Schmier Jordana Kate, Halevi Marci, Maislin Greg, Ong Kevin
Health Sciences, Exponent Inc., Alexandria, VA, USA.
Paradigm LLC, New York, NY, USA.
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2014 Mar 18;6:125-31. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S59194. eCollection 2014.
Symptomatic chronic low back and leg pain resulting from lumbar spinal stenosis is expensive to treat and manage. A randomized, controlled, multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial assessed treatment-related patient outcomes comparing the Coflex® Interlaminar Stabilization Device, an interlaminar stabilization implant inserted following decompressive surgical laminotomy in the lumbar spine, to instrumented posterolateral fusion among patients with moderate to severe spinal stenosis. This study uses patient-reported outcomes and clinical events from the trial along with costs and expected resource utilization to determine cost effectiveness.
A decision-analytic model compared outcomes over 5 years. Clinical input parameters were derived from the trial. Oswestry Disability Index scores were converted to utilities. Treatment patterns over 5 years were estimated based on claims analyses and expert opinion. A third-party payer perspective was used; costs (in $US 2013) and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses examined the influence of key parameters. Analyses were conducted using Medicare payment rates and typical commercial reimbursements.
Five-year costs were lower for patients implanted with Coflex compared to those undergoing fusion. Average Medicare payments over 5 years were estimated at $15,182 for Coflex compared to $26,863 for the fusion control, a difference of $11,681. Mean quality-adjusted life years were higher for Coflex patients compared to controls (3.02 vs 2.97). Results indicate that patients implanted with the Coflex device derive more utility, on average, than those treated with fusion, but at substantially lower costs. The cost advantage was greater when evaluating commercial insurance payments. Subgroup analyses found that the cost advantage for Coflex relative to fusion was even larger for two-level procedures compared to one-level procedures.
The Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization Device was found to be cost effective compared to instrumented posterolateral fusion for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. It provided higher utility at substantially lower cost.
腰椎管狭窄症导致的有症状的慢性腰腿痛治疗和管理成本高昂。一项随机、对照、多中心的美国食品药品监督管理局医疗器械研究豁免临床试验,比较了Coflex®椎间稳定装置(一种在腰椎减压性椎板切除术后植入的椎间稳定植入物)与器械辅助后外侧融合术对中重度椎管狭窄患者的治疗相关患者结局。本研究使用试验中的患者报告结局和临床事件以及成本和预期资源利用情况来确定成本效益。
一个决策分析模型比较了5年期间的结局。临床输入参数来自该试验。奥斯威斯残疾指数评分被转换为效用值。基于索赔分析和专家意见估计了5年期间的治疗模式。采用第三方支付方视角;成本(以2013年美元计)和结局按每年3%进行贴现。敏感性分析考察了关键参数的影响。使用医疗保险支付率和典型商业报销进行分析。
与接受融合术的患者相比,植入Coflex的患者5年成本更低。Coflex患者5年的平均医疗保险支付估计为15,182美元,而融合对照组为26,863美元,相差11,681美元。与对照组相比,Coflex患者的平均质量调整生命年更高(3.02对2.97)。结果表明,植入Coflex装置的患者平均比接受融合术的患者获得更多效用,但成本要低得多。在评估商业保险支付时,成本优势更大。亚组分析发现,与单节段手术相比,Coflex在双节段手术中相对于融合术的成本优势更大。
与器械辅助后外侧融合术相比,Coflex椎间稳定装置在治疗腰椎管狭窄症方面具有成本效益。它以低得多的成本提供了更高的效用。