Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) refractory to conventional medical management (CMM). Materials and Methods: We conducted an observational, multicenter, longitudinal ambispective study, where patients with predominant leg pain refractory to CMM expecting to receive SCS+CMM were recruited in 9 Italian centers and followed up to 24 months after SCS. We collected data on clinical status (pain intensity, disability), Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) and on direct and indirect costs before (pre-SCS) and after (post-SCS) the SCS intervention. Costs were quantified in € 2009, adopting the National Health Service's (NHS), patient and societal perspectives. Benefits and costs pre-SCS versus post-SCS were compared to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost utility ratios. Results: 80 patients (40% male, mean age 58 years) were recruited. Between baseline and 24 months post-SCS, clinical outcomes and HRQoL significantly improved. The EQ-5D utility index increased from 0.421 to 0.630 (p < 0.0001). Statistically significant improvement was first observed six months post-SCS. Societal costs increased from €6600 (pre-SCS) to €13,200 (post-SCS) per patient per year. Accordingly, the cost-utility acceptability curve suggested that if decision makers' willingness to pay per Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALYs) was €60,000, SCS implantation would be cost-effective in 80% and 85% of cases, according to the NHS's and societal point of views, respectively. Conclusions: Our results suggest that in clinical practice, SCS+CMM treatment of FBSS patients refractory to CMM provides good value for money. Further research is encouraged in the form of larger, long-term studies.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of spinal cord stimulation in patients with failed back surgery syndrome: results from the PRECISE study

MEGLIO, Mario;
2015

Abstract

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) refractory to conventional medical management (CMM). Materials and Methods: We conducted an observational, multicenter, longitudinal ambispective study, where patients with predominant leg pain refractory to CMM expecting to receive SCS+CMM were recruited in 9 Italian centers and followed up to 24 months after SCS. We collected data on clinical status (pain intensity, disability), Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) and on direct and indirect costs before (pre-SCS) and after (post-SCS) the SCS intervention. Costs were quantified in € 2009, adopting the National Health Service's (NHS), patient and societal perspectives. Benefits and costs pre-SCS versus post-SCS were compared to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost utility ratios. Results: 80 patients (40% male, mean age 58 years) were recruited. Between baseline and 24 months post-SCS, clinical outcomes and HRQoL significantly improved. The EQ-5D utility index increased from 0.421 to 0.630 (p < 0.0001). Statistically significant improvement was first observed six months post-SCS. Societal costs increased from €6600 (pre-SCS) to €13,200 (post-SCS) per patient per year. Accordingly, the cost-utility acceptability curve suggested that if decision makers' willingness to pay per Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALYs) was €60,000, SCS implantation would be cost-effective in 80% and 85% of cases, according to the NHS's and societal point of views, respectively. Conclusions: Our results suggest that in clinical practice, SCS+CMM treatment of FBSS patients refractory to CMM provides good value for money. Further research is encouraged in the form of larger, long-term studies.
cost-effectiveness; spinal cord stimulation; cost-utility; failed back surgery syndrome; quality adjusted life years
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/929319
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 23
  • Scopus 51
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 49
social impact