RESUMO
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: A previous cost-effectiveness analysis published in 2022 found that the Total Posterior Spine (TOPSTM) system was dominant over transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). This analysis required updating to reflect a more complete dataset and pricing considerations. PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TOPSTM system as compared with TLIF based on an updated and complete FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) data set. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Cost-utility analysis of the TOPSTM system compared to TLIF. PATIENT SAMPLE: A multicenter, FDA IDE, randomized control trial (RCT) investigated the efficacy of TOPSTM compared to TLIF with a current population of n=305 enrolled and n=168 with complete 2-year follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated to determine our primary outcome measure, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Secondary outcome measures included: net monetary benefit as well at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. METHODS: The primary outcome of cost-effectiveness is determined by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. A Markov model was used to simulate the health outcomes and costs of patients undergoing TOPSTM or TLIF over a 2-year period. alternative scenario sensitivity analysis, one-way sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: The updated base case result demonstrated that TOPSTM was immediately and longitudinally dominant compared with the control with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -9,637.37 $/QALY. The net monetary benefit was correspondingly $2,237, both from the health system's perspective and at a WTP threshold of 50,000 $/QALY at the 2-year time point. This remained true in all scenarios tested. The Alternative Scenario Sensitivity Analysis suggested cost-effectiveness irrespective of payer type and surgical setting. To remain cost-effective, the cost difference between TOPSTM and TLIF should be no greater than $1,875 and $3,750 at WTP thresholds of $50,000 and 100,000 $/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This updated analysis confirms that the TOPSTM device is a cost-effective and economically dominant surgical treatment option for patients with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis compared to TLIF in all scenarios examined.
Assuntos
Análise Custo-Benefício , Vértebras Lombares , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Fusão Vertebral , Estenose Espinal , Espondilolistese , Humanos , Espondilolistese/cirurgia , Espondilolistese/economia , Vértebras Lombares/cirurgia , Estenose Espinal/cirurgia , Estenose Espinal/economia , Fusão Vertebral/economia , Fusão Vertebral/métodos , Fusão Vertebral/instrumentação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Feminino , Estudos Prospectivos , Artroplastia/economia , Artroplastia/métodos , IdosoRESUMO
Background: Given the increased attention to functional improvement in spine surgery as it relates to activities of daily living and cost, it is critical to fully understand the health care economic impact of enabling technologies. The use of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IOM) during spine surgery has long been controversial. Questions pertaining to utility, medico-legal considerations, and cost-effectiveness continue to be unresolved. The purpose of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness by assessing quality-of-life due to adverse events averted, decreased postoperative pain, decreased revision rates, and improved patient reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: The study patient population was extracted from a large multicenter database collected by a single, national IOM provider. Over 50,000 patient charts were abstracted and included in this analysis. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the second panel on cost-effectiveness health and medicine. Health-related utility was derived from questionnaire answers and expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Both cost and QALY outcomes were discounted at a yearly rate of 3% to reflect their present value. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for IOM. A value under the commonly accepted United States-based willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. Scenario (including litigation), probabilistic (PSA), and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine model discrimination and calibration. Results: The primary time horizon used to estimate cost and health utility was 2-years following index surgery. On average, index surgery for patients with IOM costs are approximately $1,547 greater than non-IOM cases. The base case assumed an inpatient Medicare population however multiple outpatient and payer scenarios were assessed in the sensitivity analysis. From a health system perspective IOM is cost-effective, yielding better utilities but at a higher cost than the non-IOM strategy (ICER $60,734 per QALY). From a societal perspective the IOM strategy was dominant, suggesting that better outcomes were achieved at less cost. Except for an entirely privately insured population, alternative scenarios such as, outpatient and a 50:50 Medicare/privately insured population sample also demonstrated cost-effectiveness. Notably, IOM benefits were unable to overcome the sheer costs associated many litigation scenarios, but the data was severely limited. In the 5,000 iteration PSA, at a WTP of $100,000, 74% of simulations using IOM were cost-effective. Conclusions: The use of IOM in spine surgery is cost-effective in most scenarios examined. In the emerging and rapidly expanding field of value-based medicine, there will be an increased demand for these analyses, ensuring surgeons are empowered to make the best, most sustainable solutions for their patients and the health care system.
RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study is to report the 1-year clinical and radiographic outcomes and safety profile of patients who underwent lumbar facet arthroplasty through implantation of the Total Posterior Spine System (TOPS) device. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar facet arthroplasty is one proposed method of dynamic stabilization to treat grade-1 spondylolisthesis with stenosis; however, there are currently no Food and Drug Administration-approved devices for facet arthroplasty. METHODS: Standard demographic information was collected for each patient. Radiographic parameters and patient-reported outcome measures were assessed preoperatively and at regular postoperative intervals. Complication and reoperation data were also collected for each patient. RESULTS: At the time of this study, 153 patients had undergone implantation of the TOPS device. The mean surgical time was 187.8 minutes and the mean estimated blood loss was 205.7cc. The mean length of hospital stay was 3.0 days. Mean Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analog Score leg and back, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire scores improved significantly at all postoperative time points ( P >0.001). There were no clinically significant changes in radiographic parameters, and all operative segments remained mobile at 1-year follow-up. Postoperative complications occurred in 11 patients out of the 153 patients (7.2%) who underwent implantation of the TOPS device. Nine patients (5.9%) underwent a total of 13 reoperations, 1 (0.6%) of which was for device-related failure owing to bilateral L5 pedicle screw loosening. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar facet arthroplasty with the TOPS device demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in all patient-reported outcome measures and the ability to maintain motion at the index level while limiting sagittal translation with a low complication rate.
Assuntos
Fusão Vertebral , Estenose Espinal , Espondilolistese , Humanos , Artroplastia , Constrição Patológica/cirurgia , Vértebras Lombares/diagnóstico por imagem , Vértebras Lombares/cirurgia , Estudos Prospectivos , Fusão Vertebral/métodos , Estenose Espinal/diagnóstico por imagem , Estenose Espinal/cirurgia , Estenose Espinal/etiologia , Espondilolistese/diagnóstico por imagem , Espondilolistese/cirurgia , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Introduction: For decades, researchers and surgeons have sought to determine the optimal biomaterial for spinal fusion implants. Successful fusion is associated with improved quality of life while failures are often associated with costly and complex revisions. One common failure is subsidence. Biomaterials with higher modulus are thought to be related to subsidence risk but this has not been thoroughly investigated. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess silicon nitride and biomaterial modulus as they relate to subsidence risk in spinal fusions. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases searched included PubMed-Medline, Google Scholar, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library. Study quality was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A network meta-analysis was chosen, allowing for direct and indirect comparisons for multiple treatments using a Bayesian hierarchical framework with Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Outcomes were reported as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated using the I2 test. A pairwise meta-analysis was also produced to compare the results of network analysis for consistency. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot, Egger test, and Begg test. All analyses were conducted using R (Project for Statistical Computing, ver. 4.0.4). Results: The initial search yielded a total of 821 articles. After removal of duplicates and screening based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 64 articles were available for review and 13 were selected for meta-analysis. Biomaterial implant types in the final studies included: silicon nitride (Si3N4), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), titanium (Ti), and two composites, nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 (n-HA/PA66) and a carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP). A total of 1,192 patients were included in this analysis - 419 with titanium implants, 460 with PEEK, 96 with Si3N4, 332 with n-HA/PA66, and 35 with CFRP. Titanium had the highest rate of subsidence compared to other biomaterials. Pairwise analysis was consistent with these results. Both the Egger test (p = 0.28) and Begg test (p = 0.37) were found to be non-significant for publication bias. Conclusions: Spinal fusion implants derived from Si3N4, compared to PEEK and titanium, do not appear to be correlated with increased subsidence risk.
RESUMO
Background: Given the increased attention to functional improvement in spine surgery as it relates to motion preservation, activities of daily living, and cost, it is critical to fully understand the healthcare economic impact of new devices being tested in large FDA randomized controlled trials (RCT). The purpose of this analysis was to comprehensively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the novel Total Posterior Spine (TOPS™) System investigational device compared with the trial control group, standard transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TOPS™ compared with TLIF. Methods: The study patient population was extracted from a multicenter RCT with current enrollment at n=121 with complete 1-year follow-up. The primary outcome was cost-effectiveness, expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Secondary outcomes were health-related utility, presented as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost, calculated in US dollars. Analysis was conducted following Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness Health and Medicine recommendations. The base case analysis utilized SF-36 survey data from the RCT. Both cost and QALY outcomes were discounted at a yearly rate of 3% to reflect their present value. A cohort Markov model was constructed to analyze perioperative and postoperative costs and QALYs for both TOPS™ and control groups. Scenario, probabilistic, and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine model discrimination and calibration. Results: The primary time horizon used to estimate cost and health utility was 2 years after index surgery. From a health system perspective, assuming a 50/50 split between Medicare and private payers, the TOPS™ cohort is cost-effective 2 years postoperatively ($6158/QALY) compared with control. At 6 years and beyond, TOPS™ becomes dominant, irrespective of payer mix and surgical setting. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100â¯000/QALY, 63% of all 5000 input parameter simulations favor TOPS, even with a $4000 upcharge vs TLIF. Discussion: The novel TOPS™ device is cost-effective compared with TLIF and becomes the dominant economic strategy over time. Conclusions: In the emerging, rapidly expanding field of value-based medicine, there will be an increased demand for these analyses, ensuring surgeons are empowered to make the best, most sustainable solutions for their patients and society.
RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: We conducted decision analytical modeling using a Markov model to determine the ICER of i-factor compared to autograft in ACDF surgery. OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of traditional anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery has improved with the introduction of new implants and compounds. Cost-effectiveness of these innovations remains an often-overlooked aspect of this effort. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of i-FACTOR compared to autograft for patients undergoing ACDF surgery. METHODS: The patient cohort was extracted from a prospective, multicenter randomized control trial (RCT) from twenty-two North American centers. Patients randomly received either autograft (N = 154) or i-Factor (N = 165). We analyzed various real-world scenarios, including inpatient and outpatient surgical settings as well as private versus public insurances. Two primary outcome measures were assessed: cost and utility. In the base-case analysis, both health and societal system costs were evaluated. Health-related utility outcome was expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In all scenarios, i-FACTOR reduced costs within the first year by 1.4% to 2.1%. The savings proved to be incremental over time, increasing to 3.7% over an extrapolated 10 years. The ICER at 90 days was $13,333 per QALY and became negative ("dominated") relative to the control group within one year and onwards. In a threshold sensitivity analysis, the cost of i-FACTOR could theoretically be increased 70-fold and still remain cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The novel i-FACTOR is not only cost-effective compared to autograft in ACDF surgery but is the dominant economic strategy.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Despite being an extremely successful procedure, recurrent disc herniation is one of the most common post-discectomy complications in the lumbar spine and contributes significant health care and socioeconomic costs. Patients with large annular defects are at a high risk for reherniation, but an annular closure device (ACD) has been designed to reduce reherniation risk in this population and may, in turn, help control direct health care costs after discectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis examined the 90-day post-discectomy cost estimates among ACD-treated (n=272) and control (discectomy alone; n=278) patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Direct medical costs were estimated based on 2017 Humana and Medicare claims. Index discectomies were assumed to occur in an outpatient (OP) setting, whereas repeat discectomies were assumed to be 60% in OP and 40% in inpatient (IP). A sensitivity analysis was performed on this assumption. The device cost was not included in the analysis in order to focus on costs in the 90-day post-operative period. RESULTS: Within 90 days of follow-up, post-operative complications occurred in 3.3% of the ACD patients and 8.6% of the control patients (P=0.01). The average 90-day cost to treat an ACD patient was $10,257 compared to $11,299 per control patient for a 80:20 distribution of Commercial:Medicare coverage ($1,042 difference). This difference varied from $687 with 100% Medicare to $1,132 with 100% Commercial coverage. Varying the IP vs OP distribution resulted in a cost difference range of $968 to $1,156 with the ACD. CONCLUSION: Augmenting discectomy with an ACD in high-risk patients with a large annular defect reduced reherniation and reoperation rates, which translated to a reduction of direct health care costs between $687 and $1,156 per patient during the 90-day post-operative period. Large annular defect patients are an easily identifiable high-risk population. Operative strategies that reduce complication risks in these patients, such as the ACD, could be advantageous from both patient care and economic perspectives.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbar discectomy is largely successful surgical procedure; however, reherniation rates in patients with large annular defects are as high as 27%. The expense associated with a revision surgery places significant burden on the healthcare system. PURPOSE: To compare the direct health care costs through 5 years follow-up of conventional discectomy (Control) with those of discectomy supplemented by an adjunctive annular closure device (ACD) in high-risk patients with large annular defects. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cost-effectiveness study. METHODS: All-cause index level reoperations were reviewed from a multicenter, randomized controlled superiority trial that allocated 554 high-risk discectomy patients with large annular defects to either control or ACD. Medicare and private insurer (Humana) direct costs were derived from a commercially available payer database to estimate costs in the US healthcare system, including those associated with facility, surgeon, imaging, follow-up visits, physical therapy, and injections. A 50:50 split between Medicare and commercial insurers was assumed for the base case analysis. The analysis was also performed on a 80:20 commercial:Medicare payer basis. For the base case scenario, a 2-year time horizon and outpatient cost setting was established for the index procedure. Repeat discectomy was assumed to be performed on a 60:40 outpatient-to-inpatient basis. Complications requiring surgery, revisions, and/or fusion were assumed to be managed in the inpatient setting. Total costs of reoperation and per-patient costs of reoperation were compared between groups for both forms of insurers. One author received consulting fees of <$50,000 for the completion of this study, and the other eight authors did not have any financial associations with the current work. Funding for this study was provided by Intrinsic Therapeutics, but all analyses, interpretation, and writing were performed independently by the authors. RESULTS: At two years follow-up, use of the ACD reduced the rate of symptomatic reherniations in a large defect population to 13% compared with 25% in the control group (p<.001). This reduction in symptomatic reherniations in the ACD group translated to a savings of $2,802 per patient in direct health care costs compared with Control at 2 years and $5,315 per patient by 5 years based on 50% private and 50% public (Medicare) payer split. Under the scenario of 80:20 private:public insurance reimbursement, the estimated direct cost savings were $3,215 and $6,099 per patient at 2- and 5-years postoperatively, respectively, with the use of the ACD. CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic reherniation and reoperation rates were nearly double among control patients compared with ACD-treated patients, which translated to markedly greater per-patient healthcare costs in the control group, where the ACD was not used.
