Simpson E L, Duenas A, Holmes M W, Papaioannou D, Chilcott J
School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2009 Mar;13(17):iii, ix-x, 1-154. doi: 10.3310/hta13170.
This report addressed the question 'What is the clinical and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the management of chronic neuropathic or ischaemic pain?'
Thirteen electronic databases [including MEDLINE (1950-2007), EMBASE (1980-2007) and the Cochrane Library (1991-2007)] were searched from inception; relevant journals were hand-searched; and appropriate websites for specific conditions causing chronic neuropathic/ischaemic pain were browsed. Literature searches were conducted from August 2007 to September 2007.
A systematic review of the literature sought clinical and cost-effectiveness data for SCS in adults with chronic neuropathic or ischaemic pain with inadequate response to medical or surgical treatment other than SCS. Economic analyses were performed to model the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of SCS in patients with neuropathic or ischaemic pain.
From approximately 6000 citations identified, 11 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness review: three of neuropathic pain and eight of ischaemic pain. Trials were available for the neuropathic conditions failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I, and they suggested that SCS was more effective than conventional medical management (CMM) or reoperation in reducing pain. The ischaemic pain trials had small sample sizes, meaning that most may not have been adequately powered to detect clinically meaningful differences. Trial evidence failed to demonstrate that pain relief in critical limb ischaemia (CLI) was better for SCS than for CMM; however, it suggested that SCS was effective in delaying refractory angina pain onset during exercise at short-term follow-up, although not more so than coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for those patients eligible for that surgery. The results for the neuropathic pain model suggested that the cost-effectiveness estimates for SCS in patients with FBSS who had inadequate responses to medical or surgical treatment were below 20,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In patients with CRPS who had had an inadequate response to medical treatment the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 25,095 pounds per QALY gained. When the SCS device costs varied from 5000 pounds to 15,000 pounds, the ICERs ranged from 2563 pounds per QALY to 22,356 pounds per QALY for FBSS when compared with CMM and from 2283 pounds per QALY to 19,624 pounds per QALY for FBSS compared with reoperation. For CRPS the ICERs ranged from 9374 pounds per QALY to 66,646 pounds per QALY. If device longevity (1 to 14 years) and device average price (5000 pounds to 15,000 pounds) were varied simultaneously, ICERs were below or very close to 30,000 pounds per QALY when device longevity was 3 years and below or very close to 20,000 pounds per QALY when device longevity was 4 years. Sensitivity analyses were performed varying the costs of CMM, device longevity and average device cost, showing that ICERs for CRPS were higher. In the ischaemic model, it was difficult to determine whether SCS represented value for money when there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate its comparative efficacy. The threshold analysis suggested that the most favourable economic profiles for treatment with SCS were when compared to CABG in patients eligible for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and in patients eligible for CABG and PCI. In these two cases, SCS dominated (it cost less and accrued more survival benefits) over CABG.
The evidence suggested that SCS was effective in reducing the chronic neuropathic pain of FBSS and CRPS type I. For ischaemic pain, there may need to be selection criteria developed for CLI, and SCS may have clinical benefit for refractory angina short-term. Further trials of other types of neuropathic pain or subgroups of ischaemic pain, may be useful.
本报告探讨了“脊髓刺激(SCS)在慢性神经性或缺血性疼痛管理中的临床疗效和成本效益如何?”这一问题。
自数据库建立起检索了13个电子数据库[包括MEDLINE(1950 - 2007年)、EMBASE(1980 - 2007年)和Cochrane图书馆(1991 - 2007年)];对手检相关期刊;并浏览了导致慢性神经性/缺血性疼痛的特定病症的相关网站。文献检索于2007年8月至2007年9月进行。
对文献进行系统综述,以寻找SCS用于对除SCS外的药物或手术治疗反应不佳的慢性神经性或缺血性疼痛成人患者的临床疗效和成本效益数据。进行经济分析以模拟SCS在神经性或缺血性疼痛患者中的成本效益和成本效用。
从约6000条检索到的文献中,临床疗效综述纳入了11项随机对照试验(RCT):3项关于神经性疼痛,8项关于缺血性疼痛。有针对神经性病症失败的脊柱手术综合征(FBSS)和I型复杂性区域疼痛综合征(CRPS)的试验,这些试验表明SCS在减轻疼痛方面比传统药物治疗(CMM)或再次手术更有效。缺血性疼痛试验样本量较小,这意味着大多数试验可能没有足够的效力来检测具有临床意义的差异。试验证据未能证明SCS在严重肢体缺血(CLI)中缓解疼痛的效果优于CMM;然而,它表明SCS在短期随访中能有效延迟运动期间难治性心绞痛疼痛的发作,尽管对于那些有资格接受冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)的患者,其效果并不比CABG更显著。神经性疼痛模型的结果表明,对于对药物或手术治疗反应不佳的FBSS患者,SCS的成本效益估计低于每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)20,000英镑。对于对药物治疗反应不佳的CRPS患者,增量成本效益比(ICER)为每获得一个QALY 25,095英镑。当SCS设备成本从5000英镑变化到15,000英镑时,与CMM相比,FBSS的ICER范围为每QALY 2563英镑至22,356英镑,与再次手术相比,FBSS的ICER范围为每QALY 2283英镑至19,624英镑。对于CRPS,ICER范围为每QALY 9374英镑至66,646英镑。如果同时改变设备使用寿命(1至14年)和设备平均价格(5000英镑至15,000英镑),当设备使用寿命为3年时,ICER低于或非常接近每QALY 30,000英镑,当设备使用寿命为4年时,ICER低于或非常接近每QALY 20,000英镑。进行了敏感性分析,改变CMM成本、设备使用寿命和设备平均成本,结果显示CRPS的ICER更高。在缺血性模型中,由于没有足够证据证明其相对疗效,很难确定SCS是否具有性价比。阈值分析表明,SCS治疗最有利的经济状况是与有资格接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的患者以及有资格接受CABG和PCI的患者中的CABG相比。在这两种情况下,SCS优于CABG(成本更低且累积更多生存益处)。
证据表明SCS可有效减轻FBSS和I型CRPS的慢性神经性疼痛。对于缺血性疼痛,可能需要为CLI制定选择标准,并且SCS可能对短期难治性心绞痛有临床益处。对其他类型的神经性疼痛或缺血性疼痛亚组进行进一步试验可能会有用。