Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Differential Target Multiplexed Spinal Cord Stimulation: A UK Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Gulve, Ashish; Mehta, Vivek; Provenzano, David A; Eggington, Simon; Scheffler, Shanti; Gasquet, Nicolas C; Ricker, Christine N.
Afiliación
  • Gulve A; James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK. Electronic address: gulve@doctors.org.uk.
  • Mehta V; St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK.
  • Provenzano DA; Pain Diagnostics and Interventional Care, Edgeworth Medical Commons, Sewickley, PA, USA.
  • Eggington S; Medtronic International Trading Sàrl, Tolochenaz, Switzerland.
  • Scheffler S; Medtronic International Trading Sàrl, Tolochenaz, Switzerland.
  • Gasquet NC; Medtronic, Plc, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
  • Ricker CN; Medtronic, Plc, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Neuromodulation ; 27(5): 908-915, 2024 Jul.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38971582
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

The aim of this economic analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM-SCS) for treating chronic intractable low back pain, compared with conventional spinal cord stimulation (C-SCS) and conservative medical management (CMM), by updating and expanding the inputs for a previously published cross-industry model. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

This model comprised a 12-month decision-tree phase followed by a long-term Markov model. Costs and outcomes were calculated from a UK National Health Service perspective, over a base-case horizon of 15 years and up to a maximum of 40 years. All model inputs were derived from published literature or other deidentified sources and updated to reflect recent clinical trials and costs. Deterministic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to calculate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) across the 15-year time horizon and to explore the impact of individual parameter variability on the cost-effectiveness results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to explore the impact of joint parameter uncertainty on the results.

RESULTS:

DTM-SCS was the most cost-effective option from a payer perspective. Compared with CMM alone, DTM-SCS was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6101 per QALY gained (incremental net benefit [INB] = £21,281). The INB for C-SCS compared with CMM was lower than for DTM-SCS, at £8551. For the comparison of DTM-SCS and C-SCS, an ICER of £897 per QALY gained was calculated, with a 99.5% probability of cost-effectiveness at a £20,000 per QALY threshold.

CONCLUSIONS:

Among patients with low back pain treated over a 15-year follow-up period, DTM-SCS and C-SCS are cost-effective compared with CMM, from both payer and societal perspectives. DTM-SCS is associated with a lower ICER than that of C-SCS. Wider uptake of DTM-SCS in the UK health care system is warranted to manage chronic low back pain.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Dolor de la Región Lumbar / Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida / Estimulación de la Médula Espinal Límite: Humans País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Neuromodulation Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Dolor de la Región Lumbar / Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida / Estimulación de la Médula Espinal Límite: Humans País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Neuromodulation Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article