/1000). Annual treatment costs per patient were similar (generic £1299 vs branded £1385). CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of OAB, low-cost generic treatments are not necessarily more cost-effective than branded drugs, primarily because a better efficacy and tolerability balance improves both symptom control and persistence.