Spine · 2011
Costs and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for failed back surgery syndrome: an observational study in a workers' compensation population.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hollingworth William, Turner Judith A, Welton Nicky J, Comstock Bryan A, Deyo Richard A
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) among workers' compensation recipients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence suggests that SCS is more effective at 6 months than medical management for patients with FBSS. However, procedure costs are high and workers' compensation claimants often have worse outcomes than other patients.
METHODS: We enrolled 158 FBSS patients receiving workers' compensation into three treatment groups: trial SCS with or without permanent device implant (n = 51), pain clinic (PC) evaluation with or without treatment (n = 39), and usual care (UC; n = 68). The primary outcome was a composite measure of pain, disability and opioid medication use. As reported previously, 5% of SCS patients, 3% of PC patients and 10% of UC patients achieved the primary outcome at 24 months. Using cost data from administrative databases, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of SCS, adjusting for baseline covariates.
RESULTS: Mean medical cost per SCS patient over 24 months was $52,091. This was $17,291 (95% confidence intervals [CI], $4100-30,490) higher than in the PC group and $28,128 ($17,620-38,630) higher than in the UC group. Adjusting for baseline covariates, the mean total medical and productivity loss costs per patient of the SCS group were $20,074 ($3840-35,990) higher than those of the PC group and $29,358 ($16,070-43,790) higher than those of the UC group. SCS was very unlikely (<5% probability) to be the most cost-effective intervention.
CONCLUSION: In this sample of workers' compensation recipients, the high procedure cost of SCS was not counterbalanced by lower costs of subsequent care, and SCS was not cost-effective. The benefits and potential cost savings reported in RCTs may not be replicated in workers' compensation patients treated in community settings.
OBJECTIVE: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) among workers' compensation recipients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence suggests that SCS is more effective at 6 months than medical management for patients with FBSS. However, procedure costs are high and workers' compensation claimants often have worse outcomes than other patients.
METHODS: We enrolled 158 FBSS patients receiving workers' compensation into three treatment groups: trial SCS with or without permanent device implant (n = 51), pain clinic (PC) evaluation with or without treatment (n = 39), and usual care (UC; n = 68). The primary outcome was a composite measure of pain, disability and opioid medication use. As reported previously, 5% of SCS patients, 3% of PC patients and 10% of UC patients achieved the primary outcome at 24 months. Using cost data from administrative databases, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of SCS, adjusting for baseline covariates.
RESULTS: Mean medical cost per SCS patient over 24 months was $52,091. This was $17,291 (95% confidence intervals [CI], $4100-30,490) higher than in the PC group and $28,128 ($17,620-38,630) higher than in the UC group. Adjusting for baseline covariates, the mean total medical and productivity loss costs per patient of the SCS group were $20,074 ($3840-35,990) higher than those of the PC group and $29,358 ($16,070-43,790) higher than those of the UC group. SCS was very unlikely (<5% probability) to be the most cost-effective intervention.
CONCLUSION: In this sample of workers' compensation recipients, the high procedure cost of SCS was not counterbalanced by lower costs of subsequent care, and SCS was not cost-effective. The benefits and potential cost savings reported in RCTs may not be replicated in workers' compensation patients treated in community settings.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdolescentAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisElectric Stimulation TherapyFailed Back Surgery SyndromeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePain MeasurementPostoperative PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSpinal CordSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsWorkers' CompensationYoung Adult