Assuntos
Discotomia/economia , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Deslocamento do Disco Intervertebral/cirurgia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/economia , Reoperação/economia , Adulto , Análise Custo-Benefício , Discotomia/efeitos adversos , Discotomia/instrumentação , Discotomia/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Vértebras Lombares/cirurgia , Masculino , Medicare/economia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Reoperação/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados UnidosRESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis of an annular closure device (ACD) based on data from a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) OBJECTIVE.: The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a novel ACD in a patient population at high risk for recurrent herniation following discectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar disc herniation patients with annular defect widths ≥6âmm are at high risk for recurrent herniation following limited discectomy. Recurrent herniation is associated with worse clinical outcomes and greater healthcare costs. A novel ACD may reduce the incidence of recurrent herniation and the associated burdens. METHODS: A decision analytical modeling approach with a Markov method was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the ACD versus conventional discectomy. Health states were created by projecting visual analogue scale (VAS) onto Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Direct costs were calculated based on Humana and Medicare 2014 claims to represent private and public payer data, respectively. Indirect costs were calculated for lost work days using 2016 US average annual wages. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was compared to willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: Patients with the ACD had less symptomatic reherniations, reoperations, and complications and gained 0.0328 QALYs within the first 2 years. Total direct medical costs for the ACD group were similar to control. When productivity loss was considered, using the ACD became $2076 cheaper, per patient, than conventional discectomy. Based on direct costs alone, the ICER comparing ACD to control equaled $6030 per QALY. When indirect costs are included, the ICER became negative, which indicates that superior quality of life was attained at less cost. CONCLUSION: For lumbar disc herniations patients with annular defects ≥6âmm, the ACD was, at 2 years, a highly cost-effective surgical modality compared to conventional lumbar discectomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.
Assuntos
Prótese Ancorada no Osso/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Discotomia/economia , Deslocamento do Disco Intervertebral/economia , Deslocamento do Disco Intervertebral/cirurgia , Vértebras Lombares/cirurgia , Idoso , Prótese Ancorada no Osso/normas , Análise Custo-Benefício/normas , Discotomia/métodos , Discotomia/normas , Feminino , Humanos , Degeneração do Disco Intervertebral/diagnóstico por imagem , Degeneração do Disco Intervertebral/economia , Degeneração do Disco Intervertebral/cirurgia , Deslocamento do Disco Intervertebral/diagnóstico por imagem , Vértebras Lombares/diagnóstico por imagem , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy has centered around anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Alternatively, the posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy/microdiscectomy (PCF/PCM), which results in comparable outcomes and is more cost-effective, has been underutilized. METHODS: Here, we compared the direct/indirect costs, reoperation rates, and outcome for ACDF and PCF vs. PCM using PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the re-operative rates of PCF/PCM (2% to 9.8%) versus ACDF (2% to 8%). Direct costs of ACDF were also significantly higher; the 1-year cost-utility analysis demonstrated that ACDF had $131,951/QALY while PCM had $79,856/QALY. CONCLUSION: PCF/PCM for radiculopathy are safe and more cost-effective vs. ACDF, and have similar clinical outcomes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery (ETPS) has become increasingly popular for resection of pituitary tumors, whereas microscopic transsphenoidal surgery (MTPS) also remains a commonly used approach. The economic sustainability of new techniques and technologies is rarely evaluated in the neurosurgical skull base literature. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of ETPS compared with MTPS. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to conduct a cost-utility analysis of ETPS versus MTPS from a single-payer health care perspective. Data were obtained from previously published outcomes studies. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates, considering covariates such as complications, length of stay, and operative time. The base case adopted a 2-year follow-up period. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: On average, ETPS costs $143 less and generates 0.014 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with MTPS over 2 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is -$10,214 per QALY, suggesting economic dominance. The QALY benefit increased to 0.105 when modeled to 10 years, suggesting that ETPS becomes even more favorable over time. CONCLUSIONS: ETPS appears to be cost-effective when compared with MTPS because the ICER falls below the commonly accepted $50,000 per QALY benchmark. Model limitations and assumptions affect the generalizability of the conclusion; however, ongoing efforts to improve rhinologic morbidity related to ETPS would appear to further augment the marginal cost savings and QALYs gained. Further research on the cost-effectiveness of ETPS using prospective data is warranted.
Assuntos
Adenoma/cirurgia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Microcirurgia/economia , Neuroendoscopia/economia , Neoplasias Hipofisárias/cirurgia , Adenoma/economia , Seguimentos , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Pessoal de Saúde/economia , Humanos , Tempo de Internação/economia , Cadeias de Markov , Medicare , Duração da Cirurgia , Neoplasias Hipofisárias/economia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/economia , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Estados UnidosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The neurosurgical boot camp has been fully incorporated into U.S. postgraduate education. This is the first implementation of the neurosurgical boot in a developing country. To advance neurosurgical education, we developed a similar boot camp program, in collaboration with Bolivian neurosurgeons, to determine its feasibility and effectiveness in an international setting. METHODS: In a collective effort, the Bolivian Society for Neurosurgery, Foundation for International Education in Neurological Surgery, Solidarity Bridge, and University of Massachusetts organized and executed the first South American neurosurgical boot camp in Bolivia in 2015. Both U.S. and Bolivian faculty led didactic lectures followed by a practicum day using mannequins and simulators. South American residents and faculty were surveyed after the course to determine levels of enthusiasm and their perceived improvement in fund of knowledge and course effectiveness. RESULTS: Twenty-four neurosurgery residents from 5 South American countries participated. Average survey scores ranged between 4.2 and 4.9 out of 5. Five Bolivian neurosurgeons completed the survey with average scores of 4.5-5. This event allowed for Bolivian leaders in the field to unify around education, resulting in the formation of an institute to continue similar initiatives. Total cost was estimated at $40 000 USD; however, significant faculty, industry, and donor support helped offset this amount. CONCLUSION: The first South American neurosurgical boot camp had significant value and was well received in Bolivia. This humanitarian model provides a sustainable solution to education needs and should be expanded to other regions as a means for standardizing the core competencies in neurosurgery.
Assuntos
Países em Desenvolvimento , Educação de Pós-Graduação em Medicina/organização & administração , Internacionalidade , Neurocirurgia/educação , Bolívia , Currículo , Docentes de Medicina , Estudos de Viabilidade , Humanos , Internato e Residência , Sociedades MédicasRESUMO
OBJECTIVE Approximately 475,000 children are treated for traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the US each year; most are classified as mild TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] Score 13-15). Patients with positive findings on head CT, defined as either intracranial hemorrhage or skull fracture, regardless of severity, are often transferred to tertiary care centers for intensive care unit (ICU) monitoring. This practice creates a significant burden on the health care system. The purpose of this investigation was to derive a clinical decision rule (CDR) to determine which children can safely avoid ICU care. METHODS The authors retrospectively reviewed patients with mild TBI who were ≤ 16 years old and who presented to a Level 1 trauma center between 2008 and 2013. Data were abstracted from institutional TBI and trauma registries. Independent covariates included age, GCS score, pupillary response, CT characteristics, and Injury Severity Score. A composite outcome measure, ICU-level care, was defined as cardiopulmonary instability, transfusion, intubation, placement of intracranial pressure monitor or other invasive monitoring, and/or need for surgical intervention. Stepwise logistic regression defined significant predictors for model inclusion with p < 0.10. The authors derived the CDR with binary recursive partitioning (using a misclassification cost of 20:1). RESULTS A total of 284 patients with mild TBI were included in the analysis; 40 (14.1%) had ICU-level care. The CDR consisted of 5 final predictor variables: midline shift > 5 mm, intraventricular hemorrhage, nonisolated head injury, postresuscitation GCS score of < 15, and cisterns absent. The CDR correctly identified 37 of 40 patients requiring ICU-level care (sensitivity 92.5%; 95% CI 78.5-98.0) and 154 of 244 patients who did not require an ICU-level intervention (specificity 63.1%; 95% CI 56.7-69.1). This results in a negative predictive value of 98.1% (95% CI 94.1-99.5). CONCLUSIONS The authors derived a clinical tool that defines a subset of pediatric patients with mild TBI at low risk for ICU-level care. Although prospective evaluation is needed, the potential for improved resource allocation is significant.
Assuntos
Concussão Encefálica/terapia , Tomada de Decisão Clínica/métodos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Fatores Etários , Encéfalo/diagnóstico por imagem , Concussão Encefálica/diagnóstico por imagem , Concussão Encefálica/etiologia , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Análise Multivariada , Estudos Prospectivos , Sistema de Registros , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco/métodos , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The US Food and Drug Administration allows a previously unapproved device to be used clinically to collect safety and effectiveness data under their Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) category. The process usually falls under 3 different trial categories: noninferiority, equivalency, and superiority. To confidently inform our patients, understanding the basic concepts of these trials is paramount. The purpose of this manuscript was to provide a comprehensive review of these topics using recently published IDE trials and economic analyses of cervical total disc replacement as illustrative examples. CASE STUDY MOBI-C ARTIFICIAL CERVICAL DISC: In 2006, an IDE was initiated to study the safety and effectiveness of total disc replacement controlled against the standard of care, anterior cervical discectomy, and fusion. Under the IDE, randomized controlled trials comparing both 1 and 2 level cervical disease were completed. The sponsor designed the initial trial as noninferiority; however, using adaptive methodology, superiority could be claimed in the 2-level investigation. REVIEWING HEALTHCARE ECONOMICS: Healthcare economics are critical in medical decision making and reimbursement practices. Once both cost- and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) are known for each patient, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is calculated. Willingness-to-pay is controversial, but a commonly cited guideline considers interventions costing below 20 000 $/QALY strongly cost effective and more than 100 000 $/QALY as not cost effective. CONCLUSION: While large Food and Drug Administration IDE studies are often besieged by complex statistical considerations and calculations, it is fundamentally important that clinicians understand at least the terminology and basic concepts on a practical level.
Assuntos
Análise Custo-Benefício , Aprovação de Equipamentos/legislação & jurisprudência , Aprovação de Equipamentos/normas , Humanos , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Substituição Total de Disco/instrumentação , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug AdministrationRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) was developed to treat cervical degenerative disc disease while preserving motion. OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness of this intervention was established by looking at 2-year follow-up, and this update reevaluates our analysis over 5 years. METHODS: Data were derived from a randomized trial of 330 patients. Data from the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey were transformed into utilities by using the SF-6D algorithm. Costs were calculated by extracting diagnosis-related group codes and then applying 2014 Medicare reimbursement rates. A Markov model evaluated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the stability of the model. The model adopted both societal and health system perspectives and applied a 3% annual discount rate. RESULTS: The cTDR costs $1687 more than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) over 5 years. In contrast, cTDR had $34 377 less productivity loss compared with ACDF. There was a significant difference in the return-to-work rate (81.6% compared with 65.4% for cTDR and ACDF, respectively; P = .029). From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) for cTDR was -$165 103 per QALY. From a health system perspective, the ICER for cTDR was $8518 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the ICER for cTDR remained below the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY in all scenarios (-$225 816 per QALY to $22 071 per QALY). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to report the comparative cost-effectiveness of cTDR vs ACDF for 2-level degenerative disc disease at 5 years. The authors conclude that, because of the negative ICER, cTDR is the dominant modality. ABBREVIATIONS: ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusionAWP, average wholesale priceCE, cost-effectivenessCEA, cost-effectiveness analysisCPT, Current Procedural TerminologycTDR, cervical total disc replacementCUA, cost-utility analysisDDD, degenerative disc diseaseDRG, diagnosis-related groupFDA, US Food and Drug AdministrationICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratioIDE, Investigational Device ExemptionNDI, neck disability indexQALY, quality-adjusted life yearsRCT, randomized controlled trialRTW, return-to-workSF-12, 12-Item Short Form Health SurveyVAS, visual analog scaleWTP, willingness-to-pay.
Assuntos
Vértebras Cervicais/cirurgia , Degeneração do Disco Intervertebral/cirurgia , Fusão Vertebral/economia , Substituição Total de Disco/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Retorno ao Trabalho , Fusão Vertebral/métodos , Substituição Total de Disco/métodos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Decision analysis from prior randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. OBJECTIVE: To describe the importance of developing baseline utility indices while identifying effective treatment options for cervical spine disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) was developed to treat cervical spondylosis while preserving motion. Although anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been the standard of care, a recent RCT suggested similar outcomes for 2-level disease. The quality-of-life benefit afforded by both CTDR and ACDF has never been fully elucidated. The purpose of our investigation was to better define the changes in utility and perceived value for patients undergoing these procedures. METHODS: Data were derived from LDR's RCT comparing CTDR and ACDF for 2-level cervical disc disease. Using linear regression, we constructed health states on the basis of the stratification of clinical outcomes used in the RCT, namely, neck disability index and visual analogue scale. Data from SF-12 questionnaires, completed preoperatively and at each follow-up visit, were transformed into utilities using the SF-6D mapping algorithm. SAS v.9.3 was used for the analyses. RESULTS: A strong correlation (R = 0.6864, P < 0.0001) was found between neck disability index and visual analogue scale. We constructed 5 distinct health states by projecting neck disability index intervals onto visual analogue scale. A poorer health state was associated with a lower mean utility value whereas a higher health state was associated with a higher mean utility value (P < 0.0001). The difference in preoperative utility between 2-level ACDF and CTDR was not significant (P = 0.1982), and yet, the difference in the postoperative utility between the cohorts was significant (P < 0.05) at every time point collected from 6 to 60 months. CONCLUSION: This is the first instance in which distinct utility values have been derived for validated health states related to cervical spine disease. There is substantial potential for these to become baseline future indices for cost-utility analyses in similar populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.
Assuntos
Discotomia/estatística & dados numéricos , Degeneração do Disco Intervertebral/epidemiologia , Degeneração do Disco Intervertebral/cirurgia , Deslocamento do Disco Intervertebral/epidemiologia , Deslocamento do Disco Intervertebral/cirurgia , Fusão Vertebral/estatística & dados numéricos , Substituição Total de Disco/estatística & dados numéricos , Avaliação da Deficiência , Discotomia/efeitos adversos , Discotomia/métodos , Seguimentos , Humanos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias , Qualidade de Vida , Fusão Vertebral/efeitos adversos , Fusão Vertebral/métodos , Substituição Total de Disco/efeitos adversos , Substituição Total de Disco/métodosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) are often utilized to evaluate for postoperative infection. Abnormal values may be detected after surgery even in case of non-infection because of muscle injury, transfusion, which disturbed prompt perioperative management. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the perioperative CRP, ESR, and white blood cell (WBC) counts after spine surgery, which was proved to be non-infection. METHODS: Twenty patients of lumbar open discectomy (LOD) and 20 patients of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) were enrolled in this study. Preoperative and postoperative prophylactic antibiotics were administered routinely for 7 days. Blood samples were obtained one day before surgery and postoperative day (POD) 1, POD3, and POD7. Using repeated measures ANOVA, changes in effect measures over time and between groups over time were assessed. All data analysis was conducted using SAS v.9.1. RESULTS: Changes in CRP, within treatment groups over time and between treatment groups over time were both statistically significant F(3,120)=5.05, p=0.003 and F(1,39)=7.46, p=0.01, respectively. Most dramatic changes were decreases in the LOD group on POD3 and POD7. Changes in ESR, within treatment groups over time and between treatment groups over time were also found to be statistically significant, F(3,120)=6.67, p=0.0003 and F(1,39)=3.99, p=0.01, respectively. Changes in WBC values also were be statistically significant within groups over time, F(3,120)=40.52, p<0.001, however, no significant difference was found in between groups WBC levels over time, F(1,39)=0.02, p=0.89. CONCLUSION: We found that, dramatic decrease of CRP was detected on POD3 and POD7 in LOD group of non-infection and dramatic increase of ESR on POD3 and POD7 in PLIF group of non-infection. We also assumed that CRP would be more effective and sensitive parameter especially in LOD than PLIF for early detection of infectious complications. Awareness of the typical pattern of CRP, ESR, and WBC may help to evaluate the early postoperative course.
RESUMO
IMPORTANCE: Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) was developed to treat cervical spondylosis, while preserving motion. While anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been the standard of care for 2-level disease, a randomized clinical trial (RCT) suggested similar outcomes. Cost-effectiveness of this intervention has never been elucidated. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of CTDR compared with ACDF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were derived from an RCT that followed up 330 patients over 24 months. The original RCT consisted of multi-institutional data including private and academic institutions. Using linear regression for the current study, health states were constructed based on the stratification of the Neck Disability Index and a visual analog scale. Data from the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaires were transformed into utilities values using the SF-6D mapping algorithm. Costs were calculated by extracting Diagnosis-Related Group codes from institutional billing data and then applying 2012 Medicare reimbursement rates. The costs of complications and return-to-work data were also calculated. A Markov model was built to evaluate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. The model adopted a third-party payer perspective and applied a 3% annual discount rate. Patients included in the original RCT had to be diagnosed as having radiculopathy or myeloradiculopathy at 2 contiguous levels from C3-C7 that was unresponsive to conservative treatment for at least 6 weeks or demonstrated progressive symptoms. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared with ACDF. RESULTS: A strong correlation (R2 = 0.6864; P < .001) was found by projecting a visual analog scale onto the Neck Disability Index. Cervical total disc replacement had an average of 1.58 QALYs after 24 months compared with 1.50 QALYs for ACDF recipients. Cervical total disc replacement was associated with $2139 greater average cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared with ACDF was $24,594 per QALY at 2 years. Despite varying input parameters in the sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio value stays below the threshold of $50,000 per QALY in most scenarios (range, -$58,194 to $147,862 per QALY). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared with traditional ACDF is lower than the commonly accepted threshold of $50,000 per QALY. This remains true with varying input parameters in a robust sensitivity analysis, reaffirming the stability of the model and the sustainability of this intervention.
Assuntos
Vértebras Cervicais , Degeneração do Disco Intervertebral/cirurgia , Fusão Vertebral/economia , Substituição Total de Disco/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Seguimentos , Humanos , Degeneração do Disco Intervertebral/economia , Qualidade de Vida , Inquéritos e Questionários , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
OBJECT: Bolivia, one of the poorest countries in the world, ranks 108th on the 2013 Human Development Index. With approximately 1 neurosurgeon per 200,000 people, access to neurosurgery in Bolivia is a growing health concern. Furthermore, neurosurgery in nonindustrialized countries has been considered both cost-prohibitive and lacking in outcomes evaluation. A non-governmental organization (NGO) supports spinal procedures in Bolivia (Solidarity Bridge), and the authors sought to determine its impact and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: In a retrospective review of prospectively collected data, 19 patients were identified prior to spinal instrumentation and followed over 12 months. For inclusion, patients required interviewing prior to surgery and during at least 2 follow-up visits. All causes of spinal pathology were included. Sixteen patients met inclusion criteria and were therefore part of the analysis. Outcomes measured included assessment of activities of daily living, pain, ambulation, return to work/school, and satisfaction. Cost-effectiveness was determined by cost-utility analysis. Utilities were derived using the Health Utilities Index. Complications were incorporated into an expected value decision tree. RESULTS: Median (± SD) preoperative satisfaction was 2.0 ± 0.3 (on a scale of 0-10), while 6-month postoperative satisfaction was 7 ± 1.4 (p < 0.0001). Ambulation, pain, and emotional disability data suggested marked improvement (56%, 69%, and 63%, respectively; p = 0.035, 0.003, and 0.006). Total discounted incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain was 0.771. The total discounted cost equaled $9036 (95% CI $8561-$10,740) at 2 years. Computing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio resulted in a value of $11,720/QALY, ranging from $9220 to $15,473/QALY in a univariate sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This NGO-supported spinal instrumentation program in Bolivia appears to be cost-effective, especially when compared with the conventional $50,000/QALY benchmark and the WHO endorsed country-specific threshold of $16,026/QALY. However, with a gross domestic product per capita in Bolivia equaling $4800 per year and 30.3% of the population living on less than $2 per day, this cost continues to appear unrealistic. Additionally, the study has several significant limitations, namely its limited sample size, follow-up period, the assumption that patients not receiving surgical intervention would not make any clinical improvement, the reliance on the NGO for patient selection and sustainable practices such as follow-up care and ancillary services, and the lack of a randomized prospective design. These limitations, as well as an unclear understanding of Bolivian willingness-to-pay data, affect the generalizability of the study findings and impede widespread economic policy reform. Because cost-effectiveness research may inevitably direct care decisions and prove that an effort such as this can be cost saving, a prospective, properly controlled investigation is now warranted